Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Jess,
I agree! There seems to a huge surge in knowledge or beliefs when it comes to the Egyptians. I have often wondered how and why that seems to have happened. It is difficult for me to see them as a ‘primitive’ culture because of their beliefs and understanding of such things as well as being able to integrate those things into everyday life is simply nothing short of amazing.The lack of separation between the kings and the Gods in Egypt is evident in such pieces as The Palette of King Narmer . The Falcon that represents Horus is holding the heads of the dead enemies, ones that are now forbidden to enter the afterlife due to decapitation, while King Narmer is about to strike another enemy. In this, Narmer and Horus are synonymous; they are two parts of a whole. In a Mesopotamian piece, The Stele of Naram-Sin , we see Naram-Sin as being closest to the Gods, but not as a representation of the Gods. The is no god aiding him in his fight against his enemies, although the light shining down could be seen as the gods blessing his actions. These examples show the difference in how both cultures use art to demonstrate their relationship with the gods. As well, the art depicting the Egyptian afterlife proves the importance they held in the afterlife and that preparing for it was a large part of daily life, while Mesopotamian art does not show such a concern for the afterlife in their art. It appears to be more involving the ruler’s direct contact with the gods to legitimize their rightful reign, as opposed to pleasing the gods for a fruitful journey into the afterlife.
I feel like the reason Herodotus noticed that is because Egyptians at this time would appear to be high;y religious because religion was such a huge part of everyday life. Almost every piece of art is, in some way connected to the Gods. Artwork of the kings is in honor of the Gods, as the kings were considered to be a representation of the gods, themselves. As well, the heavy influence the afterlife held is another sign of the effect of religion and how it is represented in daily life. Temples in honor of the gods, burial shrines, burial masks, and gifts, are all part of the relationship between man and gods. Even something as benign as a perfume bottle is representative of eternal life. I feel that it would be difficult to define this evidence because it is so insidious in daily Egyptian life, that it would be difficult to separate it. Life is about the Gods and the afterlife. So, it is easy to follow that art would represent that with so many tombs, temples, and statues to show that relationship.
tmbergan, I really appreciate the information in your post. I think another reason that only kings were allowed to kill the lions is that it would show that they had the strength and tenacity to kill something as fierce as a lion would make them more god-like and further affirm that they were chosen by the Gods to rule. As well, if anyone else showed the same abilities to kill a lion, that could be seen as a challenge, possibly one condoned by the Gods.
Laura, I really appreciate your linking of the two pieces under this context. At least for myself, sometimes it helps to understand the meaning if I think of them as pieces of a puzzle, instead of separate works. Both of these works tell us in different ways how the social stratification was present and in which ways it affected people. The use of wealth and power to assert one’s place in the social hierarchy is not a new concept but it is very interesting to see how this power was asserted and in what it ways it was different for different layers of society.
When it comes to the social stratification of the Ancient Near East, art gives us excellent examples and representations. The Law Code Stele of Hammurabi gives us several insights into this. Not only do we see Hammurabi on equal footing as the god, Shamash, but this also gives the impression that the laws are god given, inforcing the social structure. The laws themselves, show the stratification as punishments for a commoner that strikes someone of a higher social rank, their punishments were much more severe than if the roles were reversed. The well quoted, “An eye for an eye” would only have been applicable if both parties were of the same social standing. As well, extensive laws in a massive empire would create the need for another layer to the social structure-a judicial structure of some kind. This would be in addition to the religious stratification in the social structure, as well as the social rankings themselves.
One manner that the rulers of Mesopotamia showed their power was to represent the relationship between the rulers and the gods. The Stele of Naram-Sin shows Naram-Sin as being larger than anyone else on the stele, his presence being imposing, and that he is closest to the gods, due to being the highest person on the stele. He has claimed the divine right to rule, suggesting he was chosen by the gods, themselves. Naram-Sin showed strength in his victory, which would honor the gods. This would place Naram-Sin as the go-between of the people and the gods, which would make him a tool of the gods and creating self-importance.
These sites are used in more modern political issues by trying to align themselves with the ancient rulers of Mesopotamia. Saddam Hussien’s attempt to rebuild Babylon and the Ishtar Gate shows he was trying to place his rule of Iraq in the same category as Babylon. This could also be used as a means to legitimize his rule by stating that Hussien was chosen by the gods. This would be important, especially given the political scene at the time, to assert his gods-given right to rule.Jess,
I really do like your point about the Lion Man sculpture. That makes a lot of sense that the reason that it was standing as a man, but with the features of a lion as a way to say that the artist saw these two somewhat as equals. That really makes me think about how we attempt to decide on the meaning of art but it really is subjective, as we, the viewers, have no idea what the artist’s intentions or inspiration had been. I think that effort is a by-product of modern life because we can research most modern artists to find their muse, but when it comes to prehistoric art it really becomes so much more difficult. Was it because they didn’t understand something? Maybe they had seen a deformed lion, so this piece was a means to try and understand what they had witnessed. Maybe it was meant as a toy for a child or used to represent a part of a story. The possibilities are endless but as you stated, we will never know their intentions, sadly.When I think of abstract art, I feel it is a purposeful act to create an interpretation of an object that is different than it appears, for the sole sake of its interpretation. As well, most modern artists that create abstract art, are doing so in response to modern social issues, for example, in response to industrialization or consumerism. When I view the art of this week, I do not see these pieces as qualifying under either category. I think one thing to keep in mind is not only the skill level, as these artists are literally creating art, not just a piece of art but the entire idea of art. They are inventing the means to create, the medium and the idea. That is not abstract, that is learning, much like a child learns to draw or write. Yes, they may appear rudimentary and abstract by our modern means (in some cases at least) but that doesn’t qualify them as abstract, rudimentary or even unskilled, as some of the examples of art we are unsure exactly how these early artists created their work, and dare I say, cannot be replicated without modern tools.
I think the most important issue is the intent. Did the artist create what we define as an abstract representation of a woman because the artist wanted to create it in a different manner than he saw it? Or was in crafted in that manner for what it does represent? A woman with large breasts and large hips would be thought to be more fertile and more likely to reproduce. A woman with large buttocks and thighs would probably have the means to survive a lean hunting season. These are representations of what was sought after for their survival, with emphasis on what was the most important attributes. Combine this with the materials and tools available and I feel this entirely disqualifies these works as abstract art.
I have always thought that art, of any kind, was in part a way to think about the artist’s place in the world. Not only to record it, as a means to communicate or retell the story of their life but also to help them understand the life/way of life, especially for those that lacked an understanding of the world as a whole. For example, a cave painting of a hunting scene not only records a great hunt, maybe to record it as a way to retell it but also how the hunter interacts with the world and how small he is in the scheme of things. Even though the artists had no way of knowing just how the big the world was, they had to understand how fragile their place in it was, how easily they could become ill or injured and die.
I think the art speaks of the amazement the people of the time had for their environment. People do not care to record something that is underwhelming but the things that amaze them. Who takes a picture of a grey and dreary cloud-covered day? No, most people take a picture of an awe-inspiring sunrise or sunset. Or a moose standing in their front yard. We want to record those things that inspire and amaze us and I feel it would have been the same for the earliest of artists.
Okay, so much for embedding the video. :-/
Jessi, I too disagree with art being harmony. Sometimes art needs disharmony and chaos to show it’s beauty. I found that quote to be a bit odd, as if all art needs to be a boat on a calm lake in the middle of the cloudless afternoon. Sometimes we need the thunderstorm instead of the sunshine, even in art.
Here is my introduction video. Sorry for the basic phone video but my webcam was not playing nicely tonight. :-/
<iframe width=”560″ height=”315″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/UWHAN6FtoH8″ frameborder=”0″ allow=”accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture” allowfullscreen></iframe>
Here’s to a great semester!!! 😀
Hiya Jessica! Oh my, such a full house. I completely feel you on the unhappy child when it comes to bedtime! My five year old still throws a tantrum from time to time! Sounds like you definitely have your hands full on top of college! Arizona is someplace I’ve wanted to visit. I have driven through but haven’t seen much of it outside of the interstate or stopping for gas. Nice to ‘meet’ you and am looking forward to discussions on the discussion board!
