Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Hey Laura,
I agree with you (as seen in my post on the contrapposto pose as well). I didn’t even think to connect that ‘perfect image’ of the human body to all the editing and unnatural diets models use today to achieve the ‘ideal’ body. Although it is crazy to see the kind of work that goes into a person achieving their ‘ideal’ image, it has created a toxic culture of body shaming unfortunately (even though most people are nowhere near that ‘ideal’ image).
Where Classical Greek art had a large influx of contrapposto and ‘silver ratio’ designs, the Hellenistic era almost completely moved on from these concepts (although they built on them). There is no one thing tying this era of art together – we see gods and godesses represented as well as man, and none of them have a true line of connection through all of them. The two large male sculptures we see in The Hellenistic Period are Pergamon and The Laocoon – both of which are in pain. However, Pergamon, the Dying Gallic Trumpeter, lacks the ‘ideal body’ seen in previous works from the classic period. The sculpture of Laocoon and His Sons have idealized bodies, but are in the unique pose of being strangled by a single, very large, snake.
There is the statue of sleeping Eros, which is the most unique from this era – depicting the chubby small god in a sleeping position. Nike of Samothrace and Aphrodite of Melos are similar in the effect that they are in somewhat of a contrapposto, but with their left legs instead of their right. Thus, with all these unique aspects, it makes plenty of sense that Hellenistic art is regarded as more individualistic than Classical Greek art.
In the Classical Period we see the introduction of contrapposto in sculptures and painted art, presented a more dynamic and ‘perfect’ interpretation of the human. Not only did the ideal posture in sculpting become this, but an ideal person started to have strong musculature (which is still an idea upheld by people in today’s society). Almost every body of the sculptures of the classical period are the same; nude and idealized musculature. The only thing that changes between the sculptures are the faces.
In temple building the ‘ideal proportion’ is much less direct. A majority of the structures are built in similar proportions (sometimes referred to as the ‘silver ratio’) and looks (open front with columns arranged).
These sculptures, architecture, and art all represent change because they are what brought about the major changes in art of the time – moving away from awkward profiles and proportions to a realistic and ideal representation of the human.
Much of Greek art centers on the concept of humanism. Do some research on this term and discuss how it relates to the art that you have looked at this week.
Humanism is defined as, by the American Humanist Association, a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism or other supernatural beliefs, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good. It is “informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by compassion.” With this exact definition in mind, I don’t see how the Greek’s art focuses on humanism at all (strictly with this given definition in mind).
However, when I think of humanism off the top of my head I do not think of the former definition – I think of a human-centered rather than a god-centered culture and Greek’s represent that aspect very well. Though a lot of Greek’s architecture is designed with their pantheon of gods in mind, much of their more ‘everyday art’ is focused around themselves as beings. General people are commonly seen in sculptures and, to some extent, pottery, whereas the gods are more of a background. If I recall correctly, we don’t even see a sculpture/art explicitly crafted in the form of a single deity in mind until the Hellenistic Period, where Athena/Nike start to show up, and the statue of Aphrodite of Melos.Hey elkingkade,
I didn’t even think about the Minoans being isolated affecting their lack of conflict – that is a very good point. Also, the fact that the Mycenaeans constructed their cities in easily defend-able places makes them clearly the more aggressive of the two, along with a lot of their constructions helping for defense (as you stated, the Lion Gate). Good job!
Hey Miranda,
I thought I’d change it up this week and respond to a question about my post – should be different!
I think the obvious answer is that these men didn’t care about altering cultural material but I don’t think that is the correct one. I want to think that, during their time, these sorts of discoveries weren’t as unique or special or they simply didn’t understand how magnificent / important we would view them in the future. I doubt that they were aware that their actions would deliberately change how we view those materials today or that we would remember them today the way we do. I feel like I’m having trouble putting this into words, but something along the lines of ‘they didn’t want to mess up anything or cause a problem, or didn’t think it would be a problem in the future.’ Something like that, I guess?
Your second question is really interesting too – it is making me think a lot. Part of me wants to say that our technology of archaeology and ethics behind digs evolved separately, meaning that if we didn’t have the technology we did today then we would still refrain from altering artifacts and sites. However, that is impossible to tell and I think it would still fully be possible for archaeologists to alter them today if they really wanted to. Thanks for asking these questions, they are really something to think about!The idea of aggressive Mycenaeans is definitely seen in their art. Art we see in the Ancient Aegean Wing shows this especially well, in their obsession with predator animals (lions) seen in The Lion Gate entering the citadel of Mycenae. Not only that, but displayed on The Mycenaean Ceramics: the Warrior Krater, there are many people dressed and equipped for war (shields, spears, and armor).
The peace of the Minoans is not as obvious as the aggressiveness as the Mycenaeans, but it is still displayed in their works. The marine style ceramic, the Octopus Flask, is a very good example of this. An octopus isn’t necessarily a commonly seen aggressive animal (like the lion), but the depiction of the cartoon-like eyes makes it more peaceful and playful at first glance. To some extent, their peaceful nature is also displayed in the Kamares Ware Jug, which is decorated with plants and curved shapes, as apposed to square shapes and war figures.
The biggest example that jumps out to me as to how these two men have affected how we look at art of the ancient Aegean world is that of the Mask of Agamemnon, discovered by Heinrich Schliemann in Mycenae. Today, scholars have ‘debunked’ that the mask is not a representation of King Agamemnon, due to all the differences with other representations of Agamemnon and the inconsistencies of Mycenaean fashion (the handlebar mustache). His personal agenda of wanting to find stuff belonging and fashioned toward Agamemnon and his achievements blurred what the mask (among other things in Mycenae) meant, and that lead to what we believe today as the mask being tampered with. Even so, we still call it ‘The Mask of Agamemnon’ today, despite it (most likely) not belonging to the old king.
Sir Arthur Evans has blurred (though not as major) our view of ‘The Palace Complex at Knossos.’ Today it is thought that the complex was not actually a palace for a king, but instead a sort of communal home for aristocrats, yet the name still stands. This is far from Schliemann’s tampering with the mask, but the coloring of our perception is still displayed in the common name for the architecture.Hey Aalieyah,
I agree that the Egyptians were a very religious people. It as if the art was created for the gods and out of respect and worship for them, rather than creating them for personal enjoyment / everyday use (like a vase or pot with depictions of hunting on them, with symbolism of the Nile and life). I think that these people lived to worship and respect their gods, and believed it was necessary to show in their actions and creations.
Hey Maggie,
I definitely agree with your point on the Egyptians focusing in on the afterlife and easing that transition. You state that the practice of high burial status was also practiced in Mesopotamia – but (if I recall correctly) that was also the extent of the Egyptian’s practices as well, at least up until the New Kingdom where there are some lower class citizens that are buried (such as scribes). I think there religious traditions were most definitely different, while the burials were somewhat similar. Egyptian art as a whole just had much more of a focus on death itself.
This answer will be slightly similar to my first post – but I will do my best to differentiate the two as much as possible.
First, I think the Egyptians relationship with their gods is extremely evident in nearly all the art they create. From the Palette of King Narmer, all the way to the Books of the Dead in the New Kingdom, the Egyptians always found a way to weave their gods (and their respect for them) into their artwork. In the Palette of King Narmer, the god Horus is depicted as a falcon – which not only represents the rising sun (connected to their most revered god, Ra) but also is depicted as the king of all the birds in the ancient world, which together all shows their amount of respect for their deities. The falcon and many other animals are also depicted on many of the kings / pharaoh’s headdresses.
An example from the New Kingdom is present at the front of the Temple of Ramses II – there are four enormous statues (three standing) of the pharaoh in front of the temple, but centered above the entryway is two carvings of the pharaoh bowing to Ra-Horakhty, which represents the upmost respect (again) for even the highest of the gods. Even though Ramses saw himself as deified, he still had respect for the other gods as well.I think a large difference between artistic works of the Mesopotamian region and the Egyptian region is the depiction of social hierarchy. While both do display social rankings in similar ways, there is much less focus of it in the Egyptian pieces. Most of the Egyptian pieces show the king by himself and sometimes with his wife / family (seen in the ‘Menakaure and Queen’ piece, as well as the ‘Nebamun Hunting Birds in the Marshes’ piece). In the ones that aren’t a pharaoh / king with his family, there is a large emphasis on their connection with the gods which is seen on ‘The Palette of King Narmer,’ the Temple of Ramses II and many more. Aside from humanistic representations in art, there are also prominent images throughout many of the pieces – such as growing papyrus and the Nile full of life – mainly fish – seen in ‘Nebamun Hunting Birds in the Marshes,’ ‘Funerary Stele,’ ‘Ti Watching a Hippopotamus Hunt,’ and the collection of Predynastic Ceramics.
Miranda,
I also liked the representation displayed in the cylinder seals. They are rather straightforward in their depiction of a hierarchy and display actions that probably took place during the time of their creation. I would also argue in your second example that the helmet Naram-sin wears not only represents his significance and ranking over his soldiers but also the connection kings/rulers have with their deities/gods. It could also be significant that soldiers and fallen enemies are on a similar level to each other!
Hey Valene,
I 100% agree with your point on religion being such a huge aspect of the ancient people’s lives. You pointed out that they would never want to disobey their priest-king, because defying them would be defying the gods as well – which I think is another great point. You also stated that Saddam Hussein used the Ziggurat of Ur to try and protect planes by hoping people would respect the areas cultural significance. However, I still think his idea was a good one – they didn’t attack the area out of disrespect for the culture they only did because of the man that was there. We also see that there is a mass amount of respect for the area / ziggurat itself because even Hussein wanted to reconstruct it (at least in part).
The cultures of the Ancient Near East maintained a strict social hierarchy. The rules and conditions of everyday life, politics, and commerce changed based on your position in society. Discuss examples of this and how the visual record of Mesopotamia helps us understand the lives of its inhabitants.
I think the biggest and best example of social hierarchy in Mesopotamia comes from the Carved Vessel from Uruk. It is a rather simple piece of art, but the symbolism present in it is extremely prevalent. The top register depicts the priest-king Dumuzi on the same level as the goddess Inanna, while there are offerings being handed to her. Under that there is a large bar, representing the difference between the king / gods and the next ‘level’ of people, the servants, who are in the second register. Following that is another large bar, splitting the difference between servants and animals. The last two registers are very close together – animals and lastly plants – showing their similar importance in the hierarchy of beings. I think the biggest thing to note here is that the difference between priest-king / god and servant is the same as the difference between servant and plant / animal, so the priest-kings (or rulers in general) see themselves not only a different level than the servants, but as way higher and more important than the servants could ever be.
