| Popis: |
Two divergent academic traditions—art history and anthropology—share a common concern with pre-Columbian iconography but have divergent perspectives. The traditional anthropological approach begins with the ethnographic record and “upstreams” that information as far as it will reach—a specific instance of the direct historical approach. The traditional art historical approach insists on the importance of situated “translations,” over time and across ethnolinguistic boundaries, of the relationships between form and meaning. I have argued that the two perspectives can be merged, honoring the validity of what Panofsky called “disjunction,” while at the same time providing a role for ethnographic homology. |
