Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
RE: Kaylyn Kelly
Since you brought up body-shaming in your post is wanted to know you opinion, do you think this classical period was the first time that art started sexualizing women? Of course there are a couple factors to consider, the Greek showed obvious artistic appreciation towards the nude body, but the nude statues of women came years after the first nude figures of men. so do you think it was just an artistic appreciation or something more?I think the classical period was time when artists suddenly wanted their art to be more realistic. This is where perfect proportion comes into the picture, or at least what they considered to be perfect. This is represented in the precise, muscular details of the statues, great attention was paid to getting the proportions of the nude body just right. another example is the height, for more than one piece of art it is mentioned to be exactly 7 heads tall, when an artist deviated from this perfect idealized proportion it was actually a detail people noticed and talked about. I think this notion of perfect proportion is still very alive in art and definitely people today. After all, how many five foot tall super models do you see on magazines or tv? It is expected that a super model be at least a certain height, usually around 5’9. There are also all kinds of lengths a person could go to achieve the “perfect” proportion now a days, from simple makeup, false eyelash type things, to surgical procedures. SO yes the idea of perfect proportions from the classical time in Greece is still very much a part of our modern world.
This is a very hard question and I don’t believe there is one single correct answer. For example, it said hitler had purchased the statue, PRAXITELES’ APHRODITE OF KNIDOS is now located in Germany, along with a few other pieces of art. There were also pieces in Rome, and Italy. In my own opinion, I think ownership should belong to the culture, or country the piece of art originated from. In some cases these pieces of artwork are key artifacts in preserving history, the Egyptian art works would be a good example, or the Aegean. The ownership should belong in the hands of a museum or something similar so the art that is discovered cane studied and observed, after all it is one of the only ways to be able to connect with the past. So I think art should be available for all people to observe, enjoy, appreciate, and learn from. I think the best way to accomplish this is for the art to remain in its original culture, or country. Of course there are exceptions, like when pieces are being shown at different museums around the world, which sometimes helps to better educate people. This is definitely a tough question, but overall I think these magnificent historic works of art should be open for the public to view so they can appreciate and learn about the past cultures.
humanism is defined by a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism and empiricism) over acceptance of dogma or superstition. I think it is very clear to see the relationship between the greek art and humanism. Not only is much of the art of people, even their gods are modeled after human beings and their unique personality traits, like anger or other mood swings that were displayed by the gods. Greek art put a lot of focus on the beauty of the human body, which is evident in the fine details of their work, like the piece “MYRON’S DISCOBOLUS” or “POLYKLEITOS’ SPEAR BEARER”. So I think this shift to this more humanism centered artwork is pretty obvious, especially compared to the previous artwork we have looked at.
While there is obvious differences in the Minoan and Mycenaean culture, for an example. The Minoan art work shows a decorative palace complex, the elaborate jugs used for wine, or other festivities, shows the significance of such dinners or festivals where the jugs were used, and the bull-leaping fresco shows the Minoans did enjoy their leisure time, however maybe these just happen to be the activities or objects their art focused on. Maybe only the rich had money to commission art, so the only art that was created was for their festivals. The Mycenaen culture seems to place emphasis on strength like the lion gate, or warrior krater, or easily defended centers. But again, perhaps this is just the main part of their culture that artists focused on. I think it would be hard to interpret the life of these different people from just a few pieces of art.
Miranda, pointing out the importance of ethical archaeology was great!! Hopefully after that ordeal people really did become more sensitive to the culture. I like your idea of them maybe just being excited by their discoveries and announcing that they uncovered these mythological artifacts out of foolish excitement. Do you think they just got it wrong by accident? or was it all for a big publicity stunt?
The Palace Complex at Knossos is a great example of Arthur Evans hidden agenda, he named the complex Palace Minoan, yet the name “Minoan” was solely given by Evans because he wanted to believe he had found the palace of King Minos, a mythical Cretan king. He went on to describe a “throne room” without any proof a king or queen ever resided in the complex. His “extensive unconventional” restorations included detail that were not even from the ancient times, and in fact caused more damage, which “conservators are still trying to undo.” Another example, Evans gave the figure he found the name “Snake Goddess” and the name stuck, despite not really knowing what the figure represents.
When Schliemann discovered the “Mask of Agamemnon” it was called into question why this mask in particular had different features than the others found at the same site. It is speculated that he over restored the mask to make it more attractive to current century, probably thinking about what a publicity stunt would happen as a result.
I think the damage done by these two archaeologists did was giving the false impressions that stuck, so now what we know as the “snake goddess” could very well not be a goddess at all, And they both actually did damage the historical sites with their attempts at excavating or restoring them.Laura, you made a very interesting point!I honestly hadn’t thought about why the afterlife was much more significant in Egypt, but the idea you said about how it would be the purest from of connection with the gods is super interesting and would totally make sense!I think the Egyptian culture is fascinating although I don’t know very much about it, it would be really interesting to learn more about the motives behind their beliefs
Laura, great responses!! I really like how you explained the importance of the after life as the time to meet the gods, it actually really helped clear up the significance of the funerary rituals for me.
Lucas, you made a great point when you said the Egyptians always found a way to weave the gods into every aspect of their life, the examples you used were spot on! To me they definitely seem like the most religious people I have ever heard of, what do you think?I think that Egyptian and Mesopotamian culture both placed heavy emphasis on the gods part in everyday life, such in gods giving the kings the right to rule, and the celebrations for the gods. Both cultures were devoted to creating magnificent structures for the gods, some of which would take lifetimes to create. I think the main difference between the two cultures was the significance of the afterlife, for example the purpose of the enormous structures differed greatly. While the in the Mesopotamian culture the kings would build elaborate structures to show their power given to them by the gods, the Egyptians built structures similar in the magnitude of their size and elaborateness, however they were using tombs. or funerary homes. Instead of creating monuments to show their power, the Egyptian kings would construct extensive tombs filled with items to help them pass into the afterlife. The great pyramids are an example, also the funerary complex of king Djoser. Even the lower ranking officials would represent the importance of the after life as we see in the Funerary stele of Amenemhat. So again, I think the biggest difference is the significance of the afterlife in Egypt, after all just look at the books of the dead.
Through the artwork we can see the gods played a very significant role in everyday life of the Egyptian people. In particular if you were a king, or other high ranking official, it was by divine right given from the gods, so the kings would devote a lot of time to pleasing the gods, for example building elaborate temples and shrines such as in the Funerary Temple of Hatshepsut. The temple of Amun at Karnak is another great example of the how highly devoted the Egyptians were to their gods, the article by Livescience.com says the temple was built, modified and rebuilt for over 2,000 years. The Egyptians obviously but a lot of value into honoring their gods with shrines, elaborate building, and the approval of the gods seemed very important in the artwork. In the Palette of King Narmer the goddess of Hathor is shown at the top of the piece and the god Horus is shown to be helping defeat the enemy alongside the king. The obsession with the afterlife and the rituals surrounding the passage is just another one of the many examples we have to show the Egyptians were highly devoted to their religion.
Jessi,
You were spot on with your example I especially like how you point out that every king would make a show of his connection to the gods, whether that be consulting with a god or being displayed as the same height as the gods. Your use of a modern example of Hussein trying to show his power by building an elaborate structure as the rulers that came before him did was also a good pointTo Miranda,
I like the example you used of queen Puabi having a feast while her servants fanned her, it’s a really good, simple show of the differences in daily life depending on which social class you belonged to. As well as your other example, how the ruler made himself appear godlike and much larger than any other figure pictured. There are always seems to be far more detail in the images of the kings or other royal family members, than any other man or animal picturedThe different rulers all followed a similar pattern, artwork showing them communicating with the gods, building huge elaborate structures, or engaging in some kind of ceremony or celebration. Examples would include the carved vessel from Uruk, the King-Priest conversing with Inanna, the Stele of Hammurabi receiving the laws from the god to act as an intermediary, Assurbanipal is shown in more than one work either killing the lions in ceremonial show of power, or celebrating in the garden with his queen. The Ishtar gate, and the Nqsh-e Rustam are only two examples of the enormous and dramatic structures that must have taken years to construct. So I think the rulers would show their power with the magnitude of their structures, and somehow include that is was the will of the gods.
Saddam Huessein tried to rebuild Babylon as a power showcase. He had a palace constructed to replicate the one from the time of Nebuchadnezzar.He also partially restored the lower level of the Nanna Ziggurut.I think the artwork gives us a pretty good idea of the social hierarchy. The king, or King-priest was glorified by the people, and served by slaves more than one piece of art depicts such a scene, like the carved vessel, or “ASSURBANIPAL AND HIS QUEEN IN THE GARDEN”. In the Stele of Hammurabi it shows the king to be the same height as the god (unless the god was to stand up) which means the king was seen to be the highest figure of authority. The common people would gather for ceremonies or celebrations for the king, as one piece shows to watch him kill lions as a symbol of his strength. The lives of the common people are not shown in the artwork but it is implied the people were to follow the kings rules, maintain the land, help build the enormous structures, and the other less desirable jobs. So, there was the king, and royal family at the top of the social hierarchy, most likely followed by priests, the soldiers, the common people, then the slaves. The gods were a very important aspect to in everyones life regardless of their social class.
