Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I definitely feel that Hellenistic art was a progression of humanism. Though they still portrayed gods as superior, they made the gods more human-like, in figure, size, and expression. I can see both sides but tend to believe it was more so progression.
Valene- Funny little tidbit on their homes not having windows. I wonder if that was more so for protection rather than privacy…? Either way, interesting.
The Hellenistic era is characterized by the spread of Greek influence after the death of Alexander the Great. Artists moved beyond images of the ideal and instead represented a greater range of subject matter. However, there is no one style that unites the work from this era. Describe how Hellenistic art can be regarded as being more individualistic and diverse than Classical Greek art?
I rather appreciate the individualistic qualities of Hellenistic art. We can see the diversity deepen from classical Greek art. Old Woman, for example, has a slumped posture and a gaunt face, though still a beautiful piece of work. I also appreciate the more organic posture of the statues during this time, like in THE NIKE OF SAMOTHRACE, and an even more extreme example in LAOCOÖN AND HIS SONS. Their bodies are not stoick, they are not stable, they are much more free form. The subject matter was more diverse, the activities of the subjects were broader, from agony to complete relaxation. This is a time that really seems to push the comfort of the viewer, broadening boundaries of the artists.
Miranda- The mathematical attention is pretty mind-blowing. Artists of that time were so much more than artists.
In the Classical period artists tried to represent ideal proportion in both the human body and in temple building. How does the art of the period demonstrate changing views on ideal proportion and how do you see this same preoccupation in our own contemporary society?
It seems as though, during the classical period, artists focussed on subjects that were at their peak, muscular bodies, mellow faces, ideal stance, contrapposto. It seems as though their idea of ideal proportion wasn’t necessarily realistic, but very much artistic. In POLYKLEITOS’ SPEAR BEARER, you can see, and measure, that his body is seven heads tall, beautiful attention to detail, but also a very artistic rendition of a human body. This mimics human nature that we see today. Our society’s concept of ideal is very much based on the idealistic proportion and artistic quality of a body. During the classical period, it seems as though ideas shifted to reflect a sense of vanity, and unfortunately, it seems our contemporary society is a bit hung up on that idea too.
“The definition of humanism is a belief that human needs and values are more important than religious beliefs, or the needs and desires of humans.”
Based on the art of ancient Greece presented, I’d say it was safe to say that the idea of humanism was freshly emerging. The use of subjects that were that of simple human needs can be seen, but you do still see the representation of gods. One thing to note is the Greeks ability to capture human form a bit more accurately. With these they also represented their gods in a more humanlike way, size is one way that they humanized the gods, but I believe they still weighed of heavy importance. As time progressed, the symbolism started to dissipate and the art was centered more so on the daily life of the greeks and the preservation of human imagery.Good point on the fact that the artifacts should be accessible to all. I was of a different mind, but i can see it both ways.
I very much believe that artifacts found, belong to the culture that they came from. If this is undefinable or the culture has dissipated, it belongs to the property owner, where the site was located. I don’t really believe it should go to the one that finds it unless there is an agreement with the property owner. I suppose it is also dependent who funds the dig… but it does get rather sticky.
Maggie- I liked that you recognized the visual appearance difference in the artist’s portrayal.
“especially in the artistic shift towards representing the human body more accurately”
That’s an important thing to note.Kaitlyn-
Totally agree. Its definitely difficult to define a culture on art pieces alone, especially such minimal amounts. Who commissions the art and the cultures that don’t require a commission to create are definitely an idea to consider.Minoan culture, from our contemporary perspective, is often seen as carefree and peaceful. People lived in harmony with their environment. The Mycenaeans, on the other hand, seemed to constantly engage in conflict. While this is likely an oversimplified view, how do you see it either proven or disproven through their visual record?
Visual record to determine a culture is an interesting concept to think about. In all reality, the culture that depicts more conflict may have been in a safer place to express those feelings of turmoil, where one that only depicts joy may have been fearful to depict their cultures actual pain. I know that when I am painting, often times my paintings have a melancholy, or sorrowful heir to them, which really doesn’t represent my beliefs or culture at all, just a means to empty out those parts of myself. I would hope to not be judged on my personality from the pain in some of my personal work. None the less, these cultures are represented and interpreted as such. I believe the best example to compare and contrast would be the Minoans, Rhytons. On this piece, there is a group of men, somewhat undetermined what they are doing but show no signs of discomfort, they have half smiles, are not in any sort of military formation. Contradictory to this, Mycenaean’s have a piece, Warrior Crater. Though these warriors do not appear out of comfort, they walk in order, with appropriate battle gear, they are obviously part of a sort of military or defense team. Does this just mean they were better prepared? Did they want to appear so? A good bunch of their pieces depict battle with animals, showing bravery. Were they prideful? Did the Minoans simply not have the ego? Did they simply appreciate the beauties beyond boasting their own bravery? Were they more artistically advanced and driven to seek other subjects? I suppose its all up for interpretation.
In all honesty, knowing that these two archaeologists, Sir Arthur Evans and Heinrich Schliemann, had their own agenda make me look at this art with a more critical and doubtful eye. Without knowing that these men had their own ideas, as to the culture of the Minoan and Mycenaean, I could potentially look at their interpretations more factually. Knowing that certain pieces were altered to fit their ideas, makes me think more deeply as to what those pieces were intended to represent. Snake Goddess is a particularly interesting one in my eyes because of the recreation of the head, neck, arm, placement of an additional snake, cat posted on the hat, it seems a bit overboard on assumption for my liking.
Totally agree that their discoveries, even with the unforgivable errors, brought so much light and interest to archaeology.
re: Tamara Toy
It is crazy to me how each piece of art is tied to the gods. Its kind of fun to imagine how obsessive it must have been to live during those times.The Palette of King Narmer alone has multiple religious representations. The king’s sandals being held shows they are on holy ground, the falcon represents the god Horus, and the head of the cow represents the goddess Hathor. It was common for this sort of representation to occur in Egyptian art. When exploring the wings, I attempted to find a piece that had little to do with any sort of spiritual connection, even Ti Watching a Hippopotamus hunt was tied to the gods, hippos representing the god of chaos, & those hunts often being ritual hunts. It doesn’t seem like their focus ever waivered from the spiritual.
