Я видела много хороших документалок, но эта не относится к их числу. Мне даже немного жаль потраченного времени. Все очень медленно, информацию жуют и пережевывают, постоянно крутятся на месте, повторяют одно и тоже, любую маломальскую гипотезу преподносят как новую формулу в атомной физике, хотя это в любом случае лишь предположение (нельзя вернуться в прошлое, все предположения вокруг искусства останутся предположениями). Напрягало такое огромное количество политики, истории и раскопок. Где искусство? Его почти нет! Я думала искусство – это картины и архитектура, а нам рассказывают про монеты, галлюцинации и кино. Скучно, усыпляющее, чопорно. В третьей и четвертой серии мне очень понравились некоторые открытия, было что-то действительно новое и удивляющее, все остальное медленный поток воды.
I expected something more art history, but here it's more psychology. Some of the conclusions seemed contradictory and far-fetched, more like hypotheses than facts, but interesting points of view. I never thought, for example, how many reminders of death there are around us and how much everything in art is connected with death, and now it is perceived so ordinary and familiar. For example, the same photos, what proportion of all photos -- people who no longer exist? I also thought about how young the science of archeology is, a little older than psychology, maybe 50 or 100 years. But it seems that all this knowledge has always been with us... I was interested in an experiment in which people became tougher towards a group with opposite views in the face of death. I would like to continue these studies, repeat them in other groups, in other samples, with other experimental mechanisms, because the phenomenon looks promising, but the conclusion of the "ready to defend yourself" type is completely unjustified. You might as well say: "ready to attack", and much more. A little more about this was discussed on the example of the funerary art of the Etruscan civilization, but, again, was the reason really in the confrontation with Rome?
I also thought about how young the science of archeology is, a little older than psychology, maybe 50 or 100 years. But it seems that all this knowledge has always been with us...
I was interested in an experiment in which people became tougher towards a group with opposite views in the face of death. I would like to continue these studies, repeat them in other groups, in other samples, with other experimental mechanisms, because the phenomenon looks promising, but the conclusion of the "ready to defend yourself" type is completely unjustified. You might as well say: "ready to attack", and much more. A little more about this was discussed on the example of the funerary art of the Etruscan civilization, but, again, was the reason really in the confrontation with Rome?