- Crary, Jonathan (2001), Suspensions of Perception. Attention, Spectacle, and Modern Culture, The MIT Press.
- Deborah Cherry (ed) (2005), Art: History: Visual: Culture, Oxford, B. Blackwell.
- Dicks, Bella (2003), Culture on Display. The Production of Contemporary Visitability, Maidenhead, Open University Press.
- Friedberg, Anne (2006), The Virtual Window. From Alberti to Microsoft, The MIT Press.
- Fuery, Patrick and Fuery, Kelly (2003), Visual Cultures and Critical Theory, London, Arnold
- Mitchell, W. J. T. (2005), What Do Pictures Want? The Lives and Loves of Images, The University of Chicago Press.
- Sobchack, Vivian (2004), Carnal Thoughts. Embodiment and Moving Image Culture, University of California Press.
_____________
Obviously, there are many interesting people who work on photography (and the sense of loss implicit in it, like in archaeology) choreography, theatre and performance (and again in the “architecture” of representation, acting and ritual)...
I think in general that archaeology has come to an impasse and that is from other fields that we may create a new vision, without complexes of importing ideas but rebuilding them in OUR context, I mean, using not just metaphors, easy imports, but making a “new cake” out of different “condiments”.
In that sense something is happening in the path to a new “universal”, global culture (and at the same time, millions of new ways of seeing are emerging), not a univocal or overwhelming one, but multi-vocal. I mean, each one may built his/her own mesh (better than network), but the general frame of this possibility is there as flux (like money, actually) in a way that never happened before.
I fear so much archaeologists, obsessed by telling what the past was about (cutting it from present and future), as I fear superficial imports and superimpositions which in fact do not melt and so do not create anything in the spirit of this flux, of this freedom of capturing ideas from here and there, but reorganizing them into a "new project" (in fact, millions of projects), not superficially, but intellectually motivated (= something that we feel but that we can not delimitate completely).
From the field of the sociology of contemporary society, anthropology, filmic studies, installation, the gaze on the image (and archaeology as a part of it), psychoanalysis (I thing that it is crucial, but the point is: which psychoanalysis shall we chose…) consumer society/visibility/visitability/ making a museum out of the world... There are so many fields of research that should be considered useful to archaeology, as Julian Thomas has brilliantly started to show in his last book (ARCHAEOLOGY AND MODERNITY, London, Routledge, 2004)
To look at archaeology from outside, to put it in context and to understand that it is just a productive practice (in the sense of Latour) like any other else...
I think in general that archaeology has come to an impasse and that is from other fields that we may create a new vision, without complexes of importing ideas but rebuilding them in OUR context, I mean, using not just metaphors, easy imports, but making a “new cake” out of different “condiments”.
In that sense something is happening in the path to a new “universal”, global culture (and at the same time, millions of new ways of seeing are emerging), not a univocal or overwhelming one, but multi-vocal. I mean, each one may built his/her own mesh (better than network), but the general frame of this possibility is there as flux (like money, actually) in a way that never happened before.
I fear so much archaeologists, obsessed by telling what the past was about (cutting it from present and future), as I fear superficial imports and superimpositions which in fact do not melt and so do not create anything in the spirit of this flux, of this freedom of capturing ideas from here and there, but reorganizing them into a "new project" (in fact, millions of projects), not superficially, but intellectually motivated (= something that we feel but that we can not delimitate completely).
From the field of the sociology of contemporary society, anthropology, filmic studies, installation, the gaze on the image (and archaeology as a part of it), psychoanalysis (I thing that it is crucial, but the point is: which psychoanalysis shall we chose…) consumer society/visibility/visitability/ making a museum out of the world... There are so many fields of research that should be considered useful to archaeology, as Julian Thomas has brilliantly started to show in his last book (ARCHAEOLOGY AND MODERNITY, London, Routledge, 2004)
To look at archaeology from outside, to put it in context and to understand that it is just a productive practice (in the sense of Latour) like any other else...
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário