Page 132

I-IVCoverT68 E_CoverF Vuvi

130 and I never collected material from the area that I worked on myself—in Mesoamerica. However, yes, I admire the aesthetic abilities of early civilizations. Olmec and Maya artisans produced sophisticated works of art. They are right up there with Rembrandt’s paintings. There is nothing “primitive” about the material culture of the Olmec and Maya. Great art is by definition not primitive. Nonetheless, it was a long struggle, beginning with European artists in the 1920s, to acknowledge the aesthetic value of pre-Columbian material culture. In the last few decades there have been stunning exhibits of pre-Columbian art at major museums here in the United States and elsewhere, where the sophistication of the early cultures of the Americas was readily apparent and openly acknowledged. Archaeologists—and anthropologists—have had a change of heart, though. Most “dirt archaeologists” today don’t like art. For them, material objects from ancient cultures are just artifacts. They have joined the cause of the “new nationalism,” where countries, fragmentary as they may be, are held to be the rightful owners of whatever is found—or was found—within their contemporary borders. The present stricture of the Archaeological Institute of America (AIA) against publishing artifacts without an archaeological provenance is ridiculous. Should the Rosetta Stone not have been studied because it did not emerge from a “scientific” excavation? Members of the AIA argue that ninety-five percent (they like the figure ninety-five) of the information available from an artifact is lost if the piece has no provenance. This claim is without merit. Everything depends on what kind of artifact is at hand. Perhaps with arrowheads picked up by Boy Scouts most information is lost that could be otherwise gleaned. But a Maya vase with a long text—it always “speaks,” regardless of where it is and how it was found. Today, in an age where there is such a tendency for a “flattening” of culture and where “contemporary art” nearly smothers all other forms of art, we are at risk of losing the hard-won gains in acknowledging ancient Mesoamerican material culture as replete with sophisticated works of art. The narrow-minded attitudes of archaeologists have seeped into many museums, including even art museums. There are of late fewer majestic exhibits, which—ironically—can help fuel interest in archaeological projects. In some museums, display cases haven’t been altered for decades. One almost expects to find dead flies. Even in Latin America there FIG. 5 (above): Miguel Covarrubias (1904–1957), Untitled (collage of three gelatin silver photographs and three ink drawings of an Olmec ceremonial stone knee-cover), c. 1940. Photographs and ink on paper. 20.3 x 27.7 cm. Courtesy of Throckmorton Fine Art, New York. FIG. 6 (below): Monument 34 (half-kneeling figure). San Lorenzo Tenochtitlán, Veracruz, Mexico. 1400–1000 BC. Basalt. H: 77.7 cm. Museo Nacional de Antropología, Mexico City (10-81348). Photo: Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y Las Artes – Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia – Mexico Javier Hinojosa. TRIBAL people


I-IVCoverT68 E_CoverF Vuvi
To see the actual publication please follow the link above