Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Hellenistic style art differs from Classical style art because it does not depict only one “ideal’ subject, but a variety of subjects. It is almost as if Greeks finally got over a bit of their vanity and realized there is more to life than a muscular, attractive man! Sculptures like that of the Old Market Woman differed vastly from the youthful visages of the Classical period. Moreover, depictions of pain and other emotions were instituted, Dying Gallic Trumpeter and Laocoon are examples of this; far different than the Arcadian smile that was the general norm of the Classical period.
Very true Laura! I think the word obsession is a very good way of categorizing our culture’s fascination with “beauty.” There are so many ways to be beautiful, but, not unlike the statures of ancient Greece, the media has chosen only one body type to focus on at the exclusion of all others.
During the Classical Period, artists began trying to represent their own artistic ideals of the human body and architecture as well. More realistic and anatomically correct sculptures were carved as well as the use of contrapposto stance, which created a more natural-looking effect. In the Early Classical Period, muscular frames were favored while later leaner, taller body types were considered more ideal. Ictinus and Callicrates designed the Parthenon, built on the Acropolis, whose columns and 4:9 ratio style of construction created a stunning visual effect that was marked during this time period.
Even today, Greek ideas of beauty- physical and architectural alike- are echoed. The frames of men who grace our magazine covers would most likely been held in the same esteem during the Classical Period in Greece. Many of our political buildings are mimics of the grand “column-full’ designs of the Greeks.
I really appreciated your examples of Alaskan Native culture. It made me realize I had only used the mindset of ancient art and artifacts in my discussion question answer. It shouldn’t even be a question who should have the rights to artifacts if people of that culture still exist! That would be like someone taking something off your lawn and asking who it belongs to!
Perhaps a different take than most, I believe artifacts shouldn’t belong to anyone. I think their storage/display to the world is the responsibility of the country/agency who is best equipped to preserve and show the artifacts to the rest of the world. Many beautiful and historically important artifacts and buildings have been lost to war and invasion. Perhaps the Statue of Athena that was once within the Parthenon would still be around today if it had been kept in a safer place. Though time will always wear down, places like museums that specialize in the preservation and restoration of beloved artifacts can keep them unchanged so they might teach and inspire generations to come.
I agree. I think the Greek depiction of raw, pure human beauty in the nude is a perfect portrayal of Humanism. The emphasis put on sexuality and correct anatomical proportion and design further demonstrates their reverence and obsession with the human experience.
Humanism, as defined by Dictionary.com, is “any system or mode of thought or action in which human interests, values, and dignity predominate.’ Simplified, Humanism is when the focus is on purely the human existence. With this definition in mind, I think Greek culture, and especially their art and stories exemplify this. Even the ancient Greek’s depictions of their gods were in human form, such as the statue of Apollo from Delphi. The Greeks didn’t just focus on the human existence though, but also on the human form. Nudity and sexuality were portrayed in their art quite a bit, crazy sexual twists in their lore, and the possible roots of homosexuality buried in their history. The Kritios Boy is an example of how Greek art not only sought to portray the human form, but depict it in a more natural, ideal condition; with contrapposto stance. Polyclitus, and artist in the high classical period, was bend on idolizing the human body by emphasizing what he considered beautiful and overshadowing human flaws. I think the Greeks were not just in love with the human existence and human intelligence, but also with the human body itself; trying to perfect both its physical existence and its artistic preservation.
The Ancient Near East maintained a very strict social hierarchy; we know this because their preserved art depicts it clearly for us to see and learn from. The Warka Vassel from Uruk or present day Iraq was created between 3300 BC and 3000 BC. The alabaster vassel shows offerings being presented to the goddess Inanna. At the top of the vase, the priest-king can be seen standing while the offerings take place, a servant lifting his sash from the ground. Even though he is not actively taking place in the offering-giving his placement makes him the focus of the piece, as if all the proceedings are due to his bidding and the servants and animals are just the vessels themselves, used to accomplish the task at hand. Even the goddess seems overshadowed by the king, as if the religious devotion is merely to reassert the king’s own divinity. The servants are almost identical, making them seem unimportant and disposable along with the animals and plants at the base of the vessel. In a way, not only is a hierarchy depicted, but also an ecosystem of sorts. The plants feed the animals, which sustains the peasants/servants who exist to serve and glorify the king and goddess, who are on the same level. The imagery is also a metaphor, each higher level standing on the one beneath it.
I agree the Carved Vessel from Uruk depicted the social hierarchy of ancient Mesopotamia very well! The Warak Vase gave a pretty clear picture that while the king was still under the goddess, he is the one making the sacrifices and the servants and animals existed only as the means to make that happen.
Mesopotamia, like many ancient places, constructed huge monuments to honor their gods as well as show the wealth and power of their rulers. A king who could control his people absolutely could command the creation of such mindboggling projects, often stretching on for years and resulting in many lives lost, whereas a weaker rule may not be able to. The bigger and more glamourous the monument, the more glory and respect given to the gods as well as the ruler who commissioned it. Not only a demonstration of power however, the art and construction of ancient civilizations also acted as their history books. The Stele of Naram-sin also served to depict a great battle in their history. In more modern times, Saddam Hussein tried to use the historical significance of the Ziggurat of Ur to deter enemy forces from attacking his planes.
I liked how through your answer was Valene! I think perhaps the sacrifices may have been not just religious in nature, however, but also a way of using fear to control the kingdom’s inhabitance and sending the message that the leader’s power was supreme and divine. Although I’m sure these human sacrifices were shown to be entirely religious in nature on the outside, I think it a distinct possibility if one was on the king’s bad side, the honor of being sacrificed might find its way onto their schedule. Also, it seems hard to believe, even in a culture so steeped in religion, that years of strenuous physical labor would occur willingly. Therefore, I would argue that slave labor was most likely, future backing up the opinion that the most productive and obedient workers were most likely not the ones who were killed sacrificially. It’s interesting to contemplate how conceded and apathetic a ruler would have to be to build great monuments without lifting a finger to assist in its completion. Although, if one thought they were truly divine and appointed by the gods, perhaps the suffering and death of others would really seem a trivial matter. I guess we will never know.
Little late to the party, but here it is!!
https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdrive.google.com%2Ffile%2Fd%2F1oic4_AycimYLMtQiX_yauMrmTYHb-Dp7%2Fview&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cd1c90f1da94041de496708d687eccab8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636845848425819984&sdata=KX5RWenJi25Ms2Qt4N5bOp9dreMYRTlRZQySfCqLfPk%3D&reserved=0I think the prehistoric imagery is abstract in the sense that it is more a portrayal of an idea than an actual, individual subject. In the case of the Woman of Wildendorf, her lack of identifying marker seem to indicated she is not representing a woman, but women in general.It is also quite possible, however, that tools and knowledge sufficient to create art with fine details wasn’t yet obtainable this early in human history. Perhaps what we might consider abstract I the most detailed work they were able to achieve with the technology available to them.
I think humans have been obsessed with image and appearances from the very beginning. Beauty, youth, a loved one’s visage; all of these are worth preserving. Also, more practically, images could be used to tell stories about loved ones who were not present or who had died to younger children. Whatever the specific reason of any given picture, capturing a subject eternally and out of the hunger grasp of time seems a common human desire throughout history.
