Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
ckocsis, since you mentioned it, Helios absolutely is a clear sign of Roman influence. Actually does anyone else thing Helios is kind of out of place in the Christian artwork? I wonder what the backstory is to that piece, it is the only one in the entire collection to show a god.
Lacey, I think you have a really interesting view on the matter. I really like you point that art was a reminder to be “moral”. I kind of get the message “God is always watching” from a lot of the pieces.
It appears that the Old Saint Peter’s Basilica bears some resemblence to the Basilica of Maxentius and Constantine. The early Jewish and Christian artworks, specifically painting also bears a strong resemblence to the Roman paintings, for instance I looked at the Roman mosaics and saw a similar style in this weeks paintings. It seems like the Jewish and Christian structures were inspired by the Roman architecture with many pieces or structures featuring the dome shape that is commonly seen in Roman buildings. I think the catacombs in the Jewish and Christian culture was a blending of Roman, Etruscan, and Egyptian burial places.
The early Jewish and Christian art definitely has some difference from the other civilizations art we have seen so far. In comparison to previous cultures, for the most part early Jewish and Christian art doesn’t represent images of false idols, and they don’t depict multiple gods, instead they only mention one, Christ, and he is not actually shown in these pieces of art work. I found that there is an exception; the “ZODIAC MOSAIC AT THE BEIT ALPHA SYNAGOGUE” shows Helios, a Greco-Roman sun god, but I think that is one of the only times another god is shown. There are images of saints, for instance “THE ORATORY OF GALLA PLACIDIA” or the madonna with child, but I don’t believe those were created with the intention of worship so they wouldn’t be considered graven images. So overall no figure was being represented as a god in any of the Jewish or Christian artwork, they were not being intended for worship as we have seen in other cultures.
For my final project I did my own version of “William the Faience Hippopotamus” from the ancient Egypt New Kingdom. I used scullery in my recreation and my own hippo is named Willamina.
here is a link to my presentation:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1F1dx5jiovmK61VaZE8gCJHV59qEAvPbznuL9KDqsj20/edit?usp=sharingAnd to my paper:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pO6MhHQVvseYvz-XTOAaBheKa71QwCX8_mZctRdgPYU/edit?usp=sharingckocsis, The equestrian statue was a really great example of a subtle way to show that someone was a powerful leader. Maggie, I like how you connect that art is a way of communication and how the Romans used it as such when they were creating propaganda.
The Augustus of Primaporta was my personal favorite example, there are so many techniques being used to make this statue into a propaganda art piece. From him being shown in his military body armor showing he is a strong victorious warrior, yet the image on his armor showing him to be fair. the cupid and the dolphin showing his ancestry and divine right to rule by the gods approval. The statue itself was modeled using the proportions from of Polykeitos’ Doryphorus and then the pose of the Orator is also being used to combine these well known figures. All of these techniques are being used to portray Augustus in a particular way. The arch of Constantine and the Colossus of Constantine were examples of showing victory and making Constantine’s presence known even when he was not in Rome.
csayreswoody, I definitely agree with your statement about how popular it is to copy roman art today, and it definitely has a place in many museums and is probably one of the most visited places specifically for viewing ancient artworks. I think an important part of the roman influence is also that many pieces from the ancient roman time period are still standing today, showing that they are well built strong structures. I have to wonder if the roman use of marble is what influenced the use of marble today, after all a lot of houses use marble countertops, and it is used in many other ways in a home.
I can think of plenty of examples of roman art influencing modern art. I was actually just housesitting in a house that had many pillars or columns inside and out that were styled very similar to the ones seen here in the ancient roman art works, although they were only for decretive purposes not holding up the structure. There are also a great deal of official buildings that seem to have gotten their design inspiration from the ancient roman architecture, using a similar dome shape. Sports stadiums are built in a style that resembles the colosseum. Aqueducts and bridges are another example of modern art that utilizes the designs found in Ancient Rome.
Aubri, I like the point you made about the husband and wife wanting to remain together in the afterlife. This is definitely unique, considering in Egyptian culture the married couples were separated (valley of the kings, valley of the queens). You also pointed out how the change in status of women possibly played a positive role in the society function, we know that Greek and Latin cultures considered such displays of affection and equal status as offensive, I wonder why the culture here was so different in their views on women. Any theories?
This is such an interesting shift! This is the first time we see intimacy being displayed between a husband and wife. Not only that, but it said the Greek and Latin cultures even saw such displays as offensive. The women were clearly treated different in the Etruscan culture, the aren’t being shown as sitting lower than the men, they are shown on equal platforms; as we see in the Cerveteri Sarcophagus and the Sarcophagus of Larth Tetnies and Thanchvil Tarnai, there is a sense of intimacy being shown between the man and woman. This indicates women were more privileged in this society, which means they probably enjoyed more freedom as well. They were able to participate in banquets, funerary rites, rituals, and other parts of public life. It is emotionally moving to see the Sarcophagus of Larth Tetnies and Thanchvil Tarnai was commissioned by the couple to show an eternal loving embrace. In the Cerverteri Sarcophagus the way the couple are draped around each other while at a banquet shows a public display of affection. This is absolutely unique to any other art work that we have looked at, it is a really interesting change.
While I could see both sides of the argument, I guess it could depend on your personal values and what you think makes art progressive. In my opinion I see the Hellenistic period as very progressive. It takes the some of the amazing perfect proportions, and details of the human body that were so popular in the classical period and then applies those tools to make more realistic, relatable art. The Hellenistic period artworks show more emotion than most of the previous pieces we have looked at. The Laocoon for example, shows the precise details that went into defining the muscles on the figures, but unique to the Hellenistic period, shows so much emotion, the contorted face and body show “immense physical and emotional distress” which is an aspect I see as progressive. I mentioned this in my other post, but again the art from this period seems to show more movement. I absolutely see the art from this period as progressive.
Maggie, I was totally thinking along the same lines as you. I think it is progression to show the shift toward humanism and the importance of the individual, instead of many displays seen in previous art of the gods, or strictly of royalty. I think it was a very important step in art history, this changed the focus off the, as you said, unobtainable god-like aspects, to the human side, more of an image you would see in daily life- the old woman is a great example.
RE: Kaylyn kelly, I really like how you pointed out the Hellenistic period art pieces showed more emotions than the previous era. It definitely seems to be one of the biggest changes, the art suddenly seemed to be focused around the emotion of the person being depicted, and then the setting was created around the emotion being shown. Whereas the classical period was more focused on the muscle mass, or perfect aspects of the beautiful human body.
I think Hellenistic art definitely deferred from the popular perfect proportions of the classical period. It showed a broader range of human bodies, and age ranges of those figures. The sleeping cupid, the older women are examples out of the ordinary, no perfect or ideal body is shown in these pieces. Another huge difference that I see, is motion. A lot of the pieces in the Hellenistic era seem to be in motion or showing an action, the Pergamon struggling against death, the Laocoon and his sons in agony as they are attacked by the snake sent from the gods. Even the Aphrodite of Melos, while it closely resembles a piece that would be found in the classical period, the artist added a twist in her body, showing movement. SO I think it can be regarded as more individualistic than the classical era because it focus deeply on the movement or actions of one person, and it is more diverse because it does not simply focus on the young, muscular men, or the young sensual women, it shows the gods, children, young and old people, a very diverse range.
