Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

General Pitt-Rivers and the Art of Benin

General Pitt-Rivers and the Art of Benin dialogue General Pitt-Rivers and the Art of Benin Jeremy Coote I much enjoyed Kathryn Wysocki Gunsch’s historiographical discussion in African Arts 46 (4) of the reception given to objects from Africa in the early twentieth century (Gunsch 2014). There is a huge amount of work to be done to reassess the work of our predecessors, which—aside from the intrinsic interest of such work—helps us reassess our own efforts, our own assumptions and preconceptions; and Gunsch’s article demonstrates what can be done when the available resources are put to good use. Although I do not necessarily disagree with Gunsch’s general conclusions about the differences between the reception given to African art in Germany and the UK, however, I do want to draw attention to an aspect of her thesis that—I should argue—is in need of revision. Part of Gunsch’s argument consists of a comparison between the work of Felix von Luschan (1854–1924) in Germany and that of Augustus Henry Lane Fox Pitt-Rivers (1827– 1900) in England. Gunsch provides a convincing account of von Luschan’s work, supported by references to the relevant literature, but her account of Pitt-Rivers’s work is unreferenced and misleading. Gunsch writes: “In the largest British collection http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png African Arts MIT Press

General Pitt-Rivers and the Art of Benin

African Arts , Volume 48 (2) – Jun 1, 2015

Loading next page...
 
/lp/mit-press/general-pitt-rivers-and-the-art-of-benin-90nrLcQZ4t

References (3)

Publisher
MIT Press
Copyright
© 2015 by the Regents of the University of California.
Subject
dialogue
ISSN
0001-9933
eISSN
1937-2108
DOI
10.1162/AFAR_a_00213
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

dialogue General Pitt-Rivers and the Art of Benin Jeremy Coote I much enjoyed Kathryn Wysocki Gunsch’s historiographical discussion in African Arts 46 (4) of the reception given to objects from Africa in the early twentieth century (Gunsch 2014). There is a huge amount of work to be done to reassess the work of our predecessors, which—aside from the intrinsic interest of such work—helps us reassess our own efforts, our own assumptions and preconceptions; and Gunsch’s article demonstrates what can be done when the available resources are put to good use. Although I do not necessarily disagree with Gunsch’s general conclusions about the differences between the reception given to African art in Germany and the UK, however, I do want to draw attention to an aspect of her thesis that—I should argue—is in need of revision. Part of Gunsch’s argument consists of a comparison between the work of Felix von Luschan (1854–1924) in Germany and that of Augustus Henry Lane Fox Pitt-Rivers (1827– 1900) in England. Gunsch provides a convincing account of von Luschan’s work, supported by references to the relevant literature, but her account of Pitt-Rivers’s work is unreferenced and misleading. Gunsch writes: “In the largest British collection

Journal

African ArtsMIT Press

Published: Jun 1, 2015

There are no references for this article.