[Stones] So, is this what some think of our heritage?

[Ric]

yep

but the concept of 'art' exists now, and is as likely
as 'heritage' to influence public and official
opinion;

eastern orthodox icon paintings were not art 'per se',
they were practical, sacred objects intended for pious
reflection and veneration - today you will find them
in art galleries all over the world

so i feel that the view of Avebury as art is a valid
one, in this context, albeit 'sacred art'; parallel to
Avebury as 'heritage' - a heritage denied us

we need - as a body - to pressure the Establishment
into action or they will sit behind their
well-appointed desks and do absolutely nothing, apart
from raking our taxes in, that is?

Ric


--- littlestone <littlestone at supanet.com> wrote:

> Ric wrote:
> 
> "Should we not, therefore, energetically lobby for
> Avebury-as-art and heritage, to be restored to us?"
> 
> Heritage yes, art no.
> 
> Start talking about Avebury as art and you let in
> all sorts of crackpots. Art is a relatively new
> concept (in the West at any rate). Strictly speaking
> there is no such thing as Greek or Roman art, simply
> a tradition of excellence in the techniques of two-
> and three dimensionally crafted objects - objects
> that were nearly all conceived with a utilitarian
> (generally of the religious or ceremonial kind)
> purpose in mind. Same applies to Avebury, Silbury,
> Stonehenge or the Sutton Hoo gold belt buckle; they
> are not, nor were they ever conceived as art - the
> concept didn't exist at the time of their
construction/manufacture.>