If I were to read these images to find cultural meaning, in a Geertzian fashion, I might see animal idolatry, or outward manifestations of inner value systems held by the people who lived on this site. The third image, for example might depict sheep in a field above a wild-pig creature to demonstrate the importance of sheep over pigs. It might also express gratitude towards domesticated animals, or desire to domesticate them. The prominence of these animals in particular might suggest that these people owned such animals and the attainment of them marked a position in society. This interpretation may adhere to the human value of animality presented by Bataille.
To interpret what they do, we must use what evidence we have to determine their function. We might say the stout shape or the cross attached to the top means they were pillars which supported a ceiling or table top. The pillars might mark specific kin groups or particular places in the village. In terms of sympathetic magic, they might ensure the mastery over the animals, or the protection of certain gods. The upside-down lizard creature with a thick body might be one of these gods.
It is most helpful for me to imagine what images want by finding what they lack, as Mitchell suggests. The way the images are configured and the shape of the stones they are depicted on suggest certain directionality. The T-shape suggests what it important is what is below the image, as does the lizard is facing down. The sheep in the third image appear to be moving to the observer’s right and the pig or boar is facing the same way. Perhaps the images want to guide the observer in a specific direction, or they themselves want to migrate elsewhere.
Yet the implications of treating these images as subjects are hard to pin down. Can we take them as indexes which fit into a network of social agency, as Gell might suggest? To view them as indexes rather than symbols is to acknowledge their active role in creating a social consciousness. Lewis-Williams says that “consciousness derives from historically specific responses to and categorizations of a shifting neurological substrate” (112). I think seeing these images in terms of what they want might help us determine the consciousness of a group of people. An image once in the mind and thoroughly part of the human does not become merely symbolic once it is expressed. The images are not just representations or expressions of the desires and values of people which lie below the surface, but somehow are members of society who are just as active as the people in shaping social consciousness. I still am not sure, however, how my ideas of what the images lack might participate in the mapping of the “social consciousness” or the "interior" of a person/group of people.
1 comment:
If I were to read these images to find cultural meaning, in a Geertzian fashion, I might see animal idolatry, or outward manifestations of inner value systems held by the people who lived on this site. The third image, for example might depict sheep in a field above a wild-pig creature to demonstrate the importance of sheep over pigs. It might also express gratitude towards domesticated animals, or desire to domesticate them. The prominence of these animals in particular might suggest that these people owned such animals and the attainment of them marked a position in society. This interpretation may adhere to the human value of animality presented by Bataille.
To interpret what they do, we must use what evidence we have to determine their function. We might say the stout shape or the cross attached to the top means they were pillars which supported a ceiling or table top. The pillars might mark specific kin groups or particular places in the village. In terms of sympathetic magic, they might ensure the mastery over the animals, or the protection of certain gods. The upside-down lizard creature with a thick body might be one of these gods.
It is most helpful for me to imagine what images want by finding what they lack, as Mitchell suggests. The way the images are configured and the shape of the stones they are depicted on suggest certain directionality. The T-shape suggests what it important is what is below the image, as does the lizard is facing down. The sheep in the third image appear to be moving to the observer’s right and the pig or boar is facing the same way. Perhaps the images want to guide the observer in a specific direction, or they themselves want to migrate elsewhere.
Yet the implications of treating these images as subjects are hard to pin down. Can we take them as indexes which fit into a network of social agency, as Gell might suggest? To view them as indexes rather than symbols is to acknowledge their active role in creating a social consciousness. Lewis-Williams says that “consciousness derives from historically specific responses to and categorizations of a shifting neurological substrate” (112). I think seeing these images in terms of what they want might help us determine the consciousness of a group of people. An image once in the mind and thoroughly part of the human does not become merely symbolic once it is expressed. The images are not just representations or expressions of the desires and values of people which lie below the surface, but somehow are members of society who are just as active as the people in shaping social consciousness. I still am not sure, however, how my ideas of what the images lack might participate in the mapping of the “social consciousness” or the "interior" of a person/group of people.
Post a Comment