Letter: Ancient aesthetics
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: James Fenton's article about the Royal Academy show of the Ortiz antiquities collection makes most of the essential points in his usual elegant and thoughtful way (31 January).
I cannot, however, see that the collection has any centrally unifying principle - the objects shown are so heterogeneous and come from such wildly disparate cultures. Furthermore, some, surely, have no aesthetic value at all.
For example, the little pottery dishes and a scoop (Boeotian, 700 BC), and many other of the more primitive objects, may have great archaeological significance but who would claim them to be beautiful? Without beauty, or context, what meaning can they have?
Yours faithfully,
PATRICK TAYLOR
Wells, Somerset
31 January
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments