Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
RE: sjsaccomen
Hey sjsaccomen,
I like the view that you had on artifacts and who should claim them. You stated that it was okay for artifacts to be owned by anyone and the sole purpose should only be to educate others. I agree with this statement and it opened up my mind to how I thought about this question. I said that no one should be able to say they own a piece of artwork that isn’t theirs only because they could then do whatever they wanted with it whether it be good or bad.RE: sjsaccomen
You had a very nice response about humanism and Ancient Greek artwork! The only thing that I would recommend is adding in a few examples of the artwork we went over this week. I look forward to reviewing more of your posts!There are many individuals out there that sell old artifacts that they find. Is it morally right to sell work that isn’t yours? It is hard to know if there is a right or wrong when dealing with artwork but I do not think it should be “owned’ by anyone other than its creator. Prehistoric art on up to Ancient Greek artwork does not have anyone around to be the physical owner due to how old it is. This allows for our human nature to kick in. We become greedy, believe everything on this earth needs ownership, and thus leading to humans taking action into their own hands. Artwork is sold without consent which allows people to make a profit from something that never was theirs in the first place. It is a circle that continuously goes round and round with artifacts. Any historical artifact in my mind should not be sold nor profits made from it. Art should also be kept in the original place it was created in. Many pieces of art from Ancient Greece is now in Munich, Germany which is used for educational purposes but still does not seem right to take it from where it was created. An example of art being moved would be The Kouros figures from Attica Greece. These figures have been moved across the world to New York to be put into a museum. In my eyes, I see these figures or any form of art having more significance in the place it was made.
In the Egyptian period, religious pieces such as the gods and goddesses were not symbolized by human figures. They were usually in the form of half human half animal. Unlike Egyptian art, Greek art was centered on the concept of humanism. The gods were not the center of attention anymore. They were considered to be just like humans and could even be seen as not needed anymore if they were just like us. The Greeks put the human body first and believed that our bodies were “godly’ because humans looked just like gods. In Ancient Greece, they formed their gods into human form. The Classical period and the Hellenistic period are the most significant times of the Greek culture in my eyes. It is when Greek individuals began to sculpt the human body, perfecting it, and making it look almost flawless. I believe that the Greeks had a mindset for their art, “If the gods look like us, then we look like the gods; thus, our bodies are godly’ which gave sculptures the drive to pay attention to every detail. The poses of the Greek sculptures were becoming more naturalistic, for example, Charioteer of Delphi. The technical skills of Greek sculptors depicting the human form in a variety of poses also increased such as Aphrodite of Melos and The Nike of Samothrace. This was when humans and our human features started getting put first compared to other eras were gods were the center of attention.
RE: ckosis
The view that you had on the discussion post was completely different it looks like when reading other classmates information. You explained that “The Mycenaeans celebrate conflict, while the Minoans celebrate times when there wasn’t conflict.” I did not think about it this way and find it very interesting to view their art this way. I thought completely opposite of you and believed that the artwork each culture created was what they were experiencing in their own cultures. This made the most sense to me and could be seen as a beneficial way to observe the Minoan and Mycenaean cultures.RE: Miranda
Your post was very well thought out and I agreed with all of the information you explained. In your post, you stated, “Instead of finding evidence that leads to the conclusion of the mask representing the king, he came to the conclusion first that it’s Agamemnon and then fit the evidence to the theory”. Do you think that Schliemann could have done this for publicity and also altered “The Mask of Agamemnon” for that reason? Maybe he purposefully looked over the information and altered the mask for this reason.The Minoans and the Mycenaeans seem to be completely different cultures and individuals. The Minoans did not seem to worry about conflict as much as the Mycenaeans did. This can even be seen in some of the artwork. Because of the Mycenaeans having so much conflict with themselves and others I believe this is something that highly influenced the art the created. The Minoan people created beautiful work. They also created such nice work because of their cultural ways. The Minoan culture seemed to have the mindset to focus more on luxurious and beautiful items like the kamares jugs and artworks depicting festivities. While the Mycenaean culture focused on strength and the advantages of war such as the lion gate or the warrior krater. I believe the day to day lives these cultures had were shown in the pieces of the artwork that were created.
Sir Arthur Evans and Heinrich Schliemann both went into their discoveries with a preconceived opinion that was not based on reason or their actual experiences. Heinrich Schliemann discovered “The Mask of Agamemnon’. Schliemann was considered an amateur archaeologist.
He announced his finding as the funerary mask supposedly placed over the Mycenean king Agamemnon. Schliemann did not truly know this. It was just a publicity stunt. Once found and uncovered the mask did not fit Schliemann’s standards so he altered “The Mask of Agamemnon’. Schiemann over restored this mask and made it more attractive to 19th-century sensibilities.
Unlike Schilemann, Sir Arthur Evans did not alter his discovery of the “Snake Goddesses’. Evans found the “Snake Goddess’ without a head and half of her left arm. So instead of adding things to the sculpture he simply recreated what he thought should have been in its place to look similar.
These two archaeologists altered their discoveries which makes it difficult for our generation of archaeologists to examine. Because of Evans and Schliemann not having proper archaeologist etiquette, it allows the archaeologist field which we have now to grow and develop ways to avoid their practices.RE: Valene
Hey Valene,
Your post was well written and well thought out. I agree with you that the kings/ rulers used religion to show their power. I think that they used religion against their commoners because everyone at the time believed in it and why would they want to disobey their Gods. So this allowed for the kings to set the laws and use their power the most.RE: tmbergan
Hey tmbergan,
Your post was very informal and added a lot of extra information for me. I did not see some of the things how you did. We did end up having the same thoughts about the modern political forces on how Saddam Hussien parked his jets by the Ziggurat of Ur. I found it so interesting that he tried using that as a war tactic to see if other countries would respect ancient religious monuments of other places.An example that visually shows social hierarchy from the ancient near east is the carved vessel from Uruk. At the bottom of the vessel there is vegetation which is the lowest on the chain. Next, the animals are shown which slowly moves up the chain. They are higher than the lifeless vegetation. Next, you have the men caring the bowls which could be considered the lower class but they’re still higher than the livestock. Finally, you have the highest individuals which are the kings and goddesses. This vessel portrayed the social hierarchy in the ancient near east very well.
The rulers of the Mesopotamian cultures had a common theme. They all connected their leadership to the Gods and other religious ways. Their artwork showed the communication that they believed and told individuals they had with the Gods. Religion was a huge part of individuals lives during that era. The rulers could use this against the common people because of how much the commoners believed in the Gods. They didn’t want to disobey their Gods so they also listened to the kings rules. This is why the rulers created large structures of Gods to go up in their communities. They used it for the commoners to see. If they could visually see their Gods they wouldn’t disobey as much. Rulers again used this as a tactic to rule and show power. Rulers also used their “power” to make their communities build the religious structures for them. People also wouldn’t say no because it was for a religious purpose. An example of that would be the Ziggurat of Ur.
The Ziggurat of Ur has been used by modern political forces. Saddam Hussein parked his jets near the Ziggurat of Ur because its an ancient site hoping it wouldn’t be bombed. He thought others countries wouldn’t bomb the ancient site.Valene,
I agree with your response fully! The images were very easy to see and make out. I do not see it as abstract art. Abstract art in my eyes is something hard to make out that you have to be creatively thinking when looking at it. You mentioned the prehistoric era individuals being more concerned about their survival then creating abstract images and I believe that is true.I don’t agree that prehistoric art is abstract. I think the art of today is considered abstract so when I look at the art of today and then look at the prehistoric era I do not think the art from long ago is abstract. Abstract in my eyes is when a painting or image is not clear. You have to use your creative mind to understand the image. The art of the prehistoric area seemed to have structure and I was able to make out what I saw with no issues. The images had meaning and needed to be clear for others to understand.
Miranda,
I also believe that prehistoric art was a beneficial form of communication for individuals. It was used as a teaching tool and also a way to tell stories. I also liked your comment about tribes having symbols to communicate with one another. I never thought of it that way but now that you said it I could see that being a beneficial form of art.
