Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I can see the argument both sides of the argument, but I personally fall more to the side of believing that Hellenistic Art is a progression of humanistic ideals, not a regression. When considering this, I thought most frequently of the statue of the Old Woman, who was not portrayed formally, but more realistically, with a dramatic facial expression. We see realistic children, older people, and babies depicted in the art of this time. We also see gods depicted in more casual, human-like settings and activities, like playing dice. This leads me to believe that Hellenistic art displayed a shift from the idealized, unobtainable god-like aspects of art past to art more focused on realistic human existence. I believe what we create as art displays what we value and what is most important to us, so it would follow that Hellenistic art displays a shift towards humanism.
During this period, we saw a more diverse range of art produced, in terms of moving away from the earlier ideals of the Greeks to a broader representation of both humans and gods. Art of older people, younger people, and babies was produced. Art produced of gods varied greatly, in terms of poses depicted and figures displayed. The subject matter of the art varied wildly, producing a rich and nuanced collection of pieces. Hellenistic Art is indeed more diverse than that of the Greeks, which depicted a consistent ideal often in similar poses.
During the classical period, we see a shift towards a more idealistic and consistent representation of the human figure. This could be due to many factors, including new tools and ideas within Greek culture. Regardless, sculptures of humans began to be represented in the contrapposto stance more often, and were often similar. The women often stood upright with neatly braided hair, while the men displayed more muscular features. We see a consistent “ideal” human body displayed during art work of this time. Similarly, our own culture holds it’s own prevalent ideals in terms of what the human body should look like. Although these ideals differ slightly, the core belief a single ideal to measure all else against is the same. I think it is interesting to see different ideals between cultures and societies and how they have evolved. Recently, my friend visited Colombia. Many of the sculptures displayed there were of a similar body type- the women had large bodies with prominent breasts and stomachs. My friend explained that these sculptures were intended to signify abundant food and success. I wonder what has led our current society to have the ideals that we hold, and what they are intended to communicate.
I have to admit that it always catches me off guard when Dr. Jones is describing a work and then states that it’s now in a place far, far from that origin. For example, in this unit she mentioned several pieces from Ancient Greece are now located in Munich, Germany.
It’s such a complex issue. I understand removing pieces from areas near their origin when those areas are immersed in conflict and battle, as discussed in previous units, but I maintain that it is paramount to the holistic integrity of those pieces that we do the best we can to fully understand the culture that they came from and continue to appreciate them through that lens. The context which the piece was created in is nearly as important as the piece itself when studying and attempting to understand a work,and it can be difficult to fully comprehend those details when a piece is so detached from it’s origin.
It’s a fine balance between removing art to preserve it and leaving it in place to understand it.
I think if possible, we must allow art to remain in it’s area and culture of origin. It is highly unethical to remove and retain art from a society or culture without the continued permission of that society or culture. Of course, this is a complex matter of international politics.
While I don’t believe that modern descendants far, far detached from the origin of a piece (like say, if we were to give the rights to an ancient Greek piece to a modern descendant) should have legal or financial rights to determine if the piece is displayed or not, I believe that we should allow art to remain in context and in culture when possible. After a certain amount of time, art should become public property (with appropriate credit and understanding given) and be displayed for all to learn from. We must study the art of other cultures in full and rich context in order to fully understand them, and to do that we must first have access to that art when appropriate.Humanism is a system of beliefs which focuses on human potential and goodness rather than focusing on divine or supernatural matters. I think we can see this throughout many areas of Ancient Greece, but especially in the artistic shift towards representing the human body more accurately and portraying humans with increasing frequency, as well.
We see art from this time period begin to focus on distinctly human activities, like Exekias’ work Ajax and Achilles Playing a Game, which depicts the two playing a game together and highlights the human aspects of their demigod nature. This shift in focus is fascinating.
It is also fascinating to observe the shift away from very constrained, formal human form when portrayed in art to a more casual representation, such as standing with most of the weight on one leg or standing mostly nude. They also began to depict not only gods and godesses during this time, but also their followers. Unique to the time were depictions of older and younger people. It would follow that if the Greeks believed in the divinity of humankind, they would depict them this way- as they are- and more often.I think it is truly difficult to gain an accurate understanding of such rich and complex societies from so long ago. There could be many reasons as to why Minoan artwork seems to reflect a more laid back, leisurely life focused more on communal gathering, harvest, and events and why Mycenaean artwork seems to reflect a more defensive, war focused society.
First, we must consider that the Mycenaeans interacted with other societies frequently. With this comes a great potential for cultural exchange, but also a great potential to be attacked, which might explain why they appear to be engaged in conflict more frequently. The Lion’s Gate was intended to demonstrate the strength of their society to others and was easy to defend. The Warrior Krater also illustrates their focus on defense and war, as the soldiers which appear similar are all armed for battle.
The Mycenaean Warrior Krater contrasts with the Octopus Flask of the Minoans well. The Minoans depicted an animal usually seen as non-violent (or at least, not as violent as a lion) almost playfully. The Minoans were an island based people, which might also explain that they interacted with other societies (and were therefore threatened less frequently) than the Mycenaeans. The palace at Knossos was also less focused on aggressive defense and more focused on evasion, escape, and survival. From the artifacts we can observe, we can state that the Minoans appear to be a less assertive people from the Mycenaeans, and more focused on harvest and leisure. However, this is a broad generalization and must be recognized as such.There are many examples of how Heinrich Schliemann and Sir Arthur Evans allowed their own personal biases, agendas, and pre-conceived ideas and desires to affect their work. Although we know now that the Mask of Agamemnon was most likely altered by Heinrich Schliemann, it does not negate the damage done by him to a historic artifact in an effort to promote his own desire to have found the mask of Agamemnon. The same is true for the Palace at Knossos, which Sir Arthur Evans damaged with his attempts to “restore” it. Not only did he promote incorrect ideas with no factual or evidential basis, but spread misinformation as a way to make his discoveries more exciting. The same is true for the snake goddess, which might not actually be a goddess at all.
Their conclusions have been at times wildly inaccurate and harmful to historical artifacts and locations.The art of the Ancient Egyptians differed from the art of the Mesopotamians primarily in the heavy focus on the afterlife. Elaborate tombs such as the Rock Cut Tombs at Beni Hassan, the Great Pyramids, the temple of Hatshepsut and others were constructed to ease the transition into the afterlife. While Mesopotamians had significant religious beliefs, their devotion to preparing for the afterlife was not of the same magnitude as that of the ancient Egyptians. However, we do also see the practice of burying individuals of high status in Mesopotamian culture with elaborate artifacts in the Queen’s Lyre, for example. We know that the Egyptians had a similar practice of elaborate burial as exemplified through their tombs and remaining artifacts. While they produced similar art and did have some commonality, we know that these cultures varied in focus and in religious traditions and burial practices.
The relationship between the Egyptians and their gods is exemplified in the magnitude, quantity, and significance of the art they created. They created art which demonstrated the social order, which placed the gods at the top and leaders on the next tier. This is exemplified in the Funerary Complex of King Djoser, a complex for the burial of the king, the king’s family and officials. It also included a space for the festival of Sed, which would divinely renew the power of the king. They also created magnificent, significant art such as the Great Pyramids to appease the gods, which demonstrated their devotion and the value they placed on their spiritual systems. They also spent copious amounts of time and energy reflecting on the spiritual aspect of their existence and the afterlife, as exemplified in the burial of significant or wealthy individuals with many supplies or artifacts such as the tombs of Beni Hasan, which modeled residential settings so as to be a comfortable dwelling place in the afterlife. The Egyptians were indeed a deeply religious people.
I think that the examples you used are very relevant to accurately describing the social stratification of the time and the divine nature of appointed rulers. Great work and articulate examples.
Social stratification of the Ancient Near East is exemplified through it’s art. We see divinely appointed rulers (as exemplified in the Stele of Naram-Sin) who rule over citizens whose role was to serve them and their societies (also as in the Warka Vase). In the Warka Vase, we see stratification broken into gods, rulers appointed by gods, others, and finally animals. In the Stele of Naram-Sin, it is exemplfied by the depicition of Naram-Sin as larger and more powerful than others. We also see social stratification in burial sites, where the most “signifcant” members of a society were buried with many artifacts (such as the Lyre) which signified their wealth or power within the society.
Rulers of Mesopotamia used art to communicate many things about social structure, power, and order. For example, the Votive Statue of Gudea demonstrates that Gudea was a divinely appointed ruler. Art was also significant in that it could represent power. The eyes on the Head of an Akkadian Ruler may have been removed by a later ruler to remove that ruler’s power. The Stele of Hammurabi included the laws and codes of the time, enforcing order and establishing rule among the people. The Stele of Naram-Sin also represents the social structure of the time, from a divinely appointed ruler who is larger (and higher in the hierarchy than others) to his defeated enemies. Art was a critical social tool of communication during these times, as well as a spiritually significant practice.
Many sites of these ancient artifacts are now politically turbulent areas, which has often led to the destruction, loss, or looting of artifacts when appropriate concern or care is not shown. I believe that is a political statement in and of itself. As stated in the section on the Carved Vessel from Uruk, appropriate caution was not provided by U.S. military forces which ultimately led to it’s disruption and looting. Artifacts have also been destoryed, such as that of Lamassu, by terrorist forces as a way to exert and demonstrate power and control.I believe that humans have an inherent impulse to make art which commemorates their life experiences, whether it’s big events or day-to-day events, that communicates concepts symbolically, and/or adds value to the items and objects around them. Art played a variety of roles in the lives of prehistoric peoples, from documenting and honoring their beliefs (potentially LION-HUMAN) to symbolizing and communicating the attitudes of their societies to others (WOMAN OF WILLENDORF), to more practical applications like providing a valuable and meaningful place to bury their dead (like NEWGRANGE). Art was how prehistoric peoples communicated and documented their experiences. It was not a separate practice as it is in modern times, but rather a facet of the way prehistoric peoples experienced the world.
I think that when individuals state that pre-historic art is ‘abstracted’ they may be referring to the lines and forms created, which are simple by modern standards. It could also be that pre-historic art is sometimes labelled ‘abstract’ because as observers, we naturally view all art through the lens of our own experiences with modern life. Pre-historic art is indeed ‘abstracted’ or distanced from our modern world. However, at the time pre-historic art pieces were created, their means of creation were considered complex and elaborate. The art created was a vital part of both Paleolithic and Neolithic societies. It served a variety of purposes, from symbolically communicating fertility and amiability of their peoples (Woman of Willendorf and WOMAN FROM DOLNà VÊSTONICE) to providing a place to bury those with status within their societies (NEWGRANGE and STONEHENGE <during certain periods>).For the people of those societies and cultures, their art was far from abstract.
Part 1:
Disagree:
Paul Gaugin said that “art is either a revolution or plagiarism”. While I understand the point being made and the dramatic language being used to convey it, I also think this definition of what art is neglects all that falls between the lines of plagiarism and “revolution”. I wouldn’t call all paintings revolutionary, by definition, but I think they all serve a specific purpose while still remaining art.
Degas said that “art is not what you see, but what you make others see”. This definition focuses on art as a means of creating dialogue and sharing ideas within a community. I think is true. I think for a lot of people they are motivated to create art as a way to express themselves, an idea, or something which might otherwise be difficult to truly communicate. Creating art is a practice which takes you outside of yourself and forces you to create something which will in turn create dialogue, something tangible and visual.
Part 2:
Art history is the study of the history of the visual arts and how they developed and progressed over time through many different cultures and societies. As I said earlier, I believe art can be a powerful means of communication. I believe through studying the art of different time periods and societies, we can come to a better understanding and a deeper knowledge of that history. I also believe that an understanding of art history is vital to truly understanding contemporary or modern art. If we don’t know how we got here, it’s difficult to know exactly where we are.
