Difference between revisions of "Kitsch"
(→Colonial) |
|||
Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
Rock drawings seem to have been particularly prone to this - borrowings appearing on fabrics, glassware and stamps. | Rock drawings seem to have been particularly prone to this - borrowings appearing on fabrics, glassware and stamps. | ||
+ | |||
+ | O'Regan discusses this use in the context of cultural property<ref>O'Regan 2008 </ref>. | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
[[Image:Rock1.JPG |framed|left|A scarf with many images from rock art.]] | [[Image:Rock1.JPG |framed|left|A scarf with many images from rock art.]] | ||
Line 57: | Line 61: | ||
|} | |} | ||
− | === | + | ===References=== |
+ | |||
+ | <references /> | ||
+ | |||
[[Category:Media]] | [[Category:Media]] | ||
[[Category:Artefacts]] | [[Category:Artefacts]] | ||
[[Category:Maori_Rock_Drawings]] | [[Category:Maori_Rock_Drawings]] |
Revision as of 08:49, 4 March 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.
Maori
Rock drawings seem to have been particularly prone to this - borrowings appearing on fabrics, glassware and stamps. O'Regan discusses this use in the context of cultural property[1].
|
Colonial
Barry Curtis Park in south Auckland has volcanic rock walls, reconstructed from a nearby farm site. The unfortunate result is what happens when landscape architecture captures archaeological reconstruction.
|
References
- ↑ O'Regan 2008