Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
For my final project I chose to paint the Aphrodite of Melos using acrylics on canvas. I didn’t intentionally choose colors based on symbolism, but I ended up doing some research on it and it turned out so good. Here is a link to my Google Drive folder with my paper, presentation, a video where I talk about the project, and an image of the finished painting.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1GDSIHhA24609sgEQUME9b7f4ahWUPEQ-?usp=sharing
Laura – this is amazing! I love that you chose to recreate the Venus in cookie dough. It brings out the womanly and motherly “dough-ie” components of the little figurine. It is great!
Valene – I completely agree with you that the way that individuals would portray themselves as likeness or even closer to the gods was a way of propagating their authority. This was a way of making them seem as if they were appointed by the gods, and this is why others should follow them. Honestly, I think it was a vain attempt at glory, and I wonder if others during this time thought so, too.
Tamara – I was so focused on how individuals were portrayed that I didn’t even realize how architecture could be seen as propaganda. You are absolutely right in saying that the buildings and roads were ways for the Romans to say “Look! We are the greatest and the best!” Very good insight!
I would almost think that the fact that political leaders would create statues in their likeness, and they way they would be presented, is a form of propaganda. For example, if we look at the Aulus Metellus (the Orator), and the stance that he takes. This stance basically signified persuading people to take ones side using persuasive arguments rather than force. By displaying this in this statue and displaying it where people can see it, will influence people to think highly of republican values that the Orator represented.
Similarly, if we look at the Augustus of Primaporta, he is taking a non-aggressive stance like the Orator, making him look like a man of persuasion without forcefulness. Then we have the fact that he is barefooted, to make him look holy. The cupid at his right leg is to represent his godly heritage, being of a lineage that traces back to Venus. I would think that all of these details were to impress the audience that gazed upon it.
Even the sculpture where Commodus is likened with Hercules. This is a way to show that he was of divine likeness and had endless strength. Although the attempt was this, he was still seen as vain.
I think that portraying individuals in a certain way in order to impress or influence the way that people see them is a form of propaganda. And this was seen a lot in Roman art.
mbsimington – I agree that Latin is a language that even though it is not actively spoken, it is incorporated into many of our languages and terminologies! Similar to how Romans would inscribe in Latin on buildings, we have many buildings in the United States that are similar. Could we even state that the process of inscribing on a building is something we can attribute to Roman influences?
Thank you for this post!
Aubri – I agree that we can see a lot of Roman influences in various places of society today! I think that a lot of these adaptations became popular during the Classical and Romatic era, and have lived on since then. The Roman society definitely had a great influence on the structure of society, from roads, to bridges, to hierarchy of political or religious importance. Thank you for your insight!
When looking over Roman art and architecture, I see a lot of similarities from 1800 and 1900 architecture in society today. For example, the layout of the Pantheon seems to be something that was popular when constructing buildings of political importance (for example the White House). A lot of churches even have steeples and domes, and this seems to be an influence from Roman architecture.
I also noticed that portraits, busts, and statues, and it seems that these are popular artworks that we still see today. We have the statue of Abraham Lincoln, and I’ve seen busts of various Presidents as well. This type of signifying the political or religious importance of an individual is even noted on how we have the faces of Presidents on our money. This is not just in the United States, a lot of countries do this.
Laura – yes, women are definitely displayed much differently in apparent appearances such as size and placement. But the cultural significance that you are hinting at with the woman laying alongside her man at a banquet or the man and woman embracing each other under the sheet also speaks loudly to the role of a woman in the society of then. She was not in the back anymore, she was besides her man.
Aubri – I completely agree with you! Women seem to be depicted as more equal and of significant emotional worth to men. Instead of being a “pretty figure” in the background, women are shown as important to men. There is definitely more affection and caring, like you said, in the depictions of women.
Looking at just the two sarcophagus that we have seen this week, the women in these are depicting slightly differently from previous art. I am considering Ancient Greek art, where women would be beside and slightly behind the rulers; or even in earlier Greek art, where the focus on women seemed to be more individual, and not in relation to a man. In these two artworks, the women are besides their men and the men are holding them. There seems to be more focus on the woman as an equal and emotionally significant to the man. This also shows a different side of men, instead of the heroes or strong conquerors, these are husbands who care for their wives. That is quite the remarkable contrast.
I even thought that it was interesting to see the Capitoline She-Wolf. This is such a maternal image. She is obviously feral, but the feeling I get from her is that she would defend her children to death. There also seems to be a strong leader in this motherly image, which speaks much for the expectations of a mother.
In short, I think that the role of the woman has shifted from a supportive figure in the background of men or a sensual figure that is decorative, to an equal and significant person to men. The role of women has shifted towards a maternal, caring, and loving figure.
Personally, I think that Hellenistic art had a very progressive take on Greek humanist values. In earlier artwork we have seen a lot of focus on the gods and the human place in relation to creation and the gods. In Hellenistic art, there seems to be more focus on humans in relation to humans. With this I mean that we see more focus on various components of humans, such as moments of serenity or moments filled with strong emotions. In short, there seems to be more focus on the range of human emotions. For example, we have the sleeping cherub, which seems so lifelike and realistic. It is almost as if it was depicting an actual child. Then we have the Laocoon, that have strong emotions of fear and desperation. These emotions are so vivid, which I would think is highly progressive towards humanist values.
The only reason I would think that Hellenistic are can be seen as regressive is that there is less focus on the gods or nature. Maybe there are humanist values that focus on what a human is in relation to nature or spirituality, and choosing not to focus on this can be seen as different. Religion often gives humans a purpose, and choosing not to focus on the human value according to religion can be seen as taking the purpose away from humans. I could see how this would be an opinion of regression.
