|
|
 |
|
Etruscan Places |
|
written
by sunyuh / 10.04.2005 |
|
|
| |
Part 1: |
| |
“Yet in a few centuries they lost their vitality. The Romans too the life out of them (Lawrence, 82).”
“To him, the blood was conscious: he thought with his heart (Lawrence, 88).”
“A painter like Sargent…is so clever… utterly uninteresting… triviality and silliness… one Etruscan leopard… is worth all the miles of him (Lawrence, 91).”
“Romans changed it all… (Lawrence, 113).”
I’m not sure if I believe in duality: one good, one bad. If I believe in it, I believe in it split up seven times and more. My reflections on Lawrence is somewhat clouded by too many previous studies of criticism of anthropology and theories to take these statements/theories/observation uncritically. Lawrence is a dying man, and therefore relates to Etruscan culture, society and tombs and its decay and assimilation. There is an argument of ‘better than’ that exists in Lawrence’s statements. This whole ‘better than,’ argument isn’t what I have a problem with, but the simplistic explanation behind it. Of course I have to take Lawrence’s time context into consideration (though sometimes I wonder if the ‘time’ could ever serve as an explanation or justification), but in all honesty I don’t think I understand his criticism for the Romans, that concludes to the praise for the Etruscans. Is it because of their ‘blood conscious,’ their ‘rawness’ for life—but could or should these things claim superiority? I’m not defending the Romans or their art in comparison—but I’m not sure I can rank them second based on morality, power, and education. This all sounds a bit like the ‘noble savage’ classification which is really an insult in disguise. His criticism of the Romans, for disliking the land, for abandoning it for commerce and conquest isn’t a criticism of the Romans but of changing technology and priorities of imperialism, which isn’t exclusive to Roman society. This may be off topic, but the spirit of the Etruscan tombs can be found and felt without Lawrence’s comparison. Yes, the tombs are unique and fascinating but not because they were primitive with their art and feelings, simple and old. The art does not need to be defended on such bases. My have previously studied Islamic and Egyptian mausoleums, and visited the famous graveyard in Paris and from that short exploration, it is clear that the Etruscan tombs are different, but for far more reasons than what Lawrence listed. These arguments are kind of cliché and repetitive but I didn’t feel like I could write about the tombs before raising an eyebrow about his observations.
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Part 2: |
| |
Aside from the raised eyebrow, Lawrence was a dying man visiting and writing about tombs. Lawrence had a guide. That surprises me, makes it normal somehow. Somewhat unromantic as well. The image that held my fascination was the tomb of the young girl. It was small, but more colored than the rest. But perhaps it isn’t so much of the tomb (though it is beautiful beyond words) but its title that fascinates me the most. Who is this young girl, where is her name, why is her cave somewhat hidden from the rest? This fuels the questions for the red colors on the ceiling, and the small bed like shaped rock in the center. Her grave remains but she doesn’t. The title lets us know.
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
