True about how the advancement of technology changes our attitudes towards everyday objects. That aqueduct, for example, now rests on its laurels of displaying the genius of the Romans to develop that structure in the first place. It hadn't been done before, at least not in Europe. But people's lives were improved when water could be delivered as never before by this monumental architecture. Some people today look at that marvel of Roman ingenuity and ask, "how did they do that with their primitive tools and knowledge?" Apparently, they weren't so primitive nor were their tools. But the tools and technology we've developed today make building huge structures or machines so "easy," that the stonework of this aqueduct mystifies the imagination.
What an interesting point of view you give. I agree with your reflection and that's what I thought when I saw the aqueduct case. I was thinking about the following phrase: “the past cannot be built in the present”. Actually, it would not be difficult to make an identical aqueduct, the difference is in the technology of that time. That is why we admire it, not for its aesthetic part (which can be beautiful) but also for its historical value.
Wonderful column, I used to teach a class where we spend a few days wondering what was art. We looked at work such as Mutt's but also more controversial work like that of Serrano who uses blood, piss, and such to work. His art is featured in one of Metallica's albums too -- it looks like fire but it is not.
Hello! Your reflection on how historians are the creators of the past is very accurate. Indeed, history is the attempt to systematize what happened in the past. A difficult thing, especially the further back in time we go.
In a way, I think something similar is also happening with society. Society, culture and time will tell what is art and what is not. There will never be a consensus on everything, but there will be a group of works of art (perhaps the majority), which are considered art by everyone, but others are not, and they will be the works that will generate controversy, such as the works of Duchamp.
It is interesting to see that the Segovia aqueduct, a 2000 year old Roman pipe, is now art. It is an example of what I am talking about.
True about how the advancement of technology changes our attitudes towards everyday objects. That aqueduct, for example, now rests on its laurels of displaying the genius of the Romans to develop that structure in the first place. It hadn't been done before, at least not in Europe. But people's lives were improved when water could be delivered as never before by this monumental architecture. Some people today look at that marvel of Roman ingenuity and ask, "how did they do that with their primitive tools and knowledge?" Apparently, they weren't so primitive nor were their tools. But the tools and technology we've developed today make building huge structures or machines so "easy," that the stonework of this aqueduct mystifies the imagination.
Hi Sue!
What an interesting point of view you give. I agree with your reflection and that's what I thought when I saw the aqueduct case. I was thinking about the following phrase: “the past cannot be built in the present”. Actually, it would not be difficult to make an identical aqueduct, the difference is in the technology of that time. That is why we admire it, not for its aesthetic part (which can be beautiful) but also for its historical value.
Bingo! The WAY they built things is the gift; not the WHAT.
Wonderful column, I used to teach a class where we spend a few days wondering what was art. We looked at work such as Mutt's but also more controversial work like that of Serrano who uses blood, piss, and such to work. His art is featured in one of Metallica's albums too -- it looks like fire but it is not.
A while ago we wrote a column thinking about what historians do. In some ways we suggested they are forgers who make forgeries of the past. https://curingcrime.substack.com/p/did-history-happen-54461589e02b?r=2bk4r1
Hello! Your reflection on how historians are the creators of the past is very accurate. Indeed, history is the attempt to systematize what happened in the past. A difficult thing, especially the further back in time we go.
In a way, I think something similar is also happening with society. Society, culture and time will tell what is art and what is not. There will never be a consensus on everything, but there will be a group of works of art (perhaps the majority), which are considered art by everyone, but others are not, and they will be the works that will generate controversy, such as the works of Duchamp.
It is interesting to see that the Segovia aqueduct, a 2000 year old Roman pipe, is now art. It is an example of what I am talking about.