Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
How does art in early Jewish and Christian art reflect or circumvent this?
Early Jewish and Christian art does not appear to portray or idolize any other gods. In fact most of the mosaics do not even show a god only the evidence of his acts. I notice that there are many images that portray Christ, Saints, and Mary which all have a place within the religion but they are never identified as gods or false idols. I do not feel that anyone of the period that had knowledge of the bible would look at a depiction of Mary and consider it a false idol. Another point that has been well discussed is that most of the art depicted people worshiping and places of worship other than a specific god.
There are several of syncretism between Jewish or Early Christian art and architecture of the Romans. The Royal Complex of Herodium incorporated a bathhouse bathhouse that resembled traditional Roman architecture. The columns at St. Peters Basilica are very similar to those from famous Roman structures. The Oratory of Galla Placidia shows Saint Lawrence, with a toga and sandals, this appears to be an attempt at displaying that he was a roman citizen. The evolution of art seems to be driven by the evolution of the society around it. We know that throughout history artist have been persecuted if they did not conform to beliefs, values and norms of the time. I feel as if the incorporation of Roman influences was not only due to aesthetics but also used as a way to fit in with societal norms but also to avoid any backlash.
In the Classical period artists tried to represent ideal proportion in both the human body and in temple building. How does the art of the period demonstrate changing views on ideal proportion and how do you see this same preoccupation in our own contemporary society?
Ideal proportions became important during the classical period and have continued to present. I do feel that ideal proportions have changed and continue to change based on society. Someone mentioned today’s models as an example, I agree, but I also feel like society is in a period of shifting ideals and the ideal proportions are in a state of flux. I say this because today society appears to be more focused on health over looks, people are eating healthier which will effect their proportions. Another key element in the classical period was to capture emotion and sexuality, I feel like today’s society is broadening its acceptance of sexuality. I believe that although we may be naturally preoccupied with proportion as artists, in today’s society it is more likely to be accepted when proportions are intentionally askew.
Some people claim that Hellenistic art was a progression of Greek humanist values while others see it as a regression. Where do you weigh in on this issue? Can you see both sides of the argument?
I am going to side with progression, Wikipedia states that “Hellenistic art seeks to represent the character of it’s subject.” Exaggerated emotions and themes such as sleeping or old age were both characteristics of Hellenistic art. Hellenistic art I noticed is often referred to with the more modern term of Baroque.
The only argument I could find for regression was from Pliny the Elder, he was a philosopher and commander, he felt that sculpture declined significantly after Olympiad 121. According to Pliny there was a brief revival but sculpture never returned to previous standards.The questions of ‘who owns the past?’ and ‘can the past be owned?’ have resulted in many battles over art in modern times. Some people claim that an artifact should belong to the person who found it, or the nation that funded the excavation. Others argue that the artifact should belong to the person/nation on whose land it was found. Still others believe it should belong to the culture that made it. But what if that culture no longer exists? Nothing is black and white in this argument and there are many shades of gray. Weigh in on this discussion and use examples from Greek culture and other cultures that we are studying.
I believe that artifacts should be owned by the country in which it was discovered. When we discuss history than we have to consider who does that history belong to. A easy example is the use of a nuclear bomb, the U.S. owns that history exclusively. That Japanese people own the history of being the only ones attacked with a nuclear weapon. I believe history can be owned.
The same is true with art weather we want to recognize it or not, someone or group(s) always owns, or is responsible for history. The Egyptians have recently declared that they will no longer lend out artifacts to other museums, that in itself establishes a sort of ownership.
Most will agree that architecture is a form of art, obviously structures are owned by the country it is in, you can not just take a building with you. The same should apply to any artifacts regardless of portability.Humanism as it pertains to art is the focus on the accurate portrayal of the Human form in art. The ancient Greeks also focused on capturing human emotion in their art, so it was not just about form but also about human thoughts and emotions. The key shift is not that religion was no longer important, but that the Human form was now emphasized and included. Portraying the gods in a human form is a obvious example of humanism.
Lives of leisure defiantly fit the Minoan Culture whereas the live of War fits the Mycenaean culture. Minoan art could be considered more peaceful, the focus was on nature, daily activities, animals and nature. The Mycenaean culture was all about war and dominance and their art reflects that. I feel that most times art is a product of our environment, other than fantasy art people most often make art that depicts their surroundings. I feel this premise is supported by the different works of art such as the Lions Gate from the Mycenaean’s and the Harvester Rhyton.
Sir Arthur Evans and Heinrich Schliemann allowed themselves to much privileged in the reconstruction of Minoan art. I have to admit that at the time it may not have been as important as it is today to preserve art in its original state. In today’s world art restoration is an extremely labor intensive process and every effort is made to use proper materials. Sir Arthur Evans used modern materials and techniques and in some cases completely altered the work of art, I feel like accuracy took a backseat to aesthetics when they were restoring these works of art.
The art between Mesopotamia and Egypt are similar in many ways. Both created grand structures to honor the gods, and almost all of the art is geared towards religion. Most have mentioned the main difference being the high focus on the afterlife by the Egyptians which is not present in Mesopotamian art. Mesopotamia produced a lot of art depicting their rulers rather the the gods.
The rulers of the time showed their power in art by commissioning over sized ornate items. The rulers were always depicted at the top and usually with the gods. I feel like the rulers of the time used the gods as an excuse to get the people to follow them. The idea that the people were serving a god that has chosen a ruler to lead them. This has happened throughout history, Jesus was the chosen one, the pope is saint-like, The Dali-lama and; Hitler, Stalin, Ganges Kan etc…
Obviously everyone noted Saddam and Iraq as using these ancient sites for their political benefit. People of modern day may notice the giant statues of Saddam in Iraq, Same can be found in Russia, China, and North Korea. Rulers throughout history have commissioned enormous works of art to portray their own greatness to the people.
Guy
Hello Kaitlyn,
I enjoyed your comments about the depiction of social hierarchy in art. My post was very similar with the peasants doing the work, then the wealthy followed by the kings and gods. I wrote about the vase of Warka, and I was wondering what could be in the 3rd and blank band; after reading your post I believe that it most likely would have been the soldiers or guards keeping the peasants in line.
Thanks for sharing,
Guy
The social stratification in the Ancient Near East is depicted on many works of art from that period. The Warka Vase is an excellent example of social hierarchy, starting at the bottom of the vase there are 5 bands, one of which is blank. Starting at the bottom there are crops in the first band, then livestock on the second band. The 3rd band is blank but could have had paintings on it. The fourth band has the workers/slaves and the last has the gods and politicians. This is very much the same as art and social hierarchy throughout history. I see the correlation of the peasants/slaves working the fields and raising livestock (doing the work) to offer to the gods/church and kings/politicians so they can live in privilege. The material used on the vase is alabaster which was a very prized material and most likely portrayed wealth.
This whole assignment has really reminded me that history repeats itself. The social hierarchy is and always has been alive and well. Whether we are discussing Mesopotamia or modern day we still have the rich getting richer and the poor being suppressed. Mesopotamia had kings and gods, we have politicians and churches and the peasants have to follow the hierarchy.
Guy
These pictures can have many different purposes. I believe that most understand the likelihood that these pictures were intended to record history and teach. They could also be used as a sort of message board for others that follow. There is a lot of discussion that these pictures have spiritual meaning as well which makes sense to me. A primitive culture would be primarily concerned with survival. In the case of prehistoric man hunting was a primary means of subsistence living and it makes sense that they would find respect and spirituality in the animals they hunt. The sculptures of women could actually be exaggerated on purpose not just to show fertility, but possibly to make them more distinguished and easily recognizable as a woman versus a man.
I feel that the prehistoric art is does not fall into modern ideas of abstract art. The images are precise and are easily identified for what they are. I do not feel like the prehistoric man spent hours, days or months on their art; therefore it was not as detailed as it could be. The lion-man could be viewed as abstracted art as it is a not real, then again it could be intentional, perhaps to tell a story like the boogie man.
