How should we be thinking about deep prehistory? What formats are suitable for what sorts of discussion? Are some formats better suited to engage with ideas or theoretical perspectives while others are more appropriate to presenting data, broad-brushed syntheses, detailed analyses and so on? How should we maintain links across period specialisms and interest in broader themes?
These questions have come to the forefront of my mind after two days attending the British Museum’s regular Palaeolithic-Mesolithic conference (17-18 Nov 2011 – weirdly has no website!) and a morning spent at Grayson Perry’s special exhibition at the British Museum – ‘The Tomb of the Unknown Craftsman
The overall impression I got at the Palaeolithic-Mesolithic conference (known as Pal-Meso) was one of an in-crowd. With no website or publicity (beyond a limited mailing list and word-of-mouth) the conference remains the preserve of those in-the-know. Despite this it has seen incredible growth – now regularly two days long and, in this instance, attended by nearly 200 people.
The programme was dominated by the Palaeolithic. Understandably this much longer period is better represented at the conference. The entire conference was dominated by the results of primary analysis using a diverse range of methodologies (lithic analysis, environmental/ecofactual analysis, remote sensing). A few papers looked at more synthetic topics such as entire periods/lithic technocomplexes and a very few looked at less frequently found evidence types such as art.
Talks were short (15 minutes) and timekeeping was rigourously maintained. The short periods for questions before each break were used primarily for technical questions and the odd suggestion.
I struggled to keep up with the middle and lower Palaeolithic papers, not only is it difficult to keep up with the endlessly redefined techno-complexes (Gravettian, Aurignacian….) the data-heavy focus of most of the papers made it difficult to assess the ideas behind them. I found myself constantly asking myself: Why is this important? Why should anyone care?
I wasn’t alone in this feeling: though break-times were always buzzing with fruitful discussions, several colleagues felt similarly about many of the papers: Where are the people?
I realised that it was not that I felt that this use of data was inappropriate for archaeology but that it wasn’t making the best of the conference as a forum for sharing ideas. For me, data is best presented where it can be scrutinised, unpacked and tested by the reader in their own time. A conference is an opportunity to present more challenging ideas and engage with theory, to bring perspectives together and make connections across peoples’ work.
The conference felt atomised: though papers were grouped thematically there were rarely particularly strong synergies between them apart from geographic or chronological links.
There were exceptions to these trends: including personal highlights such as Jill Cook, Jessica Cooney and John Pipriani on upper Palaeolithic art, two presentations delivered by Matt Pope on La Cotte and Beedings, Alan Saville’s look at new upper Palaeolithic evidence from Scotland and Radu Iovita’s paper on a new Lower/middle Palaeolithic site in Romania. Most (but by no means all) of the Mesolithic papers were reasonably engaging (though I had the benefit of better background understanding for these).
I also noted that I was the only person to feel so strongly that an opportunity for discussion had been missed with many colleagues feeling that the information had been a useful way to keep up with neighbouring disciplines without having to do a lot of reading.
The contrast between the two day’s of the conference and my experience at Grayson Perry’s exhibition was dramatic. I went with one other archaeologist, a journalist, secondary school art teacher and an arts administrator. The exhibition is a mixture of objects from the British Museum’s stores, works produced for the purpose by Perry and his older works. Acting both as artist and curator Perry has been able to build connections between objects across cultures from a vast range of periods and places. Grouping artefacts according to diverse themes such as violence, sex, forgeries, mapping and magic Perry has managed to bring new light to these objects and his overall themes. These broader themes were woven through the exhibit and considered pilgrimage, the biographies of objects, their contexts and our relations to them.
I felt that the playfulness and transparency with which this was done avoided the self-obsessed seriousness or obfuscation that is common in much contemporary art. This is not to say that Perry did not use his personal life – his childhood teddy Alan Measles is a motif throughout his work – or lay everything out completely explicitly, but a balance was struck between exposition and allowing the audience to build their own connections and impressions. More importantly the humour in the connections – an Asante crown paired with Perry’s own ‘Ancient motorcycle helmet’ in the style of a Celtic crested helmet – brought welcome relief from the earnestness of most museums. It is rare to hear laughter as a reaction to material in the British Museum!
The final piece in the exhibit was the ‘Tomb of the Unknown Craftsman’ itself: a ship covered in casts of hundreds of objects from the museums collections and, on a central plinth on the deck, a real flint handaxe. This “tool that begat all tools” was given no archaeological context beyond its age: 250,000 years.
The contrast between this and the treatment given to almost identical objects in the conference was incredibly potent. All of a sudden an object that was not even produced by a member of our own species was being appreciated for its artistic integrity, for being the results of a person’s efforts rather than as a dot on a map or graph showing cognitive development or raw-material transport.
I am not for a moment saying that data-rich approaches to any archaeological period are wrong or even inappropriate. Both approaches – dry detail and playful poetics – feed off one another but I feel that each is more suited to given platforms for presentation – the media should suit the message. If people are in a space together talking about archaeology is that not a more appropriate environment to be engaging in our ideas of the past and the people that made it?
I don’t feel I have made my argument very well…… Maybe I need to talk to you about it?
Following a successful conference session. Mhairi Maxwell and I wrote up our thoughts about archaeology and contemporary art for Michael Shanks blog/journal site: Archaeolog. The original has a few dead links in it which I’ve trimmed out here.
This archaeolog reviews the session ‘An Artful Integration: Possible Futures for Archaeology and Creative Work’ which took place at TAG Bristol on December 17th 2010 and brought together archaeologists, artists, performers, composers and digital media creatives. The formal session summary further details available below:
Here, in three parts, the aims of the session, a summary of the main themes presented, and directions for future interrogation will be briefly introduced. Feedback and comments on where we should go from here are actively invited.
We (Hadley and Maxwell) seek positive ways of integrating and recognising the value of creative work into the archaeological discourse.
We designed the session as a mixture of contributions; those that showcase the benefits of creative work for archaeological practice, the presentation of the past and archaeological thinking (Bosch, Evans, Pascoe, Watson and Crewsden) and more reflexive engagements with the ideas that connect and divide archaeology from creative work (Cope, Dixon, Hadley, Maxwell).
It was hoped that further discussion would help the participants identify some of the issues that still make many archaeologists suspicious of creative work, in practice, the session developed in somewhat different, but positive, directions.
The session was a space for exhibition and criticism of artful integrations with archaeology and aimed overall to examine what steps may be necessary to recognise the value and utility of creative work for, and in, archaeology.
The four main issues raised were:
1. Archaeology is Art: Are there underplayed creative elements in accepted archaeological practice? Or ways in which archaeology can contribute to creative endeavour?
2. Transparent reasoning and rigour: The strength of formal text is its transparency of reasoning. Do creative works necessarily obscure reasoning?
3. Invisible humanity: What are the risks in portraying elements of the past invisible to archaeology?
4. Skills for creativity: How can archaeologists learn to interact with and interrogate creative work as a valued contribution to the field?
Main Themes Presented:
Follow this Flickr link to see photographs from the session: http://www.flickr.com/groups/1638287@N22/
Four main cross-over themes emerged from the session. These were:
1. The emotive, evoking, performative and communicative power of creative integration: putting things in an experiential context.
The success of different modes of creative integration were exhibited, including the employment of film (Bosch, Watson and Crewsdon), performance (Pascoe and Easterby), drawing (Evans), music (Watson and Crewsdon) and installation (Evans, Watson and Crewsdon). Watson and Crewsdon exhibited a film with a composed music score titled ‘Stones from the Sky’ (commissioned by Penrith and Eden Museum). This work expressed the knowledge gathered from traditional forms of archaeological data (papers, museum collections and fieldwork), following the sourcing, making and deposition of a Neolithic stone axe. They noted how the process of creating this installation prompted original research and it was clear how the resulting emotive interpretation fully contextualised the archaeological objects within whole landscapes visually and in the visitors’ imagination. The participatory performance of a noisy fire lighting ceremony by Red Earth (Pascoe and Easterby) in the courtyard of Bristol University Wills Memorial Building immersed people in togetherness, anticipation, unease and elation. The landscape, feelings and expectations of those who took part were effectively transformed through rhythmic movement, breathing, the playing of instruments (including horns and cymbals) and ultimately the lighting of fire.
2. Theories of creativity: the opening up of under-explored academic lines of discourse about our sensible relations with things.
It was noted by most contributors that archaeology has much to learn and gain from theories of creativity. Cope brought to attention Nietzsche’s thesis of the ‘Will to Power’ and how this provides an understanding of the innate creativity present in all objects enacted through ‘presencing’ and different ‘ways of seeing’ by the subject. This provides a move towards breaking down the subject/object dichotomy by understanding discursive and imaginative material-culture events and relations. Comparatively, Evans’ creative research as an artist is ‘presenced’ via a blog www.osteography.wordpress.com. Informed by Bourriaud’s theory of ‘Relational Aesthetics’, he is interested in modes of interactive representation and the resulting responses to his work, including drawings, paintings and writings. In this way, a dialogue between people and art work is manifested.
3. Creative contribution to interpretation in the field and in the institution, providing previously unrecognised and unresearched possibilities.
Evans tackles this directly in his working methodology, while the artist Bosch, during her residency in Çatalhöyük, Turkey, demonstrated how her stop-motion video of the moving arc of light in one of the reconstructed prehistoric houses lead to a previously unrecognised interpretation of the positioning of the roof-top entrances. After seeing this creative integration, the archaeologist Hodder recognised the moving projection of light on the walls as a sun-clock, which may explain the placement of these entrances. This, it was argued, would not have been recognised using formal methods of archaeological excavation and data collection. Indeed, every paper in the session introduced novel methodological possibilities for enquiring into or imagining the past, whether these were performative, haptic, visual, acoustic, theoretical or any combination of these.
4. A healthy critical awareness of artful integration.
Dixon asked ’Is it Good?’, cautioning that art is too often adopted by archaeologists uncritically, as a form of primary evidence or as a good way of communicating the results of archaeology to the public. This is patronising and the actual processes of artistic interpretation and practice, it was argued, need to be recognised by archaeologists. On this theme, Maxwell’s exploration of an archaeological site plan displayed on the wall in a project office proposed that, in fact, art and archaeology both adopt creative methodologies. Both art and archaeology produce open-ended embodiments of ‘Messy Thinking’ (Mitchell quoted in Cajori 1992); artworks which can, and should, be re-interpreted and re-analysed. These two contributions, and others in the session, considered different ways of thinking: are creative ways of thinking unique to art, or can they also be found in archaeology?
Contributions were eclectic and provoking, arousing exciting possibilities. It became clear that we are only at the start of a conversation, with many questions remaining unanswered. All of the contributors to the session exhibited the obvious value and utility of creative work and creative thinking for, and in, archaeology. Art and archaeology were recognised as having their own ontologies and skills (Dixon), though the boundaries are perhaps more blurred than previously realised (Maxwell). What remains unclear is how this relationship should progress and work practically:
1. How should this relationship between art and creative work be practically arranged in the field, in the office and in the museum? Should artful integration be considered its own discipline, or is its strength in its un-disciplining? Should museums and publications embrace more artful integrations and does this risk or alter the knowledge disseminated?
2. How can the varied creative methodologies of performative, haptic, visual, acoustic and theoretical be critically integrated into the archaeological discourse and recognised as a valuable contribution?
3. What does archaeology have to offer art? It has been brought to attention that we need to better understand the similarities and differences in artistic and archaeological practices.
Hadley began the session with an historical and contemporary examination of the ‘borderlands’ of artistic intervention in archaeology. Archaeologists’ fascination with art, and artists’ fascination with archaeology has a long history (Renfrew 2003). Now is the time for reflection on this relationship, with the hope of opening up positive possibilities for artful integration enriching our engagements, understandings, imaginings and disseminations of the past. Let’s embrace the future of creative artful integrations and not be scared to ‘Put our Pens Down’ (Pascoe) or revel in ‘Messy Thinking’ (Mitchell quoted in Cajori 1992)!
Our extended thanks to Dr. Timothy Taylor who chaired the session and for providing the photographs and video attached here. Also, thanks to all the participants for making such a vibrant and successful session.
Renfrew, C. 2003 Figuring it Out. Thames and Hudson: London
Cajori, M. 1992 Joan Mitchell, Portrait of an Abstract Painter, film 58 mins.
List of Contributors to Artful Integration at TAG 2010:
Andrew Cope (Plymouth University)
Aaron Watson and John Crewdson (Royal Holloway University of London)
Simon Pascoe and Caitlin Easterby (Red Earth)
James Dixon (UWE)