Mark Sorrell

The Artist and Reconstruction by Mark Sorrell

• something's being 'factual' is more convincing when there's a personality behind it
• importance of being correct while being artistic
• archaeology deals with people in their environment: humanity
• paintings feature actors; people not just for scale
• phases of archeology:

1. excavation
2. report
3. reconstruction

• sometimes jargon of reports serves as barrier/"smoke screen"
• archeologist's plans are more helpful with contours
• models, in the end, just look like models
• full-scale replication of site can be cool
• "artist's approach to actuality is far removed from the popular photographic aspect of appearances" (23)
• importance of the surrounding landscape of a site; good for artist to walk around site
• importance of scale: too large is unreal
• prefers "limited color"
• title of work shouldn't include "reconstruction of..."
• sees his work as making a "valuable contribution to the search for truth about the past" (24)
• finally, thanks the "kind" and "helpful" archaeologists he's worked with

Sorrell's paintings:

• gloomier, darker colors
• balances foreground with background, gives a realistic and impressive sense of scale
• brings natural elements of paintings to life: wind-swept trees, gnarled/fallen branches

Martin Pate

I just finished putting together a few slides for our brief presentations tomorrow. Martin Pate's artwork for the National Park Service (and others) blends factual detail with lively and attention-getting images (as well as spans a wide range of historical -- and prehistorical -- periods); in his work, Pate must balance the need for accuracy (as determined by the nature and amount of evidence) and his standards and techniques of artistry while fulfilling the goals of educating and exciting the public. I found that there were a few pieces of information missing from Pate's account of his process and the genesis of his works, which I will raise in tomorrow's talk.

For now, here are a few of Pate's paintings:














Ft. Bragg, North Carolina














"Carolina Potters"

Tiwanaku Books

I finally received the two books on the Tiwanaku that I ordered used through Amazon. They are both really cool; one, "Tiwanaku: Ancestors of the Inca" by Margaret Young-Sánchez is almost like a coffee table book (it's huge) and has big glossy photographs of artifacts, textiles, architectural features and the landscape. The other, "The Tiwanaku" by Alan L. Kolata is a normal-sized book but also has images and maps, including a few groundplans that might be useful. Hopefully after looking through them more closely I'll have a good sense of what I want to do for the final project.

Ollantaytambo

I decided to play around with the idea of "building up" from an archaeological ground plan. This is my attempt at recreating the kancha at Ollantaytambo.

The auto-snap to edges and axes makes drawing irregular shapes really annoying; thus, I had a little trouble with precision. I'm sure there's a faster way to do some of the things I did (like coloring every face with that dark brown color)... eventually I'll figure it out. I didn't get around to putting roofs on everything, so: To be continued...

Here's the ground plan from the "Inca Architecture" intro by Protzen:














And here's my drawing:

Stories

Christine Finn's likening of journalists to archaeologists -- and her analysis of how they differ -- exposes the shortcomings of archaeologists vis-a-vis the presentation of findings and telling of narratives for public audiences. Some "borrowing" is in order, she says; archaeologists, typically concerned with communicating with colleagues in the academy, are not so good at the laymen stuff. If archeologists could tell more engaging stories -- the kind that journalists are known for -- they might be able to gain a mainstream following that not only popularizes archeology but popularizes the true archaeology. As last week's readings demonstrate, the archaeologists of popular media are typically not the real deal. Sabloff's article echoes Finn's assertion that better storytelling can help develop a more accurate and instructive understanding of archaeology among the public. Archeologists have important roles to play in the business of looking back to look forward. But as the National Geographic piece warns, attempts to bring archeology into mainstream culture (well-intentioned attempts as they may be) can carry underlying social, political and nationalistic biases. While the National Geographic article is perhaps overly admonishing, it does present some of the dangers of formulating images and stories of the past from a single point of view. Gero and Root argue that National Geographic portrays archeology "...as an enterprise [that] legitimizes the hegemony of Western culture and Western imperialism and imposes a congruent view onto the past" (p. 35); like in Indiana Jones and Lara Croft, the protagonists of the stories, the settings, the background actors, and the props construct a certain image of the past. Journalists, movie directors, photographers and the archeologists themselves must avoid imposing ethnocentric or biased points of view and, as Pyburn calls for, maintain strict ethical standards. Clarity of method, acknowledgment of baggage and the shade of one's spectacles, and careful outlining of goals help make a responsible archaeologist. It all comes down to stories: what makes the cut and what doesn't, how they're told, for whom they're told, where they're told and when.

And the movie is...

The Purple Rose of Cairo (1985)






















Archaeology and Woody Allen... what more could one ask for?

Here's a trailer, courtesy of nytimes.com

Archaeologists and Popular Culture, Project Beginnings

The readings for this week take up conceptions of archaeologists in popular culture historically, anecdotally, statistically and, even, psychologically (though I find the Freudian/oedipal phallus analysis in “Metaphors We Dig By” a little hard to buy). Most of the literature concludes that there are several stereotypes of archeologists – ranging from the hairy-chinned academician to the hairy-chested hero – that spring into the collective imagination. These archetypes are perpetuated by (and in some cases find their origins on) the silver screen. The former (the hairy-chinned), regrettably, seem closer to the truth, leaving the Indiana Joneses to the magnificence, fantasy and fiction of the movies. Unsurprisingly, the occult also finds its place among these fantastical imaginings. That the Lara Crofts and Indiana Joneses are generally unrealistic figures doesn’t really matter, though: they portray archeology in an overwhelmingly positive, albeit distorted, light. The A, D, R and C themes put forth by Holtorf in “Popular Culture and Archaeology” are anything but disparaging. The only unfortunate emphasis in these accounts is that the process of archeology is more important – and certainly more fun – than the end result. It seems like our class will do its part to dispel these kinds of beliefs: the models, renderings, web pages and animations we will create seem like pretty cool end results to me.

I spent an hour or so reviewing Google SketchUp. I’ve used it in the past for set designs and mock-ups of dorm rooms. I’m looking forward to learning how to use this program more efficiently and to do more complicated renderings. I played around with the contour tools, but still don’t have a good understanding of how it actually works.

I’ve started thinking about the kinds of things I’d most like to do for the final project. I’ve been studying the use of technology, media and communications in the 21st century; I wonder how I might translate that to our field site. The way people use technologies might manifest in the project as some sort of examination of tools, or animating the use of a particular tool. It would be cool to model how a particular technology was incorporated into daily life in Cuzco. I also enjoy modeling architectural features; perhaps a static representation is more in line with my technological capabilities.