What type of art I enjoyed the most this course!

I enjoyed studying Ancient Egyptian art the most from the course material this quarter. I have always found Ancient Egyptian art to be intriguing and eye catching. Ancient Egyptian art was both stylized and symbolic. The colors the Egyptians used in their art were used to describe the picture and idea they wanted to get across to the viewer. For example, the color black signified royal fertility of Egypt originating from the Nile River. Therefore, Egyptian art did not always use naturalistic coloring, which to me made the art more interesting and fun to look at. I also liked that Ancient Egyptian art did not fall under much influence from surrounding variations of art forms. Their art was extraordinary and remained unchanging for a long time. The Ancient Egyptian art was also my favorite because they used symbolism as the main aspect of their art. Their symbols included things to signify their gods/goddesses, pharaoh, and animals. The great detail and historical context of the Ancient Egyptian pieces is what sparks my interest. I also loved how much they incorporated mathematics into their architecture and pieces, especially with the pyramids.

            The Pyramids of Giza, shown below, were built reflecting religious and symbolic factors, like much of Egyptian art. The pyramids were mathematically constructed with precise ideas on how they should be angled. They had tactics of construction like sliding heavy stones over wet ground or placing them on logs and rolling them into position. I feel that this would be such an intensive work load for a human being. I do not think barely anyone now-a-days could understand the amount of work the people who built the pyramids went through and the hardships they faced along the way. The pyramids were placed to follow the suns path for religious means. To me the pyramids are so amazing, to think people were able to create structures so enormous and perfect. The pyramids really were close to flawless in that every stone is placed correctly. I also think it is interesting how they are created as tombs for pharaohs and rulers. To think someone finds it necessary that they deserve to enslave so many people just to work to build their tomb is mind blowing. But the Egyptians had beliefs about the afterlife that required their resting place to have certain things included, so their beliefs about the afterlife became priority for themselves rather than caring about others fate too and not just their own.

            Another piece of Ancient Egyptian art that helps describe why I found this period so interesting was the Khafre statue. This statue shows how well the Egyptians had used mathematical proportions in their art. The statues are life like and three dimensional, (as shown below). This statue is clearly of a ruler because of the muscular build and the dressings on the man. The statue shows how well their sculptors were at art and the great detail is so fun to look at.

            Overall, Ancient Egypt was full of fascinating art, and will always be known for that.

Naturalistic or stylized?

For this week’s discussion I chose option one to talk about how art produced in the Byzantine and Early Medieval periods has veered away from naturalism in ways and become a slight bit more stylized. In order to describe this process I chose two pieces from the text. The first piece I chose was the Virgin and Child with saints and angels on page 245 (as seen below). And the second piece I chose was of Christ washing the feet of his disciples Aachen gospels of Otto III from page 451 (second image below).

The first piece I chose, the Virgin and Child with saints and angels from page 245 seems more unrealistic when comparing the two pieces I chose because there is no sign of depth. In this piece the angels that are behind the Virgin, her baby, and the saints look the same size and everything as the people in the front, basically no dimension is shown. They should be smaller than the people in the front. Also he faces are not very naturalistic. The noses on some of the figures are large in proportion to their faces (seen in the angels behind the people). And most noticeably the child’s head is extremely small in proportion to the body.

In the image of Christ washing his disciples feet the buildings in the background are buildings that are pretty far from looking naturalistic. I see this in the sense that they look miss-proportioned and stylized through the artist’s manipulation. This piece also incorporates bright colors and a variety of colors which is not very naturalistic in the sense that colors are duller in the paintings meant to resemble natural aspects. Also to me, Christ and his disciples bodies are drawn elongated and somewhat out of proportion. For example, the disciple who is bent down to Christ’s left with his foot in the water bowl has arms that seem elongated and not of normal naturalistic size. Also the artist drew the figures fingers and hands to be clearly long. So I see this picture as more stylized versus naturalistic.

Out of these two images I see the second one of Christ washing his disciples feet as the most interesting. This painting has a lot to look at and can spike interest in the viewer. The second one of the Virgin and the child with saints and angels is not as interesting to me because they are simply sitting there and the only thought provoking piece is that of the angels in the background looking upward. This part of the piece could cause the viewer to speculate what they could be looking up toward, likely heaven. 

Commodus as Hercules vs. Portraits of Caracalla

Commodus was an emperor who was not known to be very strong in political background or intellectual levels. Instead of focusing on ruling the empire his attention was turned toward luxury and items for enjoyment. Commodus’s passion for luxurious items led him to fund some of the best artist of his time. Commodus claimed to be Hercules reincarnation along with the incarnation of Jupiter. And with his belief of being the reincarnation of Hercules he had an artist create a marble statue of him posing as Hercules.  

            The emperor Caracalla is depicted in his portraits as a “fierce” and “courageous” ruler working to secure the Roman Empire. For this piece the sculptor create the piece out of marble using techniques of different lighting shades to show more emphasis on expression. The book describes him as a “no nonsense ruler of iron fisted determination…and glare of fierce intensity.”

            The Hercules statue shows Commodus’s vanity and self-perception as full of himself. And the portrait or Caracalla shows his bold strength and power trip perspective. These rulers want to show their strength and to create fear in the viewer. Both statues are shown to have power, control, and “fierceness.” I feel that these rulers were really into themselves and felt that they were above all others and they should be viewed as so. 

The Marbles!

Currently the Parthenon Marbles, previously called Eglin’s Marbles, are located in the British Museum. These marbles have quite the history behind them. The marbles were “hacked off the Parthenon” by Eglin who was the ambassador of the Ottoman Empire. Eglin was obsessed with historical and classical antiques, so it makes sense the marbles landed up in his possession. And because of this obsession he began creating and operating missions to find these classical antiques from vast amounts of areas.

            People say that the gods caught up to Eglin for his doings and karma took its toll on him. Eglin got a bad infection that ended up causing him to have to cut off half of his nose. Even worse than that, he was so caught up in finding classical antiques that he ended up losing his wife to his best friend, which I am sure means he also lost his best friend. Then to top all of that off, Eglin found himself drowning in debt from things like his divorce that he had to sell the marbles to the British government around 1816. He sold the marbles for what would be four million dollars today. And for that fact the British government argues that the marbles are legally owned by them.

            Once Greece gained their independence from the Ottoman Empire they decided to argue for their marbles back. Greece believe they should be able to have the marbles because they were theirs originally and stolen from them by Eglin during his control over them. In my opinion Eglin’s control over the people makes it so he has the ability to determine what is his and so the marbles could technically be his purely through his stance in power. I personally think setting up the missions is a selfish act and inconsiderate. Eglin seems to just want everything to himself in his control, which is common among what I have learned about characteristics of past rulers in general.

            I feel that both sides of the argument are back-able and make sense. It is hard to choose sides. From the British viewpoint I can see that they feel they own them because they paid for them. And we all know that when something is paid for it considered that you bought it and it now belongs to you. And I can see that Greece feels it is theirs because originally it was a piece of their property and represents their history so why would it not be in a museum in Greece? But if the British were to have to just hand over the marbles then it would become a world wide dispute about millions of items being given back to the original land that they came from, because they are in museums in another area. I feel that a possible solution to the problem is that British should just sell Greece the marbles for either the price they originally bought it for, converted into today’s dollars, or for a reasonable amount. This way the dispute would be settled and it would not lead to other disputes. 

Two unknown works of art

This week I chose to discuss the two unknown works of art, and to try and identify whether the works of art are Cycladic, Minoan, and or Mycenaean.

The first piece (shown below), is of a person holding two bundles of fish, one in each hand. The person looks to me like a man who is fit and appears healthy. The two bundles of fish could represent a plentiful environment and a constructive hunting method.

I believe that this piece is both Mycenaean and Minoan. I think the piece is Mycenaean because their art includes common themes of hunting. And the fish bundled strongly represent the idea that the man is a hunter. Although the Mycenaean culture was influenced by the Minoan culture, so from that aspect I am leaning more toward assuming the painting is from the Minoan culture. Minoan art was full of creative patterns including spirals, triangles, curves, and linear patterns. This painting demonstrates these aspects. For example, the formation of the body is made up of curves creating a thin healthy figure. Triangles are used to create all of the fish, it looks as though they are made of four or five triangles. Minoan art was also known to commonly incorporate fish to demonstrate a naturalistic design and this painting has bundles of fish.

The second unknown piece is a pot (shown below), it starts out extremely small and curves up into a very large pot with two handles. On the center section of the pot there is a scene painted. The scene, to me, portrays a battle. It looks as though one character is on a watch-tower, while the other two are on a carriage being pulled by bulls or some type of animal. These characteristics make me think it is Mycenaean, especially because it demonstrates a battle scene. Mycenaean art was commonly known to depict battle scenes, bull leaping, and hunting scenes as I stated earlier, so it is kind of a given that it must be from the Mycenaean culture. Mycenaean art was said to be brightly colored, which this pot is just showing shades of brown, but maybe time has worn out the bright colors that it once was painted with. The piece is extremely well made and a well description of art from the Mycenaean culture.

Both of these pieces are well made and interesting pieces of the world’s history. The two pieces also relate to pieces we have been talking about previously because of the linear lines, curves, naturalistic elements, and geometric features, so they tie in well. 

Egyptian Art

This week’s discussion is on the similarities and differences about the structures of the Ziggurats and the Pyramids of Giza. These particular structures have more significant differences and few more minor similarities. The similarities have to do with religion, height, and formation. The differences include the way they were created, the religious intentions, and the amount of work put into the creation.

The Ziggurats and the Pyramids of Giza were built with the intentions of religious or symbolic factors. They were of high importance to the cultures and were a place of gathering. Both of the structures were built high up of the ground, likely due to avoid flooding and other destructive factors. The formation of both also included stairs, the sides of the pyramids were stairs throughout and meeting at the top to a point, and the Ziggurats had long stair ways leading up to them.

The differences between the Ziggurats and the pyramids of Giza are more significant. The Ziggurats were created by piling new stones onto rubble from the previous structure which gave it the height to avoid flooding. But on the other hand the pyramids of Giza were built with an intensive work crew and by using heavy stones rolled over logs to move them or slid over wet ground. There was a whole network of living for the workers that was uncovered and showed the extreme hardships that they encountered while trying to build these structures. There was also a great deal of knowledge put into building the pyramids. They used mathematics and calculations to create the pyramids just right. They were placed to follow the suns path and made to where the stones met at the top flawlessly. I feel that the workers were likely treated as slaves to create these amazing structures for the kings.

The religious intentions of the Ziggurats are that they are used as shrines and a gateway to the heavens. The people used the Ziggurats as like what we use churches for, a place to be close to their gods. The Ziggurats demonstrated stability and signified their dedication to their gods.  On the other hand the pyramids of Giza were designed as resting places for the bodies of the three kings from the fourth dynasty. The three kings were Khufu, Khafre, and Menkaure, and they each had their own pyramid. The kings would be place in a vault far into the pyramid and closed off with a 50 ton stone! The intentions of using the pyramids versus an average tomb were for protections of the kings. There were separate passage ways made to confuse/trick anyone trying to get to the kings body.

Overall, I feel that the Ziggurats hold more of significance because they were used continuously by the people to worship and be closer to their gods. Whereas the pyramids were used as a resting place and a place to remember the fourth dynasty kings, so there was not a continuous flow of people going to and from using it as a daily place of worship.

week Three Post 2

The piece from the chapter that stood out to me the most and that I chose to talk about was the guardian figures at the gate of the Citadel of Sargon II, on page 42 of our text. The photo of the statues was taken during the excavation of Citadel, in present day Iraq.

                My first reaction to this piece is that this symbolized power of a great empire and security to its people. I believe this place was powerful because the carvings on the guardians of the gate are so particular in there perfection and enormity (forty feet high). Horses were a sign of battle and strength and the guardians resemble horses and man. They also are showing that along with their power they are rich because the dressings on the guardians look like they are made of expensive clothing material, with many accessories and jewels; like hats, earrings, necklaces, and jewels dangling on the legs of both the man and horse. Not everyone of this time could afford this nice of clothing so to use them on the guardians is smart to send the message of wealth, which could lead to fear of the power behind the walls.

                The composition of these statues is that so it makes a grand entrance into the gates of Citadel. It is made with great walls and a maze like entrance to end up at the destination of the place that they are guarding. The guardians are to the right and the left of the entrance and have walls surrounding them that are even greater in size than the enormous statues.

                The medium of the piece looks like rock or a form of cement. Obviously the element that they used was strong enough to last and hold up to today. And to be able to build and fund enough material and workers to create this massive structure shows the wealth of the people and kingdom.

                The style that makes this art really unique is that the guardians are half men and half horse. This could have been done because they were intending to portray that they are of great strength compared to average men. The guardians have the body of a horse with the hooves and body structure, and the head of a man connected to the horse’s neck. The guardians are bulky and thick looking of strong muscle, which was not always true of men in the past because they were so hard working and did not have that much to eat so they would have been more slender. The faces and heads of the guardians are dressed with fancy head dresses, symbolizing great wealth to be able to afford such fancy items. And great wealth comes from great power, so overall these statues get the message of power off to any intruders.

 The color of the statues and entrance is charcoal grey and black shades. This coloring was most likely just done because it is the color of the material they used. The greyish color seems to be common among many structures built in the past due to the materials they had used.

                The scale of this piece is massive, with forty feet high walls. The height also emphasizes on the power of this place because they have the wealth and man power to create such a piece. With walls of this great of height a place is secure and strong.

                The texture of the piece looks rough like our concrete today would be if we just poured it and did not smooth it out. But the piece looks very well done and like a lot of thought and care went into the making of the piece.

                Men are clearly not of the magnitude of the half men half horse figures of these statues, so the proportion is off compared to normal perspectives. But the proportion of the guardian’s heads is a whole lot larger than compared to the neck and body of the figure. The heads being larger is most likely to make the man part of the statue stand out and overpower the horse part, so this way people attempting to break or enter through the walls know that this place holds men of great power and wealth so they are not someone to be reckoned with.