Saturday, November 12, 2011

322. The Rosetta Stone


































Back to monochrome.

4 comments:

  1. Calling this art is like suggesting that 2000 years from now, a modern dictionary will be art!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I disagree. On the basis of other steles, here's what the Rosetta Stone probably looked like originally: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3c/RosettaStoneAsPartOfOriginalStele.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  3. To be honest, I think this particular example hits on a topic that bears enormous significance in your whole blog art quest. At no point did we specify the definition of art, nor what constitutes a work of art. To me, a decree like this (in part because it has a very specific utilitarian purpose) wouldn't count as art more than, say, a college brochure with information and some graphics of diversity in which every third person is African-America (see #4) http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=stock_photos.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's true that we didn't discuss this issue. My opinion is that anything which was designed to evoke an emotion is art. In this case the emotion would have been awe, as in "Wow, somebody put a lot of work into carving that stone. They must have an impressive society. Also, I don't want to piss these guys off, so I should read what this says if I can read hieroglyphics, demotic, or Greek."

    ReplyDelete