Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
When I was 14 I actually went to the theater at Epidauros. Something about the proportions definitely amplified sound so you could hear what was happening even when you were all the way at the top. My teacher read Green Eggs and Ham aloud to us! So I think you’re right about the Fibonacci sequence!
I’ve always been curious why Eros is a cherub. Is it because babies are more embodied and passionate? Eros and cupid both seem strange to me! But I agree that they are more interesting and different than the usual uniform Greek diety.
The thing which strikes me about Hellenistic art versus Classical art is how much more emotion is shown on the statues. Anguish in particular is emphasized and characters go way beyond contrapposto. The Laocoon is one of my favorite pieces of art of all time. For some reason I like the way the snake is fighting all three of them simultaneously, it seems very excessive. This excess is one aspect of all the Hellenistic art which is much more unique and stands out, whereas the Classical emphasis on proportion made everything uniform. I wonder if the deities that the Greeks were worshiping shifted during this time period to reflect the change in artistic tastes – a question for the historians!
As with the pursuit of perfection in any circumstance, the goal is ultimately unattainable and shifts the more that one tries to chase it. Naturally what it meant to have a perfect proportion changed for the Greeks throughout the classical period. For instance, the early classical statue Kritios Boy more closely resembles the Kore of earlier times, whereas by the late classical period statues showed more gesture and emotion as in the Lysippos’ Man Scraping Himself. This is an anticipation of the Hellenic period, but also indicates that the Greeks view of perfection moved from the abstract to a more embodied form throughout the period. I think this can be seen in our culture in the shift from 50s chic, suits, etc. to now a more provocative, informal, and often chaotic ascetic a la Lady Gaga.
I definitely agree that both cultures probably experienced ‘war’ and ‘peace’ at different times. Their choices in art certainly represent what they care about and found important. I think probably too though the Minoans fought less than the Mycenaean because of geography or for whatever political reasons.
While I’m sure that any human life encompasses the array of experiences from violence, to joyful celebration and that these things come in various degrees, a certain cultures values can certainly be reasonably speculated about based on their artwork. Just at a very simply level, the choice of what to put on the sides of their pots says something about what these people cared about and thought was worth saving. For instance, the ancient Egyptians obviously cared a great deal about funerals, and lo and behold their pots are covered in funeral-related imagery. That the Minoan pots had stuff like octopuses and abstract plants whereas the Mycenaean pots had monotone drab soldiers certainly indicates that the lives of the Minoans were more concerned with interacting with and celebrating natures and probably eating octopuses, while the Mycenaean’s consciousness was thinking about the battles that had been, and had yet to be fought.
Kaitlyn –
Your post did a good job listing the damages done by Sir Evans and Schliemann. I agree that they went beyond pure ‘observation’ and they were definitely trying to accomplish some sort of cultural / personal prestige garnering with their ‘restorative work’. Still, I feel like at they time Europe was heavily into imperialism and were not giving much respect to other culture in general, so the fact that these people were making efforts to preserve the past and present it to others is a ‘good’ thing, despite the damage they may have done.
Sir Arthur Evans lived around the turn of the 20th century which was notably a time of colonialism and white supremacy. People at that time were pretty unsubtle looking for reasons to justify the imperialism of European society. Since the Mediterranean is the place where western civilization traces most of its roots, the bias of the people who were discovering these sites and interpreting their findings is expected. One thing that struck me looking through this wing is how similar Aegean artifacts appear to those of Egyptian and the Middle East.
I think it’s pretty hard not to project ones own cultural values, from ethics to something like a rational perspective, onto any culture that one studies. This is probably double for a culture that is a part of one’s heritage. It’s still amazing that people like Sir Evans put so much effort into uncovering artifacts and arranging them, that despite the errors they may have made in their interpretations, their achievements are still praiseworthy.I like the point you made about the effort that the ancient Egyptians put into caring for their ‘artwork’ that represented their gods. Food offerings are a part of religious practices everywhere (except for Christianity! I wonder why that is? #FoodForJesus). Food and fresh clothing everyday certainly shows how much reverence the Egyptians had for their deities.
In the proto-dynastic artwork, Gods were shown around the depictions of ruler-ship sharing with them divine authority. Of course chimeric figures like the Sphinx served as protectors. If you dive into Egyptian mythology, you can see there is a God for just about every aspect of nature and life, and depictions of these Gods show up on wall-carvings, pots, etc. This shows the way that the Egyptians viewed the forces of the world around them as animated and alive and controlled by spiritual forces. This in shaped the way that Egyptians behaved, leading to elaborate ritual and especially grandiose tombs.
I agree that the importance that the Egyptians gave to the afterlife really distinguishes them as a cultured. I’ve heard a few different theories on why that was… I think an interesting (and kind of sad) theory is that this life just wasn’t that great for the people of ancient Egypt, so they looked to the next one. Either way, ancient Egyptian royalty certainly got mortuary treatment that no one else has received since!
As other posts have noted, the main difference in priorities seems to be that where Mesopotamian art seemed to emphasize politics and law the Egyptians cared more about their gods and spirituality. Of course there is much that both cultures had in common, for instance Ziggurats and Pyramids really aren’t that different, as both served to impress everyone and show that their builder were closer to the Gods. Both cultures created statues and images of their rulers, such as the funerary bust of King Tut. Hammurabi’s laws have a certain logic to them. Likewise the Mesopotamian cuneiform records showed secular transactions. While this sort of secular record probably does exist in the field of Egyptology, it isn’t what Ancient Egypt is famous for. The Egyptian system of Gods and Tombs is incredibly sophisticated. Mythology about the afterlife was obviously hugely important to them.
Your post does a good job laying out classic social castes! But I wonder if there was any social privileged associated with being a trader or merchant. Since writing cuneiform was a new technology and most of the population was probably illiterate, it would make sense that people who possessed that skill might be well provided for.
The first thing that really stuck out to me was how in the Cylindrical Seals the figures are identifiable as women because of their fringed skirts and pulled back hair, which is super fascinating because (for better or worse) those same qualities could be used to identify someone as a woman today in our society. That goes to show how enduring some of these social structures are! The fact that these people cared about writing down their transactions and laws, from the earliest cuneiform tablets to Hammurabi’s Stele, shows that they were concerned with stability and creating something that would last. So it’s not surprising that their culture was socially stratified without much up and down social movement. It seems like their mythology reflected this, as we can see with the depictions of the rulers and Gods. Of course life probably was more comfortable for people in higher social positions. As discussed in the video, the punishments laid out by Hammurabi’s code certainly favored the privileged.
I agree that the rulers serving as an intermediary to the Gods is a repetitive theme in all this artwork that serves to legitimize the authority of ancient Mesopotamian rulership. I wonder if similar tactics aren’t used today. What are our rulers intermediaries of? We think of them as carrying the collective will of the people., but is that a good thing or would it be better to think of our leadership as just people trying to do their best governing? Maybe this is an off-topic tangent :p but its what your post made me think of!
