10-29-2014, 05:08 PM
Xavi B, by all means learn some archaeological method and logic before you continue debating this. It is horrible and near to physical pain to read your "arguments".
1st: ANY piece of art is the result of a double translation process. Step one: Artist sees something in his environment and translates it in his brain in categories of understanding. Step two: Influenced by his a) capabilities as artist (mason, painter, writer etc.), b) (artistic) convention (language, depiction modes, tradition etc.) c)available material d) cognitive abilities e) personal agenda (etc) a piece of art (text, relief, statue, painting etc. ) is made. It is very difficult to understand and interpret these influences in most cases, in almost all cases it is impossible to get a clear picture of a given historic reality that was the original after which a piece was modeled. To properly interpret the workings of ancient art is a very complicated thing which takes years of study to fully understand. In the course of these interpretations the use of formal logic is mandatory. You have shown frequently in your postings that you lack both, so I actually hardly understand why people still reply to this. LEARN: ART cannot give us something to base a reconstruction on (unless we want to reconstruct the given piece of art itself). Only the objects themselves can allow us to reconstruct them. Such reconstructions can be supported by art, e.g. ads how a piece was probably worn etc. So get it in your head: Depictions of objects are no source for the sum of characteristics of these objects, especially their materiality and construction. To go by these alone is an utter waste of time.
2. Learn more about logic and logic fallacies. Then apply what you learned to your argumentation. If you are not able to do so anyone discussing this with you and trying to keep to logical arguments is frustrated, and IMO wasting their time. Learn more about logic here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
If you have read and understood this, you will find out that e.g. your last post above already contains a ridiculous number of these.
1st: ANY piece of art is the result of a double translation process. Step one: Artist sees something in his environment and translates it in his brain in categories of understanding. Step two: Influenced by his a) capabilities as artist (mason, painter, writer etc.), b) (artistic) convention (language, depiction modes, tradition etc.) c)available material d) cognitive abilities e) personal agenda (etc) a piece of art (text, relief, statue, painting etc. ) is made. It is very difficult to understand and interpret these influences in most cases, in almost all cases it is impossible to get a clear picture of a given historic reality that was the original after which a piece was modeled. To properly interpret the workings of ancient art is a very complicated thing which takes years of study to fully understand. In the course of these interpretations the use of formal logic is mandatory. You have shown frequently in your postings that you lack both, so I actually hardly understand why people still reply to this. LEARN: ART cannot give us something to base a reconstruction on (unless we want to reconstruct the given piece of art itself). Only the objects themselves can allow us to reconstruct them. Such reconstructions can be supported by art, e.g. ads how a piece was probably worn etc. So get it in your head: Depictions of objects are no source for the sum of characteristics of these objects, especially their materiality and construction. To go by these alone is an utter waste of time.
2. Learn more about logic and logic fallacies. Then apply what you learned to your argumentation. If you are not able to do so anyone discussing this with you and trying to keep to logical arguments is frustrated, and IMO wasting their time. Learn more about logic here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
If you have read and understood this, you will find out that e.g. your last post above already contains a ridiculous number of these.
Christian K.
No reconstruendum => No reconstruction.
Ut desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas.
No reconstruendum => No reconstruction.
Ut desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas.
