Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Jess, I really like your points about man being elevated to an almost god-like perception. I tend to think more that the gods were brought down to a less elevated status, so I think your point about this is interesting and something to think about, that this movement in depicting this relationship between men and gods worked on both sides.
In Etruscan art, it seems that women are seen more on a closer social level with men. Both the “Sarcophagus of Larth Tetnies and Thanchvil Tarnai’ and “The Cerveteri Sarcophagus’ show women on a similar level as the men, instead of being behind or lower than men as we have seen previously. As well, there are displays of affection which we haven’t seen previously. Even with the “Capitoline She-Wolf’ there is a sense of empowerment. Instead of just being a representation of fertility, she is nursing the sons of a god. While this is still in some manner about fertility and maternal care, there is a different feel to it, I think because this representation of a female is another species that is choosing to nurse the human boys. There is a feeling of female power in this to me. As well, her stance isn’t one of servitude or submission but of pride and fierceness. I think this speaks of how the female form is looked at differently, instead of being subservient to men, women can be just as important and strong.
I can understand the division of this argument. However, I see Hellenistic art as more of a progression of humanist values. The manner in which people are shown is more realistic, not only in their appearance but also in their positioning. “Sleeping Eros’ and “The Old Woman’ both show a snapshot of daily life instead of a stiff, idealized pose. Also, even though there are representations of gods, they are fewer than earlier periods we have studied and more of people in everyday life. The fact that body types are less idealized also supports a progression in humanism as well as moving away from the archaic smile and more towards true emotion.
As the Greeks move from the early Classical Period to the Late Classical Period, we see a change in what is idealized in the human form. In “Kritios Boy’, we see the symmetrical form of a young man in his prime. By the Late Classical Period, we see this shift in “Apoxyomemos’ we still see a man in top physical form but now the representation is more realistic and less idealized. This is much like how the modern ideal has changed over time. The ideal from the 40’s and 50’s would now be considered to be obese compared to the photoshop and digital touch-up images that are used today. We still idealize the youth and physical presence as perfection, as well as being unrealistic, such as the head-to-body ratio used by Lysippos in “Apoxyomemos.’
As the Greeks move from the early Classical Period to the Late Classical Period, we see a change in what is idealized in the human form. In “Kritios Boy’, we see the symmetrical form of a young man in his prime. By the Late Classical Period, we see this shift in “Apoxyomemos’ we still see a man in top physical form but now the representation is more realistic and less idealized. This is much like how the modern ideal has changed over time. The ideal from the 40’s and 50’s would now be considered to be obese compared to the photoshop and digital touch-up images that are used today. We still idealize the youth and physical presence as perfection, as well as being unrealistic, such as the head-to-body ratio used by Lysippos in “Apoxyomemos.’
Miranda, I really like your point about the Fibonacci Sequence. It makes sense and now I can really see that in the art we are looking at this week. It really is amazing to see this kind of progression through history. The development of the understanding of the world and how it works is amazing and so evident in the art of the period.
One thing that strikes me about the Hellenistic period of art is the move even further into humanism. The gods that are represented are more human-like, in the case of “Sleeping Eros’, we see a god, in a much more human ideal. Gods aren’t seen as sleeping, much less in a more human form with the pudgy, cuddliness of a child. The human forms we see aren’t as idealized, as they have a much more natural and real appearance. This lends itself to a more individualistic representation. Also, the amount of emotion that is shown and the fact that we see fear and pain is a much more diverse representation of human life from the earlier Classical Greek art.
This is a very complex issue that has a lot of different angles that need to be taken into consideration. First of all, I feel is the art in question is a culture that is still in existence, their wishes should be taken into consideration. So much art and personal effects were lost when the relocations took place in the U.S., some of which is still being fought over in the courts. I feel if more respect for their wishes had been used in recent years, some people may be more open to pieces being on loan to a museum. Much of what we deem art can end up being religious or sacred artifacts and I feel this should be returned if it is requested.
When it comes to art that is from a culture that is not still in existence, I feel that this is a greyer area. Yes, the country or area that it was recovered from, like the art of Babylonia, there should some consideration to the wishes and traditions of the modern country or culture. However, if for example, Iraq does not want these pieces preserved, I feel there is a need to override their wishes to keep the art for future generations. Again, there is a fine line here that is difficult for me to decide on. Each culture brings up different issues to be addressed.
The one thing is that we live in an age of technology. The things we can do with imagery and 3-d printing is amazing. While I understand that it is not the same seeing a reproduction of the Mona Lisa as it is seeing the real thing, I feel that sometimes this may be a compromise to honor these ancient cultures and still benefit from what they can teach us.Lucas, you make some really good points about humanism representing a human-centered culture instead of a God-centered culture. Most of what we have studied up to this point has been God-centered, and the Greeks are the first to really focus on the human aspect of culture. We see that in so many of the sculptures that like so lifelike, instead of the stiff and unrealistic representations of the gods.
Humanism is the philosophy that centers around the human experience. This includes things such as critical thinking and evidence-based thinking, instead of accepting beliefs and religious doctrine as the only truth. This gives more agency to human life, as it isn’t all about what the gods want or desire to do. I see a lot of ways this is evident in the Greek art of this period. When we look at “Kritios Boy’, the naturalness of his physique and pose, as opposed to earlier statues of gods, is much more lifelike. Critical analysis of the human body was used, from the way the hips are positioned given the shift of weight to one leg. This lack of rigidity in stance is using humanism which breaks away from centering art around the gods and man being a reflection of them.
Lacey, I was rather appalled at how Evans and Schliemann both approached ‘preserving’ these examples from previously unknown cultures. With the “Snake Goddess”, I could have understood replacing the missing pieces how he did if there had been other examples of similar art that would have confirmed this as a strong possibility. However, to just replace it however he needed to confirm this piece as a goddess figure is just infuriating. The same goes for “The Mask of Agamemnon”. It makes it even sadder to think these pieces will carry the title that does not fit their origins, no matter what is discovered about their true history.
Elkingkaid, you make a very good point about the location differences. I think the location of Knossos and the Minoan culture on an isolated island makes a big difference in their culture. The fact of the location probably made it an undesirable place to attempt to take from any other cultures, so the Minoans enjoyed a much more peaceful existence than the Mycenaeans. I think those details that may seem minor in today’s modern world, change a lot in an ancient world. With our modern perspective, sometimes we overlook the importance of these details.
When one contrasts Mycenae and the complex of Knossos, it is easy to see why we have that perspective. Knossos was built with aesthetics in mind. Bright colors and frescos are not meant for defenses. The massive columns could be dangerous under siege and the four entries would be impractical to defend. There is little about Knossos that says that it is defendable. As well, the amount of aesthetics within the compound would take money or power to build; this is usually not what a culture in conflict would expend either on.
When looking at Mycenae, it is the opposite. The location is highly defensive. Entryways like the Lion’s Gate would be easy to defend as well. The fact that people were buried with their weapons implies that they valued their weapons and wished, in some manner, to honor the dead or send them to the afterlife with their highly prized possession. There is little to show for aesthetics in Mycenae, and what we do see, like the Lion’s Gate, has a purpose like showing power and strength. Everything about Mycenae appears to be in support of a culture in conflict, either in defense or appearances.
For myself, I see these representations through art as being in support of the concept of a peaceful Minoan culture and a more war-like Mycenaen culture.While both Sir Arthur Evans and Heinrich Schliemann did a lot of damage as amateur archaeologists, I feel that Schliemann’s actions were worse than Evans. Given the idea that he altered the Mask of Agamemnon is devastating as to think about, as we now have no idea what the mask looked like before he ‘restored’ the mask. Even though we now know that this mask predates Agamemnon bu around 300 years, the name still sticks to this piece. The seems to be other events of similar issues, although not as altering as the mask, at least as far as we know, all in the name of publicity. Schliemann’s desire to tie this to Homer as changed the way many people look at Mycenaean culture and art.
As for Evans, he did much the same as far as referring to the Complex at Knossos as a palace, although his atrocities are not as severe as we have no proof, at least as far as Evans altering a find. Still, his grand scheme of the grand royal palace, when it most likely was an aristocrat’s home paints Minoan culture and art with a romantic brush to most people. He most likely did so with other finds, all to fit his idea of what this wonderful archeological find was.Aaron, that is a really interesting statement about the differences between Mesopotamia and Egypt. In looking at these two, I hadn’t really thought about that one represents its ruler while the other’s art pertains to their Gods. That is a good point to keep in mind as we thinking about the relationships and differences between these two.
