It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Placing the mystical representations by ancient man into the context of reality is a reach
Originally posted by CanuckCoder
reply to post by Phage
Placing the mystical representations by ancient man into the context of reality is a reach
Why is looking at a picture and think its context is reality a reach? Symbolism is a reach in my opinion. Who says the artist was not drawing what he saw in hopes to pass down to the ages what he had seen?
I challenge conventional thinking on this, because the interpretation does not make it a reality. Sometimes things are as simple as they seem. Such as a picture of a flying craft, they can be just that from the artists perspective: A craft that is flying in their times.
I hear artists and collectors speak all the time that a painting is not a reflection of reality and is a metaphor for other things but thats all talk without proof and unless the artist is there to say "this is a metaphor" then i see no reason to assume anything.edit on 30-10-2010 by CanuckCoder because: Finished a thought.
Originally posted by NavalFC
Originally posted by CanuckCoder
reply to post by Phage
Placing the mystical representations by ancient man into the context of reality is a reach
Why is looking at a picture and think its context is reality a reach? Symbolism is a reach in my opinion. Who says the artist was not drawing what he saw in hopes to pass down to the ages what he had seen?
I challenge conventional thinking on this, because the interpretation does not make it a reality. Sometimes things are as simple as they seem. Such as a picture of a flying craft, they can be just that from the artists perspective: A craft that is flying in their times.
I hear artists and collectors speak all the time that a painting is not a reflection of reality and is a metaphor for other things but thats all talk without proof and unless the artist is there to say "this is a metaphor" then i see no reason to assume anything.edit on 30-10-2010 by CanuckCoder because: Finished a thought.
But the mistake the anomaly hunters make is to judge everything by OUR context.
For example, ancient anomaly hunters have provided many examples of what they say are "the greys" in aicnet art, be it cave walls, statues etc. Ok, but the reason they are able to say this is because the grey is a modern phenomenon, a cultural icon representative of the UFO field.
Absent that frame of reference, one would lack the ability to make that comparison.
Or to simplify it, the reason people are able to find objects in cloud shapes is because they know what the objects normally look like and as such can imagine other things in such away.
Before the dawn of the modern UFO age, ie: pre kenneth arnold, no one would make such claims because they lacked the frame of reference. It is only because people have a mental picture of what a grey is to look like, what saucers look like, what modern machines look like that they are able to go back and say of ancient art things like
"Oh, this painting looks like a man in a rocket" "this trinket looks like a airplane!" etc etc. It is a mistake to do so, because you are judging these things by a context that did not exist to the original creators of said ancient art, and therein lies the fallacy in all of these ancient anomaly scenarios.
Originally posted by openmind444
reply to post by Harte
Or are you just trying to be a self-righteous, arrogant, "I will speak for everyone, because I have all the answers" dick? Just wondering, because I don't know you and that is the way that you come across, that seems logical enough for me.
Originally posted by openmind444
You know..the stuff that makes sense.