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

[Andy Norfolk]

Nancy wrote:
> Let me say, to make it clear to others, that I have always said it is 
> a contemporary interpretation. That's the point. It is art to us NOW. 
> That's not a misinterpretation. They weren't built as historical or 
> archaeological sites, either, but they are that to us now. Calling 
> them that is not a misinterpretation. It's very different from saying 
> they were built as what we call art--of course I do not posit that. 
> But to say they are not, among other things, human artistic 
> accomplishments as we understand and interpret that today is , well, I 
> won't overwrite this. You know what I mean.
These ancient places were clearly designed - not in the sense that I 
might prepare a landscape design using a CAD programme (which is what I 
should be doing now) but in the sense that the site was carefully 
selected and the components of the monument were also carefully selected 
and arranged, often with subtle relationships to their surroundings. If 
Andy Goldsworthy does this sort of thing now we call it art. (And I 
think his work is wonderful) Why then is what the ancient people who 
designed built these sites not at least partly artistic in nature. Where 
is the dividing line between how they thought about and built their 
special places and how we might design special places now? The purpose 
of the ancient sites was not apparently primarily artistic but those who 
built them certainly took an artistic approach to their construction.

Andy N


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000746-2, 01/06/2007
Tested on: 20/06/2007 12:11:51
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com