Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Aalieyah, I like that you mention the helmet Naram-Sin wore for this question. A lot of people have been going for the Nanna Ziggurat for their answers so it’s nice to see another example! I think you may be missing the second part of the question asking how the sites/monuments have been used by the modern political forces.
The Assurnasirpal II Killing Lions is a nice visual example of how Mesopotamian cultures showed their power. In the Kahn Academy video, they mentioned that it was a rule that only kings were allowed to kill the lions. They would do so to show their strength and to demonstrate how the king protects his citizens from the outside forces of nature. A lot of the kings also had artwork with them in close proximity to some of the gods they worshipped, placing them above their citizens as they were seen as being on a similar level of power to the gods. They built ziggurats probably with that idea that it shows just how close they are to a specific god with the massive structures emphasizing their power. Saddam Hussein has used the Ziggurat of Ur specifically for more modern political forces, as he parked his fighter jets near it to try and prevent the US military from bombing the ancient site. He had also restored a lower portion of the ziggurat to show his power to his own people, though it might not have been for religious reasons like previous rulers had done.
The Stele of Naram-Sin is a great visual for Mesopotamia’s strict social hierarchy. Naram-Sin is seen as larger than any of the other people in the piece and stands well above them. He also wears a horned helmet which is described as a symbol of the gods, thus equating him with them. The Stele of Hammurabi is similar with the size as the god Shamash would be twice Hammurabi’s size if he were standing, showing his power over the mortal man. A big difference between the two pieces seems to be that Naram-Sin is seen as claiming divinity for himself, then getting the approval from the gods whereas Hammurabi is being given that power and law directly from the god. Either way, it appears that a god will approve of a king’s authority and be closer to the king than the lower-class people as we see the gods and kings next to each other in some of the pieces such as these.
Lucas, I like that you think their art was a way of starting their history. I tried asking in another reply if there might have been a chance that they did have the intention of reaching a future audience, similar to how some people are today (of course, I didn’t know how to word it as nicely as you had when I tried mentioning it). I also really like the end of your post — Stonehenge and Newgrange may be harder for us to understand because the spiritual manner that they were created in no longer exists for us to learn from today. If they had followed different religions that we don’t have much information on, a lot of these arts could have completely different meanings than what our ideas suggest.
Aubri, do you think in some way the people in prehistoric times may have known that their artwork would be found by groups of people they hadn’t met? We can understand today that some of our current works of art can be found decades from now in the future. Do you think there may be a chance they would have had a similar idea, and left some of these stories for us to find and learn from?
I really like that you mentioned people naturally want to recreate things we see as beautiful. We know that they created a lot of curvy women, but they also created a lot of bison through carvings and paintings. Maybe they believed that bison were some of the more beautiful animals.I feel like some of the cave drawings could have been used as storytelling tools. Kids in our day have picture books to help them see what’s happening in the story that they’re listening to, so some of the cave drawings may have been used in similar ways. Think of the movie Brother Bear and how Kenai and Koda found the cave drawings with the animals and then the larger painting of the bear and man facing each other in a fight. A lot of them may have also been used in religious ways for rituals or they may have created some of the figures to worship or keep in hopes of promoting fertility. The Woman of Dolni Vestonice and Woman of Willendorf are all seen today as depictions of maturity and fertility, so perhaps people would have a carving like that in their home with hopes of being blessed by the goddess it represented. All of the art could have been teaching tools as well, whether they were trying to teach each other how to paint, carve, or work with clay, or they were trying to teach children what the animals were, how to hunt them, and where to find them.
Miranda, would the prehistoric art have been considered abstract to those in that time period? Maybe in a way, some of their symbols or figures were created to be abstract, such as the exaggeration of their women figurines or the lion-man. I found a quote by Arshile Gorky on Artists’ Network that says, “Abstraction allows man to see with his mind what he cannot see physically with his eyes.’ If people in the prehistoric time didn’t see larger women or the animal-human hybrids like they created, does that mean that a lot of their art could have been leaning more towards abstract when it was created? Or do you think their definition would have been very different than ours?
Kaitlyn, I like that you mentioned the lion-man as a possible piece that could be seen as abstract. Depending on the viewer, they might see the lion-man and think the creator wasn’t attempting to represent external reality because it’s a hybrid, nonexistent creature. But I agree that it appears to be really precise and doesn’t seem to completely fall under that definition. It’s not a real creature but it uses very precise details and is still recognizable to us as being both a man and a lion.
The definition of abstract art, as described on tate.org.uk, is “art that does not attempt to represent an accurate depiction of a visual reality but instead use shapes, colours, forms, and gestural marks to achieve its effect.’ Prehistoric art doesn’t fit this definition. All of the little statues we’ve seen do seem to be pretty accurate depictions of reality. Granted, some of the women figures are a bit rounder than what a real human woman would be, they’re still fairly accurate for being such old creations. As for the drawings in caves, they do have a simpler look to them in comparison to the clay works, but they still have the accuracy in portraying real animals rather than just being shapes and colors. Some of the stick figures or symbols they drew and carved into walls might lean a little more toward being seen as abstract, but overall I don’t think that prehistoric art can be considered abstract art.
What is art?
Disagree- Art, defined by the Cambridge dictionary, is “the making or doing of something whose purpose is to bring pleasure to people through their enjoyment of what is beautiful and interesting, or things often made for this purpose, such as paintings, drawings or sculptures.’ While I do agree with parts of this, I don’t agree that art is always something beautiful. It can be hideous and interesting but definitely isn’t always beautiful if it shows gore or any true horrors.
Agree- Merriam-Webster dictionary says that art is “something that is created with imagination and skill and that is beautiful or that expresses important ideas or feelings.’ I believe that this definition is a lot more accurate for what art is. Art could be telling a story to convey powerful emotions, and sometimes those emotions aren’t always going to be beautiful. But it can get the point across show the viewer which emotions the artist may have been feeling as they created the piece.What is art history and why do we study it? How does it help us to understand the world in which we live?
Art history is the study of history and human development through the means of painting, sculptures, and other forms of visual art. It’s a timeline to show us who we used to be in the past, and how we’ve changed to who we are in the present. Art history is human history shown in visual terms rather than in the form of a textbook. It shows us how humans and societies have changed through war, across borders and decades, and even shows how our definition of beauty has been altered throughout time.Jessi, I really like the definition you have by Sol LeWitt. Art is extremely personal and sometimes the artist’s definition or understanding might not correctly get across to anyone. “Or it may never leave the artist’s mind’ is really interesting to think about. There may be plenty of artists out there that have a picture in their mind but can’t create it for whatever reason, but that doesn’t make them any less of an artist because their idea alone is artwork for them.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xPe3y73lBcP8AKJvvvY2kpcYLudAJRiR/view?usp=sharing
If this link doesn’t work, just let me know! I’m looking forward to taking this class this semester!
