Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
First of all, men and women are different, so their desires and expression of desire are different. So the art shown in the Etruscan wing isn’t necessarily indicative of the role of women — just how men who made art or commissioned art saw the role of women.
If Apollo from Viee was in fact struggling with Hercules over the Golden Hind, he found his twin sister (Artemis’s) interests of importance — enough to risk humiliation or death.
The Cerveti Sarcophagus shows a man and wife reclining together to enjoy a feast — with the man protectively and lovingly in place behind her. The class info attached to the image seems a little inaccurate, considering the info I found on the above Hellenistic Greek period — also the bias shown by male Roman writers at the same time. Roman women had access to education (depending on financial status), and there is historical evidence that Roman women ran estates, owned businesses, and attended to their own financial affairs. Higher class Roman women didn’t have to get jobs, but lower class Roman women took on agriculture, markets, crafts, and limited medical expertise. Although it does suck that prostitutes, waitresses, and slaves were not allowed to pursue rape charges, that sucks.
In the Egyptian statues that showed man and wife, the woman stayed a step behind the man. This may be interpreted as female subordination, or it may be interpreted as the man’s need to be a step before her to protect her from enemies and animals. She is the most important thing he is responsible for the safety of. Man’s love of woman is not always apparent, and not always openly flaunted for fear of being seen as weak. The art of the Etruscans, like the Sarcophagus of Larth Tetnies and Thanchvil Tarnai, openly showed the love of man for woman — so it’s easy to suppose that they were more progressive than previous or contemporary cultures. However, the males that successfully breed are those who care about their wives’ and daughter’s happiness. The evidence of this provided in previous wings is scant.
For instance, in ancient Egypt, there are a myriad of love songs writ by men and women, calling each other brother and sister (like in the American 70’s) to signal they are equal.
In Aegean frescos, young women and men are shown engaging in the same sport — jumping the bulls horns.
Ancient Mesopotamian/Sumerian women had more rights than later Assyrian cultures, in that they were able to own land, own businesses, become physicians, become judges or witnesses in courts, etc.
Just because something looks like a thing, doesn’t mean it’s a thing. Look into it if in doubt.
I agree that their art was a celebration of humanity. Especially in that they moved away from the stiff form of Egyptian style art and into a more fluid form specific to Greek culture – and then allowed in some outside influences such as the barbarian warriors. The idea that humans are inherently good may have bit them in the butt at some point, but it was arguable a necessary step in human progression.
Their focus on erotic human beauty might be seen as objectifying the self, but I think it is more likely valuing the self. The movement from awkward Godly ideals to individual human beauty may be indicative of a shift from a somewhat socialized state to the capitalism that bloomed from trade interaction with other cultures. Classical Greek art was commissioned by the State, so had fairly generic themes in comparison to Hellenistic art, which was more varied I believe because citizens who accrued wealth were able to commission what they wanted. Also individual artists became famous — a sign of humanism — and had more leeway to do the projects they wanted.
The nude statues of women could be seen as objectification, but I think it is a sign of women’s rise to political equality with men, and that they no longer needed to be protected as precious possessions (swaddled). The male form was free to be ogled, why not the female? When Alexander the Great was off conquering, his mom Olympias ran the court of Macedonia. Women started going after political positions through their sons and husbands, their legal and economic responsibilities increased, and they were recognized with honors for their work. Where in the Classical period women had citizenship loosely through their husbands, Hellenistic women were granted citizenship for their works. They also gained control over slaves and property, and were responsible for their own debts. Women entered the sports world through horse racing and foot races. They had access to education, and became writers, philosophers, and poets — Errina of Talos, who wrote Distaff is an example: https://www.attalus.org/poetry/erinna.html . There isn’t a lot of art in the Hellenistic Period wing that shows this change, but the body language in the Nike of Samothrace does pretty well — striding forward, strong and feminine.
I don’t believe it was a period of regression — it was a period of gaining personal power through commerce, and the recognition that women could be able to add to society. Countries that offer equal opportunity to women and allow free trade treat their citizens as individuals, and give them the freedom to pursue happiness.
You are quite right that when there is an established norm for beauty then you are perceived as more or less valuable. If you are perceived as less valuable, you are vulnerable to marketing for products that will help you fit in. But this must be recognized as normal animal behavior before we can move on to judging each person by their individual merit. Take a look at peacock displays, baboon butts, or the dance of the jumping spider – if those creatures could buy a salve that would make them more attractive to females they would in a heartbeat. Classical art is enjoyable, so is a lot of contemporary art. We are at a juncture between being animal and becoming the next stage of human – one that loves based on individual merit. Don’t despair!
Hellenistic art does show empathy for their enemies. Interesting that they felt admiration and empathy for the Gauls, because after Greece was taken over by the Romans, Rome fell to the Gauls. The Romans barely put up a fight, not even posting sentries outside the city walls. Important Roman citizens such as virgin cults and politicians fled to other cities, while the elderly were left behind to die. Previous to the sacking of Rome, the Roman empire was suffering an economic slump – perhaps because of expanding the empire too quickly by taking in Greece. I read somewhere, but can’t find it again, that Rome was so undefended because they couldn’t afford to pay their soldiers. Anyway, don’t feel empathy for barbarians.
Later Rome fell again to the German Visigoths, more barbarians.
This doesn’t really fit anywhere, but I thought it was interesting: like the mudras of Hindu goddesses, later Classical period Aphrodite statues had her hands covering her breasts or vagina, crouching, looking back at her own butt, or taking off her sandal to beat an offender. In the case of Aphrodite looking back at her own butt, it’s interesting to see the Disney character Tinkerbell caught in the same pose in the original Peter Pan animation. This suggests to me that both Tinkerbell and Aphrodite are archetypal characters that are passed through our collective memory to be expressed in new forms.
The Hellenistic period allowed a broadening of subject matter, such as depicting children and the elderly along with the traditional perfect young men and women. They depicted gods as more human-like, more vulnerable, in the case of the Bronze Statue of Eros Sleeping.
Instead of showing serene faces of athletes and warriors even as their body is strained or dying, Hellenistic period statues could show emotion. The statue of the dying Gaul for instance shows a mustache that wouldn’t belong to a Greek warrior, face contorted as he dies. It is interesting that such empathy for the defeated is shown in this statue.
The drapery of carved tunics became more dynamic, if you look at the earlier bronze statue of the Charioteer in comparison to the Great Altar of Zeus and Athena. In the former, the draping fabric mimics Grecian pillars, standing solid and strong. In the latter, the clothing of the gods creates exciting movement. There is struggle rather than just showing calm victory. Figures from the chaotic battle crawl off the wall and share the stairs with the worshipers that have come to give offerings.
The Late Classical Period saw Greek art being sold to and adopted by other cultures such as the Romans. That was when classical rules, such as women are never shown nude, were broken by cultures that were less strict. Aphrodite was shown in dynamic poses without clothing. In the Hellenistic Period, goddesses were shown in action, clothing plastered to their bodies to show all of their feminine glory — as in the statue of Nike of Samothrace. And in the case of the Venus De Milo, her top has fallen off completely. Neat.
The stiff statues of their past had been inspired by Egyptian statues of gods and kings, but after experiencing their own victory against the Persians, Greek art started to take on its own style that glorified the individual human body. Classical period artists generally created images of young people in peak physical health — athletic ideals. They went from stiff images of God-strength to voluptuous statues that showed their strength and nobility with anatomically correct musculature, something that could inspire sexual desire from the viewer. There was definitely a shift toward showing fit buns. A great example is the Kritios Boy, who surpassed the Egyptian-inspired Kouros figures in male beauty. In the carved panel of Nike, you can see her beautiful, healthy body through the drapes of tunic. She brings the gods to earth by adjusting her sandal in an almost awkward pose.
In the case of buildings, temples were stately and rectangular feats of architectural math, but parts were purposely curved in the Classical period so that they seemed more alive. Buildings and bodies were judged by mathematical perfection, but needed to seem lifelike. The temples were built with a mind toward how they would be seen from a great distance away — to counteract visual illusions that would dampen their grandeur.
I realize that I’m supposed to answer that contemporary humans have a similar preoccupation with ideal proportions, and with young people in peak physical health, but I think we are actually moving away from it. There has been a range of beauty expectations in every generation of Western society – of which the most reasonable focused on advertising health, but now our focus on inclusivity seems to be leading to a trend in Rubenesque models with a dismissal of ideal proportion based on health.
You bring up an interesting point in mentioning that art may need to be removed from an area that is experiencing conflict that may destroy the art. Should this become part of a global agreement when joining the UN? If the artifacts are part of our human heritage as a whole, are we all more responsible for protecting them than for claiming them?
I also agree that artifacts should stay with the descendants as much as possible, it is generally rude to take things from people. But I don’t know about handing them back to people who have moved away from the land they left stuff on… But yes, always be polite.
I think your use of the word humble to describe later images of humans is highly accurate. They went from the stoic and ramrod straight images of humans as godlike, to the organic poses of realistic people later. This reminds me of seeing the drawings of children – in that kids will draw stiff, idealized superheros early in life, then as they get older a young artist will truly consider the humanity of their drawing. People start to repose, and express nuanced emotions. It really looks like the Greek state went through this evolution of art. An image of a king or a god isn’t humble, only a human can appreciate the expression of humbleness and not see it as weakness (only an adult).
Greek art was influenced by the Near East in their early period, the Minoans and Mycenaeans shared art through trade, and the Egyptian artists were influenced by whoever invaded their culture. The Greeks exported a lot of pots to surrounding nations such as the Etruscans in Italy, so we’ve found a great deal of Greek pottery buried far outside Greece. The Romans loved Greek art, so reproduced it in marble. It’s hard to answer the question of who owns what, if the basis is ancestry or location. If the art belongs to the nation that lives on the land now, it’s not very fair to the nation they displaced. There doesn’t seem to be an easy answer, so what may be fairest (but potentially unpopular) is to agree that art belongs to human kind.
The image of the Gorgon may have been adopted by the Greeks from the Phoenicians, and may have taken the image of Aphrodite and her associated symbols as well. Ancient peoples shared and borrowed art and ideas just like modern people do. Ganguro girls in Japan make themselves up to look like Californian Barbies, while shy boys in American high schools adopt Japanese dress and behavior from watching anime.
It seems to me that if we all came from walking apes in Africa, and are naturally inclined to share and mimic art and ideas, then art belongs to everyone — including ancient artifacts. We should be working on making it easier to share, and make it easier for the descendants of the ancient artisans to visit their art — or help them create museum spaces to keep the art close to home and generate revenue. It is also more possible to create reproductions of art, due to 3d scanning and printing, so it should become easier to share the experience globally.
I think we should think more about what the original artists would feel — such as joy that their work is still being enjoyed thousands of years later — and act less like children fighting over their grandfather’s will.
Humanism is a way of thinking that acknowledges the value of human beings as individuals or as a group, versus a way of thinking that places gods as more important. Humanism also values rational thought and empiricism while solving problems, and acknowledges basic human needs.
Greek art celebrated culture heroes such as Hercules and Odysseus, characters that everyday people could more easily project themselves into than the carvings of kings and gods in the Middle East and Egypt. The Greeks had a whole pantheon of gods to pray to, but their gods were portrayed with human fallibility, which I think is how they held a balance between the importance of heaven and earth. I think the advent of human celebrities such as Pythia and that Greeks believed that the gods could be bargained with were both developments in humanism that allowed for greater freedom of individuals. In this vein, I found it interesting that sanctuaries such as the one of Apollo could be entered by individuals seeking asylum — which seems like a leap in the concept of justice.
A lot of art was focused on showing off the human body as something beautiful. They were particularly into abs. The warrior figures on the Temple of Aphaia were beautifully posed, even as they were dying. The movement toward the classical era of art shows a change from symbolic shapes of the ‘ubermensch,’ and simply showing one guy as bigger than another to denote power differential – toward worshipful appreciation of the human form. The movement was also from statues of specific aristocrats toward state-commissioned statues of general ideals of beauty. I found it very interesting that Greek art would celebrate friendship between people, such as the amphora with Ajax and Achilles.
There was definitely sympathy in Greek art for basic human needs. Statuary of warriors was like a beautiful ad campaign to entice young men into dying for their country. Wounded warriors were carved as beautiful and brave. The Sarpedon krater dealt with people’s fear of dying alone by showing agents of Zeus showing up to carry the body of a dying warrior.
In developing mathematics and geometry, the Greeks took on some of the power of their gods, in that they were able to understand their world in a highly detailed way that they couldn’t before. Instead of being subject to the order created by the gods, they could now impose order themselves. There was also a self-esteem bump provided by conquering the Persian army. Statuary became more relaxed and confident in its realism after the Greeks prevailed in war. The development of Athletic games was important for the glorification of the individual, because competitive games are a symbolic version of war. A lot of classical period art celebrates young athletes competing in Greek games, such as Myron’s Discobolus.
It may have been that Schleimann realized after he made the announcement of finding Agamemnon’s palace that he was wrong, and went to great lengths to cover up his mistake. He was a businessman, with a reputation to uphold, and most likely had to worry about financial backers and the money he hoped to make off of the discovery. Would museums and collectors pay more if the artifacts came straight out of Homer’s writings? Probably. Schleimann had a lot riding on his discovery and I wouldn’t be surprised if he had to cover up his initial boasts.
Excellent point about what both cultures felt comfortable about expressing and what we think we are perceiving about them. Is it possible that two cultures that thrive on trade may have been forming an advertising campaign through their artistic depiction of themselves? The Minoans may have been going for a fun resort feel, like a modern vacation spot that hides any internal strife that might turn off potential customers. The Mycenaeans may have protected themselves from being attacked and losing their excellent trade position, by making themselves look more scary and warlike. They were both savvy businesscultures, and we don’t have a lot of evidence to go on.
Minoan pottery was covered in fun organic designs, with features that look like birds or flowers. Their rhytons were often shaped like animals as well, with the libation meant to be poured from the mouth of the animal. A Master of Animals is a popular image in Aegean art. A human man holds animals in a symmetrical pose, while surrounded by flowers. Jewelry was made in shapes of flowers, insects, and animals. Minoan religious art shows that they worshiped animal gods and sexy goddesses, and visited natural holy sites.
Mycenaean art featured hunting, death, and warriors, which looks like a big contrast to the Minoan scenes of kids leaping over bull horns. Mythology/history about Mycenaeans shows them to be warlike, as in the story of Helen of Troy. When they later moved into Crete and replaced the Minoans, they created legends of the previous Minoan ruler that may have made him out to be more like their own idea of a strong ruler. Some of the artifacts found in their major city do have similar motifs to Minoan art, such as the octopus on a jar, and little lady statues.
The palace Knossos was rebuilt with less defensive walls after it was destroyed. The architectural goal was to create a labyrinth, and I’d guess this meant the Minoans had a lot of time on their hands and a sense of having fun in life. The king that had the palace built went to war to create a peaceful nation that was safe to generate profit. The second build of the palace must not have needed thick walls after he unified the surrounding islands under his rule. After the Minoan fall, Mycenaeans moved into the palace and replaced a bunch of the groovy lady nature art with frescos of bulls and images of processions bearing tribute.
Mycenaeans built on hills, so that it was easier to defend themselves. Mycenae was built on a hill, and surrounded itself with thick walls.
The lack of signs of a male-dominated hierarchical society makes ancient Minoans look like hippy peacenics, but a lack of evidence isn’t necessarily evidence itself. If the Minoans abandoned their crumbling infrastructure and left, is it possible that they took some of their stuff with them? Maybe they sold artifacts that would give us further clues as to how they really lived. The Mycenaeans moved in and had already been adopting Minoan art through trade, is it possible the remaining Minoans quietly married into Mycenaean culture before it too collapsed? The real nature of the Mycenaeans is not known either. As the Khan Academy video said, we don’t know if all the fortification meant they were more offensive or more defensive. The evidence left behind by both cultures can only tell us they were both great at trading.
Sir Arthur Evans named the ancient civilization of Crete ‘Minoans’ after King Minos, but the original name of the culture is still unknown. Evans used modern materials to reconstruct parts of damaged buildings, making them less authentic and creating more work for future restorers. Evans also removed the restoration work of later Minoans on the Knossos Palace, stripping it back to an earlier version of the palace.
Evans hired a Swiss artist and his son to do reconstruction of fragmented Minoan art, but in some cases it’s hard to tell if they put images back together in the original way because the art has become like a jigsaw puzzle that has multiple ways to solve it. One image that has been proven to have been reconstructed inaccurately is “The Saffron Gatherer,’ an image of a boy that should have been a monkey. The artists may have improvised in some pieces, just to fill them out. They also copied art from other frescos to fill in missing pieces, and some of their restorations were influenced by modern beauty standards. The father and son produced some replicas that were easy to mistake for originals, because of their use of ancient manufacturing techniques and how they didn’t always put their maker’s stamp on them. Some scholars think they might have been creating and selling forgeries on the side, which would have muddied the waters further for people trying to study Minoan culture.
Evans gave names to artifacts that he discovered, and the names stuck despite how we never found out what the true purpose of them was — for instance the ‘Snake Goddess.’ The figurine was found with one arm holding a snake, and one arm missing. Evans reconstructed it with a second arm holding a snake, because he guessed it was probably right. He reconstructed the missing head based on frescos of Minoan women, and stuck a small cat he’d found in another room on top. Good enough for government.
Heinrich Schliemann was convinced that the city he’d found was one talked about in Homer’s writings, so he named a lot of the things he’d find in reference to Homer. The names stuck, despite being found to be inaccurate. An example is a gold king’s deathmask, which he named ‘the Mask of Agamemnon.’ Scholars now believe that Schliemann altered the mask to make it look more like what people of his time thought Agamennon looked like. He also named an impressive tomb the ‘Treasury of Atrius,’ after Agamemnon’s father.
