Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
One of the main things I saw from the early christian artwork, especially in light of the ‘graven images’ post, is that much of the early christian art was biographical in nature, depicting the people and the events at the heart of the Christian narrative. It seems to me like the Byzantine iconography was an extension of this trend. It’s notable that where for instance ancient Greek art is depicting the actual deities, Byzantine icons focus on Saints – real people – and their stories. I think that this is at least one way people sought to create art that did not violate the Second Commandment. It wasn’t an image of God, it was the history of real people. Of course the saints are imbued with holy power and the whole issue becomes muddled, which probably plays a factor in why the art style changed so drastically. It hard to deny that the art style of iconography probably took less technical skill that photorealistic marble sculpture. I would guess that the ‘iffy’ legal status of the artwork lead to a decline in the profession of master artist.
Sorry this post is late 🙁
Yeah! Those are great examples! I think it goes back to the question that we answered when looking at the Roman section about how Roman influence exists in our culture today. Roman was a monstrous superpower of the time and really defined what power and authority meant and how it looked. It makes sense then that Kings like Herod would try their best to emulated what existed in Rome.
I agree that is seem like especially the early Christian artwork is mostly concerned with telling the story of the early church figures. This is interesting because it ends up being more historical and literal than Greek or Roman mythological art. I’m curious if this lead to our current cultures emphasis on ‘the facts’ (although are we going the other direction these days?) Or did this disposition already exist back in the Greek times with their historians? Interesting haha.
The way in which early Christian depictions of Jesus emulated first the youthful Roman ideal and then the bearded Greek Philosophers is a perfect example of Syncretism. Since Jesus is literally the Son of God, it makes sense that he would take on whatever qualities were viewed as the most ‘potent’ or ‘cool’ at the time. This would probably make him appeal to most people, but I think it probably wasn’t as much a conscious propaganda-type decision as it was people using the imagistic language that they knew to communicated about Jesus. It’s true however that since Christians were persecuted, the artwork had to ‘pass’ as Roman-enough to avoid persecution. Still it’s interesting that our culture still portrays Jesus in a certain way that probably has very little to do with how he actually looked. The images convey the ideas of wisdom and kindness, and honestly at this point ‘Jesus’ is so associated with those images that any new artistic carries of the style is not syncretistically ‘Jesus-like’.
Especially going through the Jewish section, the exhibit was full of holy sites and temples. This avoids the ‘graven images’ problem because the emphasis is on the location instead of the image. It is contrasted against Greek and Roman art which is full of images of deities and the myths that surround them. In the case of the Temple of Solomon, the Holiest of Holies was kept out of view, separated from the larger temple by a veil. This is ironically a concretization of the idea that God is beyond the image of God, and one ought not worship the image. A lot of the Christian artwork portrays Saints and Jesus, actual historical figures, and artwork that tells their story. I wonder if this anticipates the tendency of later ‘Western Christian’ civilization to stick to the facts.
Haha this is my favorite! Excellent work, very clean. Obviously you have experience with digital art! I love the contrast between the texture of the clothing and the stone skin. Nice job 🙂
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1zlzzg2J41GpyB2S7oBRoaJNeWTrpTTWE
I enjoyed working on this project a lot! One thing that I really like about the technique I used is that it isn’t too difficult to make something that looks really cool, and that contributes something different to the original piece. Several image filters exist to automatically create something akin to my recreation (for instance posterize) but I think ultimately having a human making decisions about what lines to include and which tones to fill with creates a far more interesting effect. All in all, very fun! I hope you enjoy what I created too.
I think the point you make is interesting, and it makes me think about how similar tactics are used today. The way most people feel about our leaders is either that they are almost ‘super-human’ and can do no wrong, or else they are terrible villains who are destroying our nation. This reminds me of the ‘Larger-than-Life’ portrayals of leaders that the Romans created in their artwork.
Obviously a huge part of Roman art and especially architecture was to impress and intimidate those who were subject to the sprawling empire. Roman authority was something not to be questioned, and this is conveyed in how imposing they made their structures and the statues of their leaders. It’s amazing that even to this day, some thousand years later, Roman style art and architecture are the standard for ‘impressive’ ‘official’ and ‘authoritative’ projects.
The architecture of our government buildings really is amazingly inspired by Roman art. Even city hall in Fairbanks has a Roman flavor to it, which is kind of mind blowing when you think about it. Our courthouse is a modern building, but the huge high walls make me thing that it is something the Romans would have approved of.
Many roman symbols are still in use today, especially in the sphere of government and financial institutions. The architecture of the whitehouse, congress, the courts, old structures all mimic those of the roman empire. The image of authority that was created by the Romans still persists to this day. Another roman symbol is the bald eagle that soars above the lands. This was relevant to the roman empire who ruled over so much land, and has also become the symbol of the USA. It is probably no coincidence that both countries which chose this symbol are superpowers. Similarly the way that we revere and obsess over our leader, in our case the president, is reminiscent of Roman art.
I generally agree with what you are saying. It’s hard to define ‘cultural descendants’ in a meaningful way that is open to factors like immigration. You see that now politically where the question ‘What makes someone an American?’ or ‘What makes someone a European?’ I wouldn’t want to say that a South American immigrant to the USA doesn’t have any ‘ownership’ over the USA’s founding documents for instance. I’d want to say ‘Sure, they belong to you as much as anyone!’ However the opposite end of the stick is cultural appropriation, where I wouldn’t want to start disrespectfully mimicking some South American ritual practices. You can see how the two concepts are related though. I think an attitude of respect, curiosity, openness, and sharing is best.
I think most importantly we all own the past. I think it’s only a nationalistic and borderline racist rhetoric that doesn’t recognize the interpollination that has occurred culturally and genetically all across the world. Especially for a work which goes back thousands of years, obviously the culture that lead to that artwork also contributed to the lives, in one way or another, of everyone who came after. I think the strongest argument for keeping a relic nearby where it was found is that in many ways the land shapes a people. For instance, ancient Greek art is heavily influenced by the sea, the volcanoes, the availability of marble, the proximity of other cultures. All these factors made Ancient Greek culture what it was, so whatever people continue to live in that place will also to a degree partake in those same factors and so the experience of the art may be enriched for them. The fact that it is more relevant is an argument for them holding onto a piece, however I don’t think it implies ownership, but more of a trust or stewardship. Ideally a people would recognize the relevance that world art and world heritage has for everyone, and be open to share that as widely as possible. Often however people jealously guard their identities and feel the need to exclude others.
I like the quote from the Humanist Association. I think one of the crucial reasons why the Greeks were humanist was not that they didn’t have a ‘god-centered’ life. Their temples were always built at the center of their cities and there were many religious festivals, etc. If you read for instance the Apology which deals with the trial of Socrates you see that piety is an important value to the Greeks. What made the Greeks so Humanist though is the Humanity of their Gods. Reading Greek Mythology (or watching Disney’s Hercules!) you can see the liveliness and messiness that the Gods themselves were experiencing. I think the appreciation the Greeks had for these aspects of life are what made them Humanist and cause their art to move in the directions that it did.
A contrast case that could be considered to the Humanism of the Greeks is the Spiritualism of the Ancient Egyptians. It’s interesting, because the earlier (Geometric and Archaic) periods of Greek art have a lot in common with the Ancient Egyptians. There are similar geometeric patterns, two dimensional rows on top of rows (Corinthian Olpe) and rigid postures (Kore and Kouros). However as the Greek Humanism emerged, Greek art became more passionate and dynamic. The human characters would show expressions with real emotion, joy, and suffering. There is another interesting parallel to between this trend, and the Greek mythology which presents the Olympians overthrowing the ‘Old Gods’ the titans, giants, Gaia, and Kronos. In this mythology, the Olympians are obviously the most ‘people’ with their melodramas, romances, etc. and it emphasizes the value the Greeks gradually placed onto their own Humanness. As a Philosophy major I also think it’s very interesting that this is the environment that brought a ‘think for yourself’ philosophy into the world.
