One World Archaeology
Series Editors Heather Burke Flinders University of South Australia, Australia Gabriel Cooney University College, Dublin, Ireland Gustavo Politis Universidad Nacional del Centro, Buenos Aires, Argentina
For further volumes: http://www.springer.com/series/8606
. Conversations.Ian Alden Russell • Andrew Cochrane
Art and Archaeology
recitation. broadcasting. neither the authors nor the editors nor the publisher can accept any legal responsibility for any errors or omissions that may be made. While the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. computer software. in its current version. in this publication does not imply. with respect to the material contained herein. or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. and transmission or information storage and retrieval. Exempted from this legal reservation are brief excerpts in connection with reviews or scholarly analysis or material supplied speciﬁcally for the purpose of being entered and executed on a computer system. express or implied. Violations are liable to prosecution under the respective Copyright Law. All rights are reserved by the Publisher. The publisher makes no warranty. even in the absence of a speciﬁc statement. whether the whole or part of the material is concerned.Editors Ian Alden Russell Department of Archaeology and History of Art Koç University Istanbul Turkey
Andrew Cochrane The British Museum London United Kingdom
ISBN 978-1-4614-8989-4 ISBN 978-1-4614-8990-0 (eBook) DOI 10. reprinting. electronic adaptation.springer. reuse of illustrations. for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work. Duplication of this publication or parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of the Copyright Law of the Publisher’s location. Permissions for use may be obtained through RightsLink at the Copyright Clearance Center.com)
. etc. reproduction on microﬁlms or in any other physical way. speciﬁcally the rights of translation.1007/978-1-4614-8990-0 Springer New York Heidelberg Dordrecht London
Library of Congress Control Number: 2013952722 © Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014 This work is subject to copyright. service marks. registered names. trademarks. that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The use of general descriptive names. Printed on acid-free paper Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www. and permission for use must always be obtained from Springer.
. . . . . . . . . Materialities and Stonehenge . . . . . . . Pat Cooke 8 Another Proof of the Preceding Theory: Film. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Helen Wickstead 61
. Andrew Meirion Jones Joining Forces: Neuroaesthetics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Andrew Cochrane and Ian Alden Russell 9
Part II Curatorial Practice 6 Art and Archaeology: The Ábhar agus Meon Exhibition Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ian Alden Russell 7 Art and Kilmainham Gaol: Negotiating Art’s Critical Intervention in the Heritage Site . . . . . . . Ian Alden Russell and Andrew Cochrane
Part I Exploration and Experimentation 2 3 Colin Renfrew: A Conversation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Liliana Janik Interface I: Day of the Figurines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Colin Renfrew The Cave and the Mind: Towards a Sculptural and Experimental Approach to Upper Palaeolithic Art . . . Contemporary Visual art and Archaeological Interpretation of the Past . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 Alice Watterson. . . . . . . 199 Mike Pearson and Michael Shanks 15 Art//Archaeology//Art: Letting-Go Beyond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 Blaze O’Connor 11 Creating Contexts: Between the Archaeological Site and Art Gallery Antonia Thomas 141
12 Artists Connecting Archaeologists: Encountering the Third Kind . . . 115 Christine Finn
Part III Application and Exchange 10 Dust and Debitage: An Archaeology of Francis Bacon’s Studio . . . . . . . . 231 Doug Bailey Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kieran Baxter and Aaron Watson Part IV Archaeology after Art 14 Pearson|Shanks—Theatre/Archaeology—Return and Prospect . . . . . . . . . 157 Michaël Jasmin 13 Digital Dwelling at Skara Brae . .viii
Home: An Installation for Living In . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
. . . . . . . . . .
Dublin. Istanbul. Cambridge. University College Dublin. University of Dundee. Design and Architecture. UK Andrew Cochrane British Museum. UK Colin Renfrew McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. UK Liliana Janik Division of Archaeology. University of the Highlands and Islands. London. Dundee.Contributors
Doug Bailey Department of Anthropology. Ireland Christine Finn Kent. USA Kieran Baxter Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art and Design. Kirkwall. Ireland Mike Pearson Department of Theatre. University of Cambridge. Cambridge. UK Blaze O’Connor School of Archaeology. UK
. France Andrew Meirion Jones Department of Archaeology. Department of Archaeology and Anthropology. Surrey. Koç University. UK Alice Watterson Digital Design Studio. The Hub. Kingston University. UK Ian Alden Russell Department of Archaeology and History of Art. Stanford. San Francisco State University. Film and Television Studies. Turkey Michael Shanks Stanford University. UK Michaël Jasmin Paris. University of Cambridge. USA Antonia Thomas Archaeology Department. UK Pat Cooke School of Art History and Cultural Policy. University College Dublin. University of Southampton. Glasgow School of Art. Orkney College. Highﬁeld. Aberystwyth University. San Francisco. Glasgow. UK Helen Wickstead Faculty of Art. Wales. Aberystwyth.
He has been Project Curator for: The Power of Dogu exhibition (British Museum: 2009). he was Curator of the David Winton Bell Gallery at Brown University. In recent years. With an academic background in history. He is an assistant professor of contemporary art and cultural heritage in the Department of Archaeology and Art History at Koç University. and academic based in Istanbul. and heritage studies. his research engages with artists in galleries. He is currently co-editing a volume with Michael Shanks (Stanford) and Mike Pearson (Aberystwyth) for Routledge exploring these themes. heritage sites. and the Ice Age Art exhibition (British Museum: 2013). Istanbul Andrew Cochrane is Project Curator at the British Museum. archaeology. and has been a Research Fellow at the Sainsbury Institute for the Study of Japanese Arts and Cultures. WC1B 3DG London. Andrew has greatly enjoyed collaborating with Doug Bailey. In 2008. Jill Cook. designer. 34450 Sariyer. Great Russell Street. and public spaces to address issues around the constitution of cultural heritage. British Museum. and he continues to curate exhibitions of contemporary art by international as well as emerging artists. was a World Art Fellow at the University of East Anglia. Istanbul. UK
. Turkey. Andy Jones and Simon Kaner. museums. Previous to this. Representations. he developed the WAC ‘art and archaeology’ exhibitions and conference with Ian Russell. His previous edited volumes include Images. and Heritage (Springer: 2006) and Unquiet Pasts (Ashgate: 2010). Koç University. Rumelifeneri Yolu. He has excavated with the Museum of London Archaeology. Department of Archaeology and History of Art. the unearthed exhibition (Sainsbury Centre for Visual Arts: 2010).About the Editor
Ian Alden Russell is a curator.
Rumelifeneri Yolu. but basing archaeological narratives predominantly on secondary sources can perpetuate errors or misapprehensions and give new meaning to the phrase ‘the archaeological imagination’. A. Turkey e-mail: ian@aldenrussell. At times. Cochrane (eds. and archaeologists regularly attend exhibition openings featuring the work of artists. there is a trend for some scholars to remediate the research of others.Chapter 1
Ian Alden Russell and Andrew Cochrane
An account of places and things from inspection. Istanbul. private collections and museum exhibits. Archaeological practice has progressed with
I. woodcut iconographies. © Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014 1
. many of the origins of archaeology lie in art historical traditions. The challenge for the discipline then becomes historiographical—sifting through networks of references between publications over time to an author that actually viewed an object or visited a site. Artists take part in residency programmes on archaeological sites.com I. Many of those reaching across disciplines to explore this emergent collaborative ﬁeld make a concerted effort to visit the contemporary undertakings of others. archives. This is where current approaches to art/archaeology differ. not compiled from others’ labours or travels in one’s study William Stukeley. Since the seventeenth century. both meet in undisciplined spaces between their practices.com A. UK e-mail: cochraneaj@gmail. Russell. paintings. Art and Archaeology.). It is understandable that archaeologists write about excavations they have not dug on. A. One World Archaeology 11. publications. Cochrane ( ) British Museum. however. 1724
With the availability of secondary sources easily accessible through archives. Indeed. Russell ( ) Department of Archaeology and History of Art. They are authorities on the subjects of their own experiences—they have seen. Koç University. A. recent bed-fellows. WC1B 3DG London. sharing conventions and vocabularies for visualising the world. 34450 Sariyer. Art and archaeology are not.1007/978-1-4614-8990-0_1. The chapters in this book are written by people who are intimately involved in what they do and in encountering the work of others ﬁrsthand. the past has been understood by the politics of display and visual documentation—for example. DOI 10. instead of undertaking primary research. to explore new possibilities for making and interpreting the world. cabinets of curiosities. Great Russell Street. touched and worked with the things and people they study.
often based upon secondary research undertaken by others. In such proposals the material world—separate from humans—inﬂuences little in the process of representation. The encoding and then decoding of things is deemed a universal human activity— being as popular in the past as it is in archaeology today (Cochrane 2012). Such developments have. patiently waiting for meanings to be overlain onto them by thoughtful people. helped create a situation whereby representational interpretations of all things in the past dominate—to end with a representational interpretation is understandable. Archaeologists are trained in technical practices as a means of rendering things objective and allowing comparative analyses (e. the varied approaches within this book illustrate how processes of making and reception enrich such questions with responses. In effect. A. or would other narratives be possible? By actually doing things and being there. Jones 2012.g. Such visual movements are not only persuasive but essential to contemporary archaeology. b). Russell and A. have increasingly been used to represent and document elements of the past (see Cochrane and Russell 2007. laser scanning). however. materials are passive and inert. such as section drawings and single-context plans. Russell 2013a. Russell 2013a).2
I. To understand the story of how things are. be it the changing colours of soils or similarities of form. many practitioners have sought to observe and objectively document the world. for instance. After the acceptance of positivism in archaeology during the mid-twentieth century. however. In such models.
. many turn towards archaeologists as the trusted and skilled mediators of material things. generated a perceived gap between the objectivity and subjectivity of images (Thomas 2009. In many accounts. Materials appear transparent here. people seem to step from intangible worlds. Bradley 2009. creating standardised media. image-making tools (e. some approach data with an expectation that all things represent things not present—invisible and intangible conceits. Cochrane 2013. in order to represent their experiences as visual symbols. to begin with one is problematic in so far as it may preclude or preempt new or alternative interpretations. they simply serve as the substrate upon which representations are overlaid (Cochrane and Jones 2012). Since the nineteenth century. the papers here move archaeology beyond traditional modes of representation. That things represent anything is a fait accompli.g. photography.
So How are Things?
The world is a complex entanglement of things and materials—it involves mixtures of mixtures (Cochrane 2007). In more traditional archaeological narratives. Westman 1994). They have. That representational approaches are used in archaeology is not a bad construct. What would archaeology and heritage look like if we did not start with such conceptions of things? What happens when we consider different elements in the world as inﬂuential partners within expression? Would we still draw the same conclusions. Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR). it is integral for ﬁeldwork. Cochrane
modern visual technologies and scientiﬁc revolutions.
The intention is to disrupt the traditional ﬂow of the academic book. or strategic deployment of artistic work as examples of en vogue theoretical arguments.1
embedded within social relations. In recent years. process and aesthetic. the majority of archaeological literature engaging with contemporary artistic practice falls into two main types: memoirs of personal discovery and inspiration. this book acts both as a distillation of and step on from the proceedings from one of the central academic themes of the Sixth World Archaeological Congress’s (WAC-6)—‘Archaeologies of Art’. exploring (and perhaps exploiting) modern beliefs that archaeology can reveal truth.
Structure and Summary
This book is divided into four thematic sections. We hope this book will encourage the further creative interplay of various approaches to art within archaeological research and practice. It is our hope that this book will help to establish a discourse about developing collaborations between contemporary art. What the discipline has lacked is a critical context for evaluating the validity of these emerging forms of collaborative research. ‘Exploration and Experimentation’. This has developed into a range of diverse collaborations between contemporary artists. We are fortunate to be able to begin with a conversation with the distinguished Colin Renfrew in which he reﬂects on his ﬁrst encounters with art and
. heritage and archaeological practitioners. To date. however. archaeologists have. we attempt to ﬁll this lacuna by bringing together the parallel agencies and practices of artists as makers of new worlds and archaeologists as makers of past worlds. they undercut divisions between arts and heritage sectors and create new partnerships which transcend institutional boundaries. been turning to others outside their discipline to ﬁnd new ways of dealing with things. Firstly. heritage professionals and archaeologists attempting to revise the way we move and interpret within the world. Between each of these sections. brings together the work of three archaeologists who have made substantial commitments in their research and professional lives for engaging with modern and contemporary art as a source of inspiration. allowing space for creative practice. The ﬁrst section. Secondly. buildings and artefacts poses challenges to established methods of conservation and interpretation. We have brought together these scholars and practitioners to make a more collaborative and critical contribution to the vanguard of archaeological theory and artistic practice. allowing contemporary artists to interact with sensitive sites. there are interfaces that present the work and research of scholars and artists. These collaborative initiatives have signiﬁcant implications for policy and the management of resources and sites. This book collects responses to a recent trend in contemporary art practice of deploying archaeology as an artistic method. As a point of departure. In this book. Each section brings together a group of scholar-practitioners who exemplify shared approaches to the art–archaeology endeavour.
Helen Wickstead follows in the spirit and intent of Cooke’s contribution in her critical reﬂection on her recent work with a group of contemporary artists to realise new responses to Stonehenge. Colin’s contribution offers critical perspective on not only the discipline’s relationships to the arts but also the emerging interdisciplinary spaces between contemporary art. the perspectives of neuroscience and neuroaesthetics as cause for a reframing of archaeological interpretation. Andy calls for liberation of the interpretive realm of archaeology to allow for less deterministic and ﬁxed interpretations of things. archaeology and the study of the contemporary past. in his treatment of Upper Palaeolithic art. Andy skilfully moves beyond mere representation by appreciating the processes of making. ﬁlm and mixed media. and the incorporation of artistic practice and display. that contemporary art can not only inspire but also transform the interpretive potential of archaeological research. Cochrane
how he came to work with some of the seminal artists of our time. not only for archaeological agency but also within our understandings of the role and purpose of the past. Russell and A. He suggests continuity between archaeological data and contemporary art and uses this as a basis for embracing the experimental and performative in archaeology. Her contribution widens the sense of the experimental from an unfettered humanistic sentiment to include more rigorous scientiﬁc approaches. Following this. As the most experienced among the contributors of this book. This is augmented by contextual and deep understandings of archaeological data. Featuring a curatorial programme of contemporary art exhibitions and events by local and international artists. Lila Janick’s contribution carries on with experimental interpretation of the past via contemporary art. The section begins with a paper by Blaze O’Connor who worked on the reconstruction of artist Francis Bacon’s studio at the Dublin City Gallery The Hugh Lane. political and conceptual implications of introducing contemporary arts practice to the ﬁeld of heritage management. As is Pat’s fashion. A. ‘Curatorial Practice’. Andy Jones’s research carries on in the spirit of Colin’s interpretive engagement with the arts. Lila presents. long-time museum director and curator Pat Cooke presents a reﬂection on his decision to introduce a contemporary arts commissioning programme to his direction of Kilmainham Gaol—a nationally signiﬁcant heritage site in Ireland. scale and reception. The second section. Andy demonstrates. however. presentation and display of contemporary arts within archaeological and heritage scenarios. Section three. the exhibition series presented the parallel visions of artists and archaeologists and catalysed collaborative conversations and projects at the WAC. The studio was professionally excavated and disassembled in London. Focusing on tensions around one particular project—in situ video art—Helen builds on a dissonance that arose during the generation of the artwork to present a compelling argument regarding the challenging relationships between heritage.4
I. focuses on practical and critical issues as well as the interpretive possibilities that arise in the production. he envelops his memoir within a sophisticated treatment of the social. It begins with a reﬂection upon and contextualisation of the Ábhar agus Meon exhibition series from the WAC-6 held at University College Dublin in 2008. presents three case studies of projects which feature the application of archaeological practice to artistic materials. into archaeological practice. archaeology. ‘Application and Exchange’. so that it could be
In I. Journal of Iberian Archaeology. (2012). A. Longtime collaborators Mike Pearson and Michael Shanks present a deeply reﬂexive and engaging reﬂection on the history of their creative endeavours. He concludes by presenting some of his own efforts to incorporate artistic practice within archaeological research as part of a multi-year project in Magura. (2007). 17 (1). Cochrane. Cochrane. (2013). & J. The immanency of the intangible image. Antonia’s project is particularly interesting for not only involving contemporary art into on-site archaeological work but also transposing post-excavation work and interpretation to a gallery context. perceptions. Visualizing archaeologies: a manifesto. A. from project to project. Rather than focusing exclusively on either the artistic or archaeological qualities of such work. We have never been material. Archaeology after Interpretation. and offers vocabulary and categories for evaluating their art–archaeological work. A. Pollard (Eds. Fahlander. styles and personalities while also dissolving their collaboration into the dividual and partible ‘Pearson|Shanks’. Michaël’s research presents a number of artists that are less well known within archaeological scholarship than they should be. ‘Archaeology after Art’ turns towards some seminal ﬁgures in the emerging art–archaeology ﬁeld who for the last few decades. (2007). becomings (pp. The ﬁnal section. Doug leaves us with the challenge to go beyond. The book concludes with the work of Doug Bailey. have been steadily advancing the engagement of contemporary art within archaeological research. opportunities. A.. burdens. 9/10. in this paper. Cambridge Archaeological Journal. who. Back Danielsson.
. engaged and appropriated the archaeological. Taking the form of a conversation between the two scholar-practitioners. Representational approaches to Irish passage tombs: Legacies. Scotland. Blaze and Ian organised a plenary session at the WAC-6 involving archaeologists and curators who worked on the project. Cochrane. and to consistently do so. the paper both presents their individual perspectives. 251–72). Sjöstrand (Eds. Encountering imagery: Materialities. Doug urges us to let loose and let go of any strictures to allow these emergent modes of practice to become what they may. R. Cochrane. Antonia Thomas follows with a compelling discussion of her endeavour to incorporate artists and artistic practice into excavation work in Orkney. Ireland in 1998. Jones. I. relations (pp. & Russell.). 138–57. Image and audience: Rethinking prehistoric art. Following this. (2009).). artist and scholar Michaël Jasmin offers a critical history of artistic projects that have approached. Bringing artists to an archaeological site and archaeologists to a gallery site as part of an ongoing process suggests possibilities for mutually enriching exchanges. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Stockholm: Stockholm University. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press. F. 133–60). M.1
relocated to Dublin. Alberti. A. Materials. In B.
Bradley. 3–19.-M. relations. Romania. & Y. and this paper celebrates the unique insights Blaze brought to applying archaeology to the treatment and interpretation of arts materials and sites. offers a provocative critical reading of the art–archaeology ﬁeld.
). I. In D.. (2009).6
I. Visualising the Neolithic (pp. A.). In J. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. M. The way of the shovel: Art as archaeology. New York: Springer.). Cultural heritage management and images of the past. In A. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (2012). Thomas & V.). M. (1994). Archaeology and the politics of vision in a post-modern context (pp. Roelstraete (Ed. Jones.). M. In C. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Prehistoric materialities: Becoming material in prehistoric Britain and Ireland. A. Jones (Eds. Encyclopedia of global archaeology (pp. J. Cochrane & A. I. 323–4). Russell and A.). On the ocularcentrism of archaeology. Thomas. London: Museum of London. MOLAS Archaeological site manual (3rd ed. A. Russell. The art of the past: Before and after archaeology. & Jones. A. (2013a). (2013b). Oxbow: Oxford. A. 1–12). Westman. 1–14). Visualising the Neolithic: An introduction. Smith (Ed. (Ed. A. Russell. (2012. Oliveira Jorge (Eds.