Difference between revisions of "Kitsch"
Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
<table border="1" cellspacing="1" width="100%"> | <table border="1" cellspacing="1" width="100%"> | ||
<tr> | <tr> | ||
− | <td width="25%">[[Image: | + | <td width="25%">[[Image:Scarf.jpg |thumb|left|Another scarf.]]</td> |
− | <td width="25%"> [[Image: | + | <td width="25%">[[Image:Scarf3.jpg |thumb|left|Another colourway.]] </td> |
<td width="25%">[[Image:Scarf4.jpg |thumb|left|Yet another.]]</td> | <td width="25%">[[Image:Scarf4.jpg |thumb|left|Yet another.]]</td> | ||
<td width="25%"> </td> | <td width="25%"> </td> |
Revision as of 14:18, 8 March 2011
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 Art
Rock drawings seem to have been particularly prone to this - borrowings appearing on fabrics, glassware, ceramics,postage stamps and even matchboxes. O'Regan discusses this use in the context of cultural property[1].
|
Maori Other
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, G. 2008 The shifting place of Ngai Tahu rock art. in Sue O'Connor, Geoffrey Clark, Foss Leach (Eds), Islands of inquiry : colonisation, seafaring and the archaeology of maritime landscapes. Terra Australis 29 Accessed at http://epress.anu.edu.au/terra_australis/ta29/pdf/ch26.pdf