Week 4: Jen Rohrs: reading about Arthur Evans

After reading about Arthur Evans and Heinrich Schliemann I think that Evans deserves a much harsher critique from the art historian community for his modifications to the artifacts. While Schliemann is criticized for misrepresenting the grandeur of his achievements, he still kept the artifacts intact in their original state so that the conclusions can be drawn about the society from which they came and adapted as current ideas develop.  However, in the case of Evans his changes to the Palace of Knossos now lead us to draw conclusions about civilizations in ancient Crete from buildings and renovations done during a later time.  Since one of our main starting points in this class when talking about art is the form and materials used, these newer additions can skew our perception.  As new technologies and ideas come around it is difficult to know what facts are being concluded from the original architecture and artwork and what is from the techniques of a newer age.  Even when restoring paintings, such as frescos, the colors and lines that are part of the restored pieces may bare some modern techniques that, over time and numerous restorations, may obstruct the original detailing of the piece.  I do understand that without these types of restoration that many of these original details will be lost by time and the elements, but I also feel that it might be better to speculate on what may have been lost than to draw incorrect conclusions from modern renovations.  Like with one attempt at restoring the Sphinx, when the concrete actually caused the original statue to deteriorate, many restorations can be harmful.  I think that all restorations should be tested and deemed absolutely necessary before they are carried out instead of used as a way to make these sites more of an attraction to tourists.