I think that attempting to identify with the people behind the art is silly. The most salvageable part of this recreation could possibly be the aesthetic and technical choices behind its reconstruction. If they were able to amend and or upkeep the tapestry through the image they were able to convey then thats good, but anything else seems simply voyeuristic.

While the amount of time this took seems relatively short, I doubt the meaning behind the construction of this tapestry is relevant. This piece of art tells the story of the modern individuals who felt a false sense of nostalgia and wanted to amend a piece of history that was not theirs in the first place. This seems redundant to me.

It is pretty interesting to find the recycling and appropriation of a shrine within one culture. To think that one site of worship could host a more modern view than the one that was formed around its conception is immensely interesting. I am amazed at how religions and organizations may change around new contexts.

The viewing of shinto culture is problematic because it is made for such a specific group of individuals. Any viewing of these sacred sites would be seen as voyeuristic but this adds another layer to the question of the consumption of culture. Is it voyeuristic if it has become a world site? What is the relationship between nationalistic art in a global setting?

The transformation of the individual or collective person through architecture is a fascinating concept. The space through its dome structure and natural amplification methods, transforms the experience of the person who occupies the space. The relationship between the body and architecture through this transformative lens is fascinating to me.

This paragraph is extremely evocative especially when considering how all elements of the church are taken into consideration. This allows the church to present itself as a total work of art. The viewer enters the church and is instantly stimulated visually, through smell and sonically. Through a religious and artistic standpoint, the church allows for a complete transcendence and removal from the physical and moves towards the divine.

It seems that there is an issue being struck right between the bounds of the legal and the moral. The British aren't necessarily breaching the rights of the greek, they are simply choosing to not acknowledge the histories tied behind the art which is an issue in and of itself. This complicates things when considering how one might mediate between the two parties.

The question of consumption here is complicated because art is becoming claimed by different and specific groups rather than shared amongst humanity. While ancient art has a nationality by the country of its birth, it doesn't inherently express a nationalism. I do think that art shouldn't be commodified or viewed heavily as an asset or currency, so I am a bit torn with this statement.

I don't think access to any mummies or any living being of the past is necessary at all; in fact, I feel that it is taking a step back from the consumption of ancient Egyptian art. I think it is sufficient that we have relics that portrayed the ideas of immortality that is persistent in every human being. Death and decay is a given within human life, what is interesting is the way humans pictured themselves outside of this inevitable truth.

Its striking how beauty ideals were able to leave such a shocking impression roughly three thousand years after their time. I think that by our consumption of these old images we are saying a lot about what we value as a society. That bold and defined features could still hold an element of power and agency is really remarkable to me.

It is so fascinating how relics of the past can communicate so much information from a far away time. The harrapan people were able to withstand the test of time not only through their adaptations within their environment but through their pottery. It fascinates me how these people interacted with their surroundings and were able to leave their mark.

I am personally curious as to what this change in strategy indicates about the Harrapan people. They were able to persist and acclimate to these changes in a drastic way. It seems like they were well versed in agriculture and wouldn't have collapsed because of natural impositions.

The features that could read "giant" and "monster" to us could've held much different meaning to the people who were making them. I wonder if perhaps these big features could've been a symbol of fertility that were viewed as more gentle and maternal. Perhaps, these figures were relatively small for the way people looked then.

I think this a rare moment within the article where the authors are analyzing these ancient peoples through the images they made. Too often are we seeing archaeologists and historians projecting their own sense of humanity on the works of people that lived centuries ago. I think it is sufficient to come to conclusions through analysis of the objects that were produced.

I wonder why she was targeted out of all the people. It doesn't serve a purpose really for me to speculate but I wonder what about her standing amongst so many wealthy, powerful and wealthy (male) targets made her so enticing.

It is clear that True being crucified was more of a scapegoated symbolic act of sacrifice than one of punishment and consequence. Because the goal of the Italian court was to shock Americans into fear, she had to be the appendage that rotted off? This article is very ominous and confusing. One doesn't know through which lens (feminist, moral) to address the issue of theft in this particular case. I wonder why True conceded to remain hidden if she was innocent both legally and morally.

This cultural dispute is an emblem of the gravity which art works pose across countries. These marbles are priceless bookends to a particular moment in time for Greek history. Works of art have always been representative snapshots of moments, and its staggering that the British government is not receptive to these facts. Denying the marbles from the Greek is denying a piece of history, turning a blind eye to portions of Greek identity.

I've never heard of ancient works of art displayed in an art institution as being described as "a crowd milling in the public square". It seems to me that the museum itself is an ancient tomb, something which seems to the public as as enclosing infinite riches and relics of the past.

I think this paragraph emphasizes (or perhaps also mitigates) the importance of true and false "facts" versus mythology when confronting such a fleeting yet iconic historical past. The truth behind the stories, to me, seem less important than the abilities the stories had to convey a meaning behind events!

The Flood, in this article, exists not only in the past or in the present but as a vehicle with which several re-tellings or imaginings can be worked out and configured. This is extremely useful because whether or not this flood actually happened or not is not important, but the historical, and social nuances of the structure of the Xia can be analyzed through, and without myth. I personally feel that this is phenomenal to art historians when thinking about how we look at events that happened eons ago because it is an extremely useful tool.