Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I totally agree, I think it’s smart that you pointed out that art was used to show that rulers had the right to rule because they could beat usurpers/enemies, not just to show that they have god given power. That’s a really good point.
Mesopotamia’s rulers used the idea that they were connected to divinity to legitimize their rule, and it seems like they furthered this idea with tall structures like the Ziggurats that reached to the gods and were easily seen by all. I think the rulers also wanted such pronounced structures so that the people were always reminded of their rulers presence. In pieces like the Stele of Naram-sim, Naram-sim is depicted larger than life, which further represents his relationship to the gods and implies his godliness. In general, the rulers of Mesopotamia used art and architecture to further solidify their right to rule by showing their connection to the gods.
This is interesting! I completely agree with how the artists focused things that were most important to them, but I interpreted that as abstraction. I think the idea that it is more like comic book art makes sense, but I think there are different levels of abstraction, so the figures wouldn’t necessarily need to be unrecognizable to be considered abstract.
Although it’s impossible to know the intent behind making these pieces of art and whether or not they were intentionally abstracted, I believe that they were. The skill required to make a lot of these pieces, like the Venus of Willendorf, makes me think that if the artist wanted the figurine to be realistic, they could have easily done it. Also, in this figurine, the female form is abstracted in a way to accentuate the parts of the body that would be most important for reproduction. This also implies that this was intentional abstraction. Another example of this would be the Lascaux cave paintings, where the meaty part of the animals bodies are accentuated and the heads and legs, parts I would think were less important to prehistoric people, are minimized.
I didn’t even think that they could have been used as a sort of map, that’s really interesting. But I definitely agree that they were very significant to prehistoric people because the amount of effort put into making them is crazy.
I think that the pictures and figurines likely had a ritual purpose or some other cultural significance. They may have been used as teaching tools, but I feel like that is less likely, especially in examples like the lion man statue. As mentioned in the lecture, prehistoric art wasn’t just art for the sake of art, it had a purpose, and I think that many of the pictures and figurines were made to help with things those cultures valued. The Venus of Willendorf, for example, was probably made to aid fertility, while the cave paintings may have been to help bring more animals around and help with successful hunting.
I also think the idea that some of these objects/paintings were used for communication is also likely as there was no written language at the time. The cave paintings could have been to indicate that there are lots of animals in the area or that that certain group of people were particular good at hunting. This would make sense because early written languages are basically simplified pictures, so these images could be the beginnings of that.Hey Kaitlyn, nice to meet you! Your dogs are adorable. It’s really cool that this is your first art class, I started out majoring in chemistry but I switched to art, and personally, ,I think it’s a lot more fun! So I hope you have fun too:)
Hey Jessi! Forensic art is so cool! I think that’s awesome. And your art looks amazing!I also hope I can remember all the dates and names, but I’m probably going to have a lot of trouble with that:)
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1r7mRad6r7RkfMjuLS0PqzDleijBzYYYs
Hopefully this works! Let me know if it doesn’t!I completely agree. I don’t think art has to be beautiful or appealing at all. Personally, I think some of the best art is art that wouldn’t normally be considered ‘appealing’. I think that kind of art really makes people think and is for more interesting than just a pretty picture, although I like those too of course. That definition feels sort of basic and is excluding a large portion of art.
Part 1:
One of the first definitions that I found was that art is the “conscious creation of something beautiful or meaningful using skill and imagination”, and while I don’t think this is necessarily a bad definition, I disagree with the use of the word ‘conscious’. I think that a lot of great art comes from making accidents and things not going how you planned, and not just decisions that were consciously made or things that were deliberately included.
The definition that I do agree with is “Art is a diverse range of human activities in creating visual, auditory or performing artifacts, expressing the author’s imaginative, conceptual ideas, or technical skill, intended to be appreciated for their beauty or emotional power.” I feel like this is a good definition because it doesn’t limit art in any way. Art isn’t always beautiful, and it isn’t always visual, and this definition seems to include those other forms of art.Part 2: I think art history is how art has changed over time and how it related to events throughout history. We study the history of art because art gives us insight into how people were feeling and thinking throughout history. It helps us understand the world in which we live because art is generally considered the purest form of self expression, so looking at art throughout history can really help with understanding the beliefs and actions of people. Another interesting thing about art over time, is how it is perceived by others. There are so many artists who were under appreciated and misunderstood while they were alive, but years after they died became some of the most famous artists. I think its really interesting how social circumstances alter how people feel about art.
