If every artifact that's been divorced from the context of its excavation is
to called a "knickknack" -- then most of the ancient objects found in art
museums today would qualify as such.
While I consider Knickknacks to be the kind of things my wife buys for a
dollar at Walgreen's to give as party favors.
Are the great seated Bodhisattvas in the central hallway of the A.I.C. to be
called "knickknacks" ? For shame! Those are the best things in the entire
museum! (and the label indicates -- that we have no idea where they came
from)
*****
But I agree with the archeologists that looting should be made as unprofitable
as possible -- by refusing to let any more of that stuff enter art museums.
That keeps it from being validated (just as new art gets validated) -- and
makes the purchase of it for a high price more risky.
The community of Biblical scholars has taken that one step further -- and they
forbid looted artifacts to be mentioned in any literature recognized by their
profession.
I suppose that will frustrate some scholars -- just as keeping some pieces out
of art museums will frustrate some art lovers.
But speaking as an art lover -- especially of selected ancient artifacts -- I
don't really care -- because there already is way too much stuff for me to see
in my lifetime -- and there already are tons of good stuff in museum
basements. Instead of collecting second and third rate authentic artifacts --
art museums should be be showing perfect casts of first-rate aesthetic
material.
My dispute with both archaeologists and museum directors -- is that neither
seems to have much interest in high aesthetic quality - and how that is what
makes the artifacts they handle really valuable.
_____________________________________________________________
Click to compare psych/counseling degrees in a free directory of programs.
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2211/fc/Ioyw6ijnep4Q27yHb8gGpqtaYDw70A
OwVth6a6ItYD3GeLDoVMwlwQ/?count=1234567890
