burst 1.2

???????????????????

Me llamó mucho la atención el uso intensivo de metáforas de enfermedad/paciente en la presentación de Gaël de Guichen. La cueva de Altamira es un individuo enfermo.
Richard Handler nos ha ensenado que el concepto de autenticidad está muy ligado al concepto occidental de individuo y la naturaleza de lo individual [1].
Siguiendo a Michael Herzfeld [2] miro a Altamira como grafiti de paleolítico y el desarrollo del concepto inmanencia en oposición a la aceptación de transitoriedad mientras nos remite al santuario japonés de Ise (reconstruido cíclicamente cada 20 años) y toda la actividad simbólico-ritual (llamada Sengu) que rodea la reconstrucción. Aparentemente el sistema conceptual de los japoneses entiende la realidad estos procesos de forma diferente. Hay que considerar el concepto japonés de Sengu (una metáfora estructural):
“As food, clothing and shelter form the requisites of our life, we have to prepare similar requisites for the kami, if we wish to receive blessings from them. Therefore, the ceremony of the Shikinen Sengu includes the renewal of buildings (shelter) as well as the renewal of the treasures (clothing) and the offering of first fruits (food). By performing the Shikinen Sengu, we renew our minds by remembering that our ancestors had enshrined Amaterasu Omikami in Ise, and praying that the Emperor will live long, and that peace will prevail in Japan and the world. It also involves the wish that Japanese traditional culture should be transmitted to the next generation.” [3] No puedo dejar de pensar en filosofía del cuerpo:

“We do not believe that there is such a thing as  objective  (absolute and unconditional)  truth, though it has been a long-standing theme in Western culture that there is. We do believe that there are  truths but think that the idea of truth need not be tied to the objectivist view. We believe that the idea that there is absolute objective truth is not only mistaken but socially and politically dangerous. As we have seen, truth is always relative to a conceptual system that is defined in large part by metaphor. Most of our metaphors have evolved in our culture over a long period, but many are imposed upon us by people in power—political leaders, religious leaders, business leaders, advertisers, the media, etc. In a culture where the myth of objectivism is very much alive and truth is always absolute truth, the people who get to impose their metaphors on the culture get to define what we consider to be true —absolutely and objectively true.” [4]

Michael Herzfeld en conversación con Denis Byrne:
“Ontology and power – that is, who gets to define what is. I sometimes like to say that the most dangerous word in the English language is ‘is’.
I’ve certainly had the experience of hearing archaeologists claim that their data were fundamentally material in a way that social realities did not seem to be. I think that this, as I said earlier, is an example of the fallacy of misplaced concreteness, because even things that are very hard to describe, or maybe cannot be described very well, are just as real. And if we were to reduce the realm of possible knowledge to only those things for which we, at the moment, have limited instruments of apprehension, we would have a very impoverished sense of reality.” [5]
Ahora supongamos que Altamira es destruida por una repentina catástrofe natural. Me pregunto dónde reposaría el valor Altamira luego de una catástrofe que la hiciera desaparecer. En el año 2011 la ciudad de Christchurch en Nueva Zelanda perdió uno de sus edificios más antiguos, con un valor simbólico importante. Se generó un debate no menor en cuanto a su reconstrucción o final demolición. [6]

  • Creo que el reducidísimo acceso a Altamira al público es como haberla perdido ya mismo.
  • Creo que están manejando dos sistemas conceptuales diferentes aquellos expertos que cierran la cueva y el público que percibe una pérdida de relevancia de Altamira en la sociedad.
  • Creo que será poco posible comunicar-preservar utilizando sistemas conceptuales distintos. Será difícil comunicar una nueva realidad sin que exista un intercambio de metáforas entre el público y los científicos.

Mi pregunta: ¿No sería dejar que la gente visite Altamira en grandes cantidades (y la gente misma vea su paulatina desaparición) una gran oportunidad de enseñar y enseñarnos ‘procesos de cambio’?

BIBLIOGRAFIA

[1] Richard Handler (1986): Authenticity, Anthropology Today, Vol. 2, No. 1, p. 2
[2] Denis Byrne (2011): Archaeological heritage and cultural intimacy: An interview with Michael Herzfeld, Journal of Social Archaeology 11(2) pp. 147-148
[3] http://www.isejingu.or.jp/english/sikinen/sikinen.htm
[4] Lakoff, George; Johnson, Mark (2003 [1980]): Metaphors We Live By. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp.160-161
[5] Denis Byrne (2011): Archaeological heritage and cultural intimacy: An interview with Michael Herzfeld, Journal of Social Archaeology 11(2) p.156
[6] http://www.anglicantaonga.org.nz/News/Tikanga-Pakeha/Diocese-free-to-demolish-Cathedral

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s