Final Blog

My favorite periods that we looked at were the Ancient Egyptian.

I've always been interested in Egyptian art ever since I was a little girl. Egyptian art is easily distinguishable even among people with no art history background. This means most people know and understand the artistic characteristics of the pieces without even realizing it. "The Palette of Narmer" (c. 2950 BCE) has a lot of these specific characteristics. It shows a pharaoh in the act of almost killing another man, most likely a pharaoh as well. It tells a specific story, which I like because there is obviously meaning behind the piece. I like and dislike the fact that for Egyptians their art was about telling a story rather than being a piece of art. I like it because you get the idea of what they are trying to convey, but I don't like that as a viewer you do not always get a great idea of what the Egyptians are capable of creatively. With that said, the pieces you do see did require artistic talent and patience. There seems to be a large amount of time that was devoted to these pieces. The palette is said to be depicting the unification of Egypt, because before this time Upper and Lower Egypt were two separate states. The figures in this piece are also in the composite pose which is often found in Egyptian art; this is not necessarily natural for the human form but it shows that Egyptians were about creating works that sent across a specific message, and they did not mind bending the natural rules of form to do it. The Egyptians definitely had the ability to create forms that were lifelike  as seen in the "Seated Scribe" (c. 2450-2325) and the "Butcher" (c. 2450-2325). These pieces seem to be more rare and are in three dimensional form and are much more realistic. This shows that Egyptians did have the ability to represent humans very well, they just preferred to make art that was about the story.
It is not completely sure what the palette was used for. It is said it was used for crushing makeup for ceremonial purposes. I think it is interesting that there is no way to know for certain what this piece is used for but it is easy to assume that it definitely had a purpose in the aesthetically gorgeous but almost utilitarian period of the Egyptians.

I also really enjoy the "Funerary Mask of Tutankhamun" (c. 1332-1322). This may be one of the most easily recognized pieces of Egyptian art besides the Sphinx. The mask shows an idealized Tutankhamun, more beautiful than realistic. The Egyptians created a lot of pieces that were extremely decorative and elegant for their deceased pharaohs. This means that a lot of pieces are aesthetically pleasing because, like the funerary mask, there is quite a bit of inlaid stones and gold.

I think I enjoy looking at Egyptian art for the reasons that most people do: as a viewer you get a small window into what life was like for the Egyptians and the aesthetic beauty of the pieces that were created in this time.

Caracalla and Commodus

In this blog post I am going to be comparing and contrasting the bust of Commodus as Hercules (c. 191-92 CE) and the portrait head of Caracalla (c. 217-230). 

The distinction of these two sculptures is quite large. The artist depicting Commodus portrays a gentle but commanding ruler. His face seems gentle, his face is not hardened but remains soft as if he is calm. 

The portrait head of Caracalla on the other hand is depicted as incredibly stern. The natural lines that are created when a person frowns is carved perfectly, showing his anger. His large brow bones protrude over his eyes giving him a look of aggression. 

Although Commodus has a much gentler facial expression the details of the sculpture allude to his power and strength. He is depicted with a dead animal wrapped around his shoulders with the head of the lion atop his own. This shows his ability to hunt which meant he could conquer chaotic nature. The depiction of rulers conquering animals has been continuously used in art and used as propaganda to demonstrate the power of the ruler. The sculpture of Commodus as Hercules is covered in pieces that are of a propagandistic nature. The lion also alludes to Hercules and his personal accomplishments. The fruit he is holding in his hand also alludes to Hercules which gives the idea that Commodus is not unlike Hercules and therefore should be respected as him. The use of details that hint to Hercules could be understood among the audience of this time period easily even if they were illiterate. 

The portrait head of Caracalla does not use objects of propaganda as Commodus did. The artist left his sculpture incredibly simple in that way but amazingly detailed in the realism of Caracalla's features. The bust must have been idealized but it is obvious who is being depicted which meant that the viewers of this time would instantly be connected to the sculpture. There is immense amount of detail in the hair on his face; the hair is coming in slightly in his beard and his mustache is a little overgrown. The dimple in his chin might be a detail alluding to Caracalla as well. This sculpture seems much more serious than Commodus' because of the immense amount of attention to detail and the lacking of pieces to distract the viewer. Caracalla is in his pure state and appears incredibly powerful. 

It is made clear in both of these sculptures that the ruler wanted to be taken seriously and be seen as important and commanding. The busts used different techniques in order to get these ideas across, and Caracalla could easily be viewed as being more intense. Despite this, I feel as if both wanted to be respected and seen as powerful.

Parthenon Marbles

I am going to discuss the importance of the Parthenon marbles being returned to their original home in Athens, Greece. At this moment the marbles rest in The British Museum in London, England. 

I feel as if the Parthenon marbles should be returned to Athens where they originate from. I feel as if countries do this often in a expression of power and dominance, even if the British museum is not meaning it to be seen this way I believe it is. If the marbles had been a gift it may be seen otherwise but they were purchased  and whether this is absolutely legitimate is still being questioned. I believe out of respect for Greece the stones should be returned. 

There is an argument that because the marbles are not in their original place that the historical context of the pieces is interrupted. This argument can be easily disputed because a lot of pieces have been removed from their original place to be shown in museums. Ancient Egyptian art, etc., have been removed from their original context so they could be viewed more easily and to a wider audience. With that said the placement of the stones is not an agreed upon topic among Greece and Britain. Also, I DO think there is some historical context that is broken when the original piece is moved. I believe the creators of the Parthenon did not anticipate the movement of their art and therefore some of the original perceptions that were intended of the sculptures have changed because of the movement. The audience viewing would arguably get a better understanding and the full monumental extent of the Parthenon marbles if they were returned to their original place. Would a viewer gain a richer insight of the Pyramids if they actually visited them or went to a museum and saw only pieces? My believe is that the sculptures should be viewed as a whole.  

It should be said that the British museum are displaying the sculptures to show their aesthetic beauty. The stones obviously took an extended period of time to be created and were cut with immense precision and care. This is an important thing to remember about any work of art, the aesthetic beauty is always a major part of art and one of the reasons that an artist creates it. With that said, what is art without context and meaning? Which is a major part of the creation of these statues. 

I believe that aesthetic beauty and the history of the stones could be reunited if the statues were returned to their rightful place in Athens. This would show a large amount of respect for the historical aspect of the sculptures and for Greece in their independence. 

Aegan Art

I am going to compare the Great Lyre with Bull's Head from present day Muqaiyir, Iraq, c. 2600-2500 BCE and Bull's Head Rhyton from Knossos, Crete, c. 1550-1450 BCE.

The Great Lyre bull's head from Iraq is made from wood with gold, silver, and shell among other things. The Rhyton is made from steatite with shell, rock crystal, and red jasper. Rhyton, because it is made from a very solid and indestructible looking stone appears much more intense and tough. It appears very heavy and intimidating. Whereas the other one seems much more soft and child-like. This idea is perpetuated by the crinkling of the gold that the head is made out of, it seems much softer because of this. This one also looks almost innocent, with it's large eyes that seem to be looking upwards without worry or intention. While the Bull's-Head Rhyton is much more intimidating. His long tusks and small eyes that look as if they are squinting in seriousness. He appears very noble and commands respect, in contrast to the one from Iraq looks as if he could be a child's toy.

The Bull's-Head of Rhyton is much more realistically done than the Great Lyre. His ears are shaped with the curve of a natural bulls, his face shape and the long, thickness of his neck allude very much to the characteristics of a bull. The Great Lyre's tusks are very short, his ears are disproportionate, and his beard is obviously not naturalistic in more ways than one. Bulls of course do not have beards and the beard is shaped very stylistically with thick curls and separate pieces that do not fall the way hair would fall in real life. The top of his head is also down with stylistic short curls. The snout of the Great Lyre bull alludes more to a cow's snout (or this is what I see) so it somewhat looks as if a bull's tusks were stuck on a cow's head. The Rhyton bull also has stylistic features such as the carved fur on the top of his head. The viewer gets the idea of the tight-knit curls but it is not completely realistic. His eyes are also very realistic; the shape of the eyes, the surrounding eye area, and the actual eye itself seems quite real. The Great Lyre bull's eye is extremely stylistically done. The shape is somewhat similar of a bulls eye but it is not as realistic, and the artist used materials that did not as closely relate to a mammal's eye as the Rhyton artist did.

The artist of the Bull's-head of Rhyton seemed to want to convey the idea of power and strength in his bull which is mirrored in the strength of the material and the overall commanding appearance of the bull.
The Great Lyre with Bull's head artist did not seem to share the need to convey overwhelming power in his bull but that does not mean it appears any less important.

Egyptian Art

Egyptian art is very interesting in the way that they have very specific proportion rules that all artists were to abide by at this time.

Humans were usually depicted in a composite pose, where their torsos would face the viewer but their heads would be in profile view. This unnaturalistic position would mostly be used by people of higher worth, or higher on the hierarchy of scale. In this scale the people who were of higher ranking would also be larger than the people around them who were of lower ranking. Even if the a slave had been bigger than a pharaoh in real life, they would be portrayed smaller.

People that were of lower ranking in the Egypt social class were usually depicted more realistically as well. As with the piece "The Seated Scribe" (c. 2450-2325 BC) he is seen as extremely realistic. The fat between his midsection is shown, which would be on any person sitting in the same position. His pectorals were not taught, but depicted as if they probably were on this man. He is not toned which means he must have had a somewhat higher ranking job than a salve (see scribe) but he was not of a high enough ranking to be depicted in an idealistic form. The great detail and realism shown in this piece shows that Egyptians were quite aware of the human form and capable of representing it exactly but they just preferred to idealize their pharaohs and gods.

Pharaohs can be seen in Egyptian art looking very youthful and appearing strong. Even if during their lifetime they were not particularly strong physically or were older when they reached death, they were depicted very powerful in the Ka statues (the statues that the soul could return to if the original body of the person had been destroyed). It is interesting that into today's culture it is a mark of artistry if a person can be represented realistically and the artwork is considered more valuable when in comparison during ancient Egypt it was quite the opposite.

The canon of proportions was a vital part of Egyptian art. This was a way of representing a figure by plugging it into a mathematical chart. Basically a square grid would be drawn and the figures would match the correct heights that were commonly used. The head of a figure would reach the top or above the 18th square, the shoulders at 16, and the knees at 6. This would insure that each figure would be the exact same height and around the same width as the one that came before it.  The artist would break away from these rules slightly when depicting people of lower class, but they too would be drawn to match specific rules. The canon of proportions does not allow much in the way of creatively showing people, or realistically. Since most of the people were shown in the canon of proportions or idealistically it is hard for art historians to figure out what Egyptians truly looked like. There is some sense of creativity in being allowed to draw someone in how they actually look like and not matching them to these specifications. There is some creativity allowed in this culture, but it seems that they were very mathematically and detail driven in a specific way that was less about freely expressing emotions and more about getting a point across. Whether that be a story of a Pharaoh or of a god, it was very specific. This is not a negative thing at all; it shows what was important for the Egyptian people and what they used art for.

Head of a Man (Known as Akkadian Ruler)

This sculpture is a bronze, life-sized head of a ruler.

This is a mainly front facing sculpture, perhaps meant for the viewer to see from every side because of the deatil of the hair, but it's main focus was the front. The most detail was in the face, with the high amount of detail in the beard.
The beard is not realistic, but more of a stylized texture. The folds of the beard are not realistic, beards do not actually lay that way and the individual pieces of beard also do lay realistically.
The facial features seem portrayed as a specific person, the nose is long and pointed. The lips are a little less specific, but the cheekbones are extremely high on his face and protruding.

The bronze of the sculpture underlines the regality of the head and the strength of the material depicts the power of the person. The sculpture gives an air of proudness with his straightforward gaze and although his eyes are missing, his gaze seems unfaltering. In the book it was said that the hole on one of the eyes was purposeful, in an attempt to degrade the power of the head, perhaps when the ruler lost power? I wonder how the book knows it was actually purposeful and not accidental. This is more of a block sculpture with no open spaces allowed, except for the smashed in eye.
I believe the damage of the eye does not take away from the power of the form, or the respect the form commands.

The sculpture is life-sized and so may say that it might take away from the power of the form. I disagree, and although it could be considered more intimidating if it was larger I think because of it's realism makes it even more intimidating than a huge head that seems fake.

There is not much play of light in this piece. The most play of light is in between the small folds of the beard which are deep and dark and the protruding pieces which are light. There is also the reflection of light on his high cheek bones which make them stand out even more. It also makes him look as if he is slightly blushing.
There is a sense of 3 dimension in this piece, as seen in the beard and the cheeks and also the hat but it is not an extreme.

Venus of Willendorf

The Venus of Willendorf, as I have learned, is a very controversial piece of artwork. Within the article on this piece, Christopher Witcombe made this clear in his writing and also stirred up some emotions within me. 

When I first viewed the Venus of Willendorf, without the outside influences of Witcombe, the voluptuous figure reminded me of femininity, and classic representations of fertility. Her buxom breasts and widened belly give the appearance of a woman who has previously given birth or is in the midst of pregnancy. Her genitals are quite noticeable and there is no face at all which also hints that this idol was specifically made to enhance or mark fertility. 

Whitcombe assessed that classical views of Venus were of more "restrained" women, women who were strictly under the patriarchal power of that time period. The classical Venus has smaller breasts, less protruding buttocks, and a genital area that is not as obvious as the Willendorf. Thus, Willendorf must be viewed as a more unruly woman, for her genitals are enhanced. I do not necessarily agree with this interpretation (but I DO have minimal knowledge of Art History...). The socialistic views of beauty in the time of Willendorf may have been of a rather large woman, complete with buxom features... this does not mean she is "animalistic" . What make large breasts primitive and small breasts "refined" and under patriarchal control? In the renaissance periods women with less curvaceous bodies may have been preferred. His assumption is that women with or portrayed with smaller features must be under patriarchal control and women with larger features are more free but "primitive". I find this interpretation rather offensive, and misogynistic, but I am a woman...   Whitcombe also makes the assessment that classical Venus' features are more feminine than buxom Willendorf. To me, this is very clashing with the idea that enhanced female genitals alludes to a greater femininity. 

It is interesting that when Venus is viewed from the top of the head, she resembles. almost uncannily, the body of a mature and pregnant woman. When Venus is viewed forwardly, she has a very strange appearance. Her body does not appear obviously as an impregnated woman; the belly is too flat and not robust enough to allude to a child within. Since when this piece was made  mirrors did not exist, it can be imaginable that a pregnant woman would not have a clear representation of herself from the front view therefore I find it an acceptable theory that the Venus was made by a pregnant woman herself. Which makes sense, who knows more about pregnancy than a woman has previously or is currently experiencing it?

The Venus of Willendorf is an interesting piece to study because so many people have different opinions of what her meaning was within her time period and what her meaning is to us and there is no way for anyone to know definitely without the written word.