Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Maggie May- Egyptians definitely appear to have a deeper spirituality, and their art and architecture is a good representation of their obsession and focus.
Both Egypt and Mesopotamia represented their leaders as a larger figure to represent greatness. Egypt tends to represent them even larger though, like COLOSSAL FIGURE OF AKHENATEN. Both cultures had a strong representation of their people and animals. Both had relief pieces, depicting greatness. An example being Egypt’s THE PALETTE OF KING NARMER, Mesopotamia’s Carved Vessel from Uruk. Both of these pieces had scenes representing, leadership, servitude, and animals. Egyptians built pyramids, Mesopotamia built ziggurats. Both had great architectural skill, but structures differed, Egypt with structures like the Great Pyramids, Mesopotamia with Anu Ziggurat. The pyramids built from granite, the ziggurats built from a less durable material.
Kaitlyn-
“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.” Very good point. Kind of interesting to think about, do you suppose they gained their internal power from believing this or gained their power from making others believe it? likely a little of bothelchambers-
I hadn’t even noted the importance of size to determine greatness. Thank you for pointing that out.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 one of the most blatant examples and representations of the hierarchy is CARVED VESSEL from Uruk. It lays out pretty clearly the importance and social standing of each social class. Most art of this time, especially the pieces depicting a scene of some sort use position as a representation of power and greatness, the most powerful figure generally being at the top. Most also depict the servants and slaves of the time, CYLINDER SEALS
From the tomb of Queen Puabi. This representation of the servants was not to pay them homage but rather to bolster the ruler’s greatness.
These visual representations tell us that there were very strict and adhered to social classes that determined ones’ social standing.Hi Jessi-
“…eye for an eye doesn’t count if it’s between a slave and a citizen.” That very much is a representation of the times in that area. Really quite sad and interesting to think about.Valene- It is rather interesting how much of their power was appointed by the gods and how much was depicted in their art. Its also kind of a quirky thought to think how long this tradition has withheld in as recent of times as the 80s.
How did the rulers of different Mesopotamian cultures visually show their power and legitimize their right to rule? Use examples.
Much of the art of this time and proximity, directly represented its rulers. If not by simply being a portrait or stand-alone sculpture, like HEAD OF AN AKKADIAN RULER, than in images depicting superiority, or god-appointed power. A good example of this is STELE OF NARAM-SIN, where the ruler is not only at the top of the piece, but also adorned with a horned helmet representing his godliness.
Additionally, great architectural pieces were commissioned by the rulers to show their superiority.
The visual expressions of power are still tampered with in the modern day, I suppose to keep their symbolism of power and importance alive. The Nanna Ziggurat, for example, had been partially reconstructed by Saddam Hussein in the 80s. I believe that to be a testament to his own idea of divine appointment as a leader.Hi Tamara-
Im still not fully sure that Im responding to posts properly, but hopefully this reaches you. Its interesting to me, the differences in defining abstract. I always thought of abstract as this realm that covered everything beyond realistic. I really appreciate your comment about artist intent. This is a beautiful idea to think of and has a way of connecting ourselves to the artist of that time. Enjoy your weekend!The idea of abstraction during prehistoric times is actually fun to think about. If we think about cave paintings, many of them seem to be a means of communicating a plan, likely these artists were drawing as they were telling. Not many can throw out a quick realistic drawing of what we are discussing, time likely attributed to the abstract nature of these. As far as the sculptures of that time go, I imagine their tools and materials were rather limited. Simplistic is often more sturdy. Also maybe their societal ideals were represented in these pieces. The same way we “value” certain physical attributes and portray them in our art, isn’t that also abstract?
Or maybe they were a little bit dumb. Maybe their instinctual need to survive weighed so heavy that their brains could develop in the areas that ours can and do. Maybe math has really hooked us up, I mean proportions are super duper and used constantly in attempting to create realistic art.No one really knows why humans began to paint images or carve likenesses. What role did they play in prehistoric people’s lives? What was their function? Speculate as to some of the reasons humans started to create representational imagery.
This is an interesting thing to ponder. I came from two very creative people, that still maybe don’t even realize how artistic they truly are. I can watch them turn every doing into art, without any awareness or reasoning behind it. I think they make beautiful things because it brings their being peace. For example, my father, who has spent his entire life working and providing, since teenhood, just made a toilet for an RV. This receptacle is beyond beautiful, hands down, my most favorite toilet i’ve ever seen and not out of necessity, a hole in the floor would suffice. Maybe creation with our own hands heals the pieces inside us that may be falling apart. Maybe its less about function and more about proving that we can create beauty when we feel less than beautiful. Maybe these prehistoric people just wanted to prove to themselves that they can possess beauty.
But how did it start? I imagine people have drawn in the dirt and sand since the beginning, as a form of communicating and telling stories and strategies. The things in which we place value differ greatly from person to person. where one person may have communicated how they slayed a fish, the next may have communicated the look on a persons face right before they cried. Maybe there was beauty in both and they found a way to establish more permanence for “retelling” purposes. Maybe those became fixtures in homes, for “function” but maybe they found enjoyment in being able to see them as well.
I suppose I have a difficult time disconnecting my own being from these people. I do believe they had emotion and heart, and maybe they just wanted beauty.excuse the messy face. sundays are for lazing.
also please excuse the video in a slide. silly sillyHi Jess- I hope this posts as a reply. One statement you made, “Art is how we see the world and then interpret what we have seen.”, struck a chord with me. This is very much also my definition of art. Without interpretation, art couldn’t exist. In my opinion, art is hugely the responsibility of the observer.
a skill at doing a specified thing, typically one acquired through practice.
This is a definition that I don’t necessarily disagree with but rather a definition that doesn’t encompass art as a whole. In my opinion, art is found everywhere and doesn’t necessarily require skill or the label of “artist’ to be created. It can simply occur.
I suppose any definition of art can be up for debate and ultimately requires a human to define or recognize.the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.
This definition comes closer to my own definition, recognizing that imagination and appreciation of beauty are really the only way that art can exist.
Art history is the study of how society has defined and recognized art in the past. It is important, I think because it shows human brain development, our ability to find beauty and also pays respect to the artists of the past.
a skill at doing a specified thing, typically one acquired through practice.
This is a definition that I don’t necessarily disagree with but rather a definition that doesn’t encompass art as a whole. In my opinion, art is found everywhere and doesn’t necessarily require skill or the label of “artist” to be created. It can simply occur.
I suppose any definition of art can be up for debate and ultimately requires a human to define or recognize.the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.
This definition comes closer to my own definition, recognizing that imagination and appreciation of beauty are really the only way that art can exist.
Art history is the study of how society has defined and recognized art in the past. It is important, I think because it shows human brain development, our ability to find beauty and also pays respect to the artists of the past.
