Echoes from Eco: Authorising readings of art in the Past<\/p>\n
s046<\/a><\/p>\n Bob Layton and Margarita Diaz-Andreu<\/p>\n In recent years challenges to earlier readings of art have enriched our perspective of art potential as an informative source for our understanding of the past. However, we think that a critical assessment of the achievements in archaeology and anthropology is needed in order to refine the scope for future work. We feel that a reflection on the extent to what all readings are authorised is required, and we propose to do this through a deliberation on the limits of interpretation (cf. Eco 1990) of the art of past and present societies.<\/p>\n Eco\u2019s arguments refer to litery texts. However we invite contributors to explore the applications of his ideas to art. As he says (Eco 1992:23) unlimited semiosis does not mean that there are no criteria for interpretation. There are reasons to think that some readings of a text are more authorised than others. These which are not authorised can be called overinterpretations. Eco proposes that it be possible to prove that some meanings are overinterpretations, even without necessarily having to know which is the right interpretation. The reader, the interpreter, cannot therefore engage in an infinite range of readings. Moreover, Eco proposes that to claim a particular reading is an overinterpretaiton is not the \u2018authoritarian\u2019 attitude. Eco distinguishes between the intention of the author, the intention of the interpreter and the intention of the text (Eco 1992:25) and argues that an “authorised” reading is one which could reasonably be expected to occur to members of the intended audience.<\/p>\n We would like contributors to suggest answers to the following questions in their contributions: papers: Echoes from Eco: Authorising readings of art in the Past s046 Bob Layton and Margarita Diaz-Andreu In recent years challenges to earlier readings of art have enriched our perspective of art potential as an informative source for our understanding of the past. However, we think that a critical assessment of the achievements in archaeology and … Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-309","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac4\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/309","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac4\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac4\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac4\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac4\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=309"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac4\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/309\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":311,"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac4\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/309\/revisions\/311"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac4\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=309"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac4\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=309"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac4\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=309"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\nAre there any patterns in the distribution of art in the landscape, or contemporary variations in style which suggest different messages were appropriate to different contexts, thus limiting authorised readings.
\nHow reliable is the method and evidence archaeologists use to justify the validity of their own particular \u2018reading\u2019 of art, particularly with regards to ambiguous figures.
\nWhy does the contributor find another archaeologists\u2019 or anthropologists\u2019 readings of art less persuasive?
\nLimits of interpretation. Where should archaeologists\/anthropologists stop?
\nAre there changes in the distribution and content of art over time, suggesting that later (or modern indigenous readings of earlier work) might not be \u2018authorised\u2019 by the text.<\/p>\n
\nAuthor 1 Author 2 Title
\nHitchcock SPACE 1999 (B)CE: Post-Processual Approaches to Minoan Architecture
\nLenssen-Erz The contribution of space to the meaning of rock art – a framework for a textual analysis of rock art sites.
\nOuzman Places, Paths and peripheries: the hunter gatherer landscape as mindscape
\nSmith Style in body art: discerning social strategies across cultures.
\nTilley Environmental art and the re-presentation of the past.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"