Difference between revisions of "Kitsch"
Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
{{wikipedia|Theodorus_Johannes_Schoon}} | {{wikipedia|Theodorus_Johannes_Schoon}} | ||
]] | ]] | ||
− | |||
− | |||
Line 34: | Line 32: | ||
− | [[Image:Curtis1.jpg|thumb|The sign]] | + | [[Image:Curtis1.jpg|thumb|left|The sign]] |
− | [[Image:Curtis2.jpg|thumb|Walls]] | + | [[Image:Curtis2.jpg|thumb|left|Walls]] |
− | [[Image:Curtis4.jpg|thumb|Yet more walls]] | + | [[Image:Curtis4.jpg|thumb|left|Yet more walls]] |
Revision as of 21:02, 20 February 2010
Archaeological Kitsch
Archaeological items of iconic status become the subject of modern copies and re-use of the imagery. New Zealand items are not immune.
Rock drawings seem to have been particularly prone to this - borrowings appearing on fabrics, glassware and stamps.
Barry Curtis Park in south Auckland has volcanic rock walls, reconstructed from a nearby farm site. The unfortunate result isg what happens when landscape architecture captures archaeological reconstruction.