Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Perhaps artifacts shouldn’t belong to anyone. In many cases, the credit is given to the person who found it as the discoverer, not the owner. I agree that there is a responsibility for those who find it to showcase it in a way that relays its message and cultural enrichment to others so that the culture it originates from can be appreciated. Having the opportunity to be immersed in other cultures by viewing their works of art can be one way to healthily expand knowledge cross-culturally, especially if the culture that the piece originates from no longer exists.
I agree that art should be available for all to observe, ponder and enjoy. Creating replicas of these pieces could be one solution, so that we aren’t removing the piece from its original country of origin. I think you bring up a great example, the Aphrodite of Knidos. Works should belong in their country of origin; it is true that they make be key to that culture’s history.
Determining who owns art from the past is a multi-faceted discussion, especially considering that the culture who created the piece may no longer exist. A “finders-keepers” sort of attitude leads to a art history saturated in misrepresentation. On one hand, we want to honor these cultures and leave their artworks with them in order to help sanctify their rich history as much as possible. It is also important to grant other societies and social groups a chance to discover and learn through the observation of other societies/culture’s art. This is why many art pieces, such as the Man and Centaur, can be found in places such as New York City, far from where they were discovered.
When considering this topic, the Mask of Agamemnon comes to mind. It was discovered by the business man, Heinrich Schliemann, and it has been theorized that the mask was altered in order to fit a political agenda. The removal of this item from its original site caused Schliemann to hypothesize its cultural significance, which alters the history we have of the Aegean culture.
While it is important to let other societies enrich themselves in the cultural art works that others have created, it is also important to preserve their legacy as much as we possibly can.The details of the art of this time period is immaculate. One piece that stuck out to me was the Dying Gallic Trumpeter, as you can see the incredible detail put into the veins in his feet to show a full-body display of suffering. A step away from the gods as a step toward more humanistic pieces is refreshing to see. The Greeks seem to have put a great emphasis on humans as serving as a production of morality all on their own.
The artist’s ability to capture the human form with more detail is one characteristic that stuck out to me when viewing this week’s pieces. I agree that the representation of gods were still there, but that more of an emphasis was placed on the human form. It does seem to be a newly emerging concept in this time period.
Humanism is a philosophical concept, absent of theism or other supernatural beliefs, that strives to affirm our human responsibility to lead ethical lives. This concept recognizes that morality is founded based upon human experience and human nature. An emphasis seems to be put on humanity over other supernatural/higher power beings. A great deal of detail, based on this concept, has been found in Greek art works that can be seen in the addition of great detail in sculptures, like The Laocoon and his sons, and the Dying Gallic Trumpeter.
Gods are still present in Greek art work, but they are more reproduced in human form, much like the Aphrodite of Melos. As a whole, Greek art work seems to encompass a lot of characteristics of humanism in its renderings.Hi Maggie,
I also found the Mask of Agamemnon to be a compelling example of the distorted discovery regarding these cultures. Schliemann seemed to be more concerned with his image, wanting to be the founder of the mask, rather than letting his discoveries remain organic in nature and honestly intentioned. It is unfortunate that there is no written history to make a juxtaposed comparison of timeline and Schliemann’s word. Schliemann was a businessman, so it’s not absurd to think that his intentions were more marketed towards his desire for fame and recognition.
Thank you for sharing.Hi Allie,
It’s true that these two archaeologists seemed to be more invested in their own image than their dedication to reconstructing these past societies. Because there is no written history left behind to parallel these interpretations to, we are left with using what the excavators tell us: the condition the object was found in, objects around it, and their own “professional” interpretation of what the meaning is. This can easily lead to manipulation of the audience, because we can never truly know the purpose or intention – we can only find correlation, and I think these men knew this when these cultures were “discovered.”
Thank you for sharing.I agree with you that these differences don’t necessarily point to an all-war or an all-peace mindset for either culture, just a correlation. It’s true that the Mycenaeans may have seen life as less peaceful; we don’t exactly know the hardships they went through or the obstacles they had to face because of their lack of written history. We are left to speculate based on what was left behind; the Mycenaeans had more weapons at their excavation site, and for all we know this could have been a form of art or honoring the dead – not an indication of battle. I like your analysis of the differences in the octopus pottery. I agree that the lengthened tentacles take away from the relaxed art the Minoans created- this is something I felt when viewing these pieces but did not speculate on.
Thank you for sharing.Hi Gabe,
I agree that societies are not all peace or all war – certainly, they are a mixed bag of trying and forgiving times. I also think what was depicted on the outside of these pots is a large indicator of what these societies valued. Another example I considered is the architecture from both societies – the Minoan culture seemed to have more carefully, artistically constructed buildings while the Mycenaean seemed to have more based on protection. There was also more weaponry found at the Mycenaean site. I like how you brought in an example from another culture in order to support your theory.
Thank you for your response.While there is no definitive written record to support these theories, the Minoan culture was seen as a more peaceful society in comparison to the Mycenaean culture based on the artifacts and architecture left behind. The Minoan culture was lavish in superb, beautiful buildings. In Mycenaean architecture, it appears that the building were created with a more protective characteristic. It was also noted that Mycenaean culture had a lot more weapons, such as swords, around its excavation sites. There are pivotal differences in each culture’s art as well; Minoan art seemed to have a more relaxed content and symbolism to it, representative of wild life and things of beauty whereas the Mycenaean culture had art that was composed of protection and subtle warnings. While this does not prove for a fact that Mycenaean culture was more constantly engaged in conflict, it does somewhat suggest that they participated in battle more than the peaceful Minoan culture.
Several discoveries made by Evans and Schliemann seem to be misrepresented in cultural context in order to increase the market value of these claims. For example, Dr. Steven Hucker and Dr. Beth Harris discuss the Mask of Agamemnon on behalf of the Khan Academy, and it’s founder Schliemann, calling him “a businessman, and a kind of amateur archaeologist.” They go on to discuss the speculation of art historians behind the well preserved mask, suggesting that Schliemann may have over-restored it and made it appeal more to a nineteenth century agenda. While not a lot of written history is left behind regarding the Aegean world, like that of other cultures, we are left to piece the puzzle together by relying on found artifacts and architecture to put the history of this once extravagant culture to understanding. In scenarios such as this, observers and historians need to be cautious of manipulation or falsification for a discoverer’s own personal gain, in whatever fashion.
Hi Miranda,
I agree that we will never truly know the intent behind these pieces – whether they are meant to be abstract or not. I always like to consider how we make today’s sculptures, typically in class, and under the direction of an instructor. If I didn’t have these modern day means, my heart would probably look pretty abstract too. I think that the abstractness may stem from having to make things off of memory, and not having the large sum of tools we have today to create our pieces of art.
Hi Valene,
I agree with you – we weren’t alive then, so there’s no way to know for sure! I agree that the sculptures depicting females, for example, Woman of Willendorf, may have been created with an ideal specimen in mind. I also think that the abstractness that some of the art does display is likely from the tools they had at their disposal to create these works.
Prehistoric art may have an abstract element to it, but I wouldn’t necessarily call all of it abstract because it still does depict firmly what it was attempting to. Some prehistoric art, such as the Lion Human, and some cave depictions, are certainly abstract in nature. I think the abstract aura that prehistoric art gives off may just be an element of the style back then, or it could be from the tools they had to work with to create their art. For example, when we want to draw an animal, like a buffalo for example, we can look at images of buffalos in books, look at images online or even look up other art. The prehistoric people had their memory to go off of, and they used that when constructing (unless they had a deceased animal nearby – I supposed this could be an exception). For the woman sculptures, we can definitely tell that they are women, however, even though we are able to find preserved remains, etc., we will still never truly know for an absolute fact what the average human looked like, so there’s no way to truly tell if these are abstract of not.
