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.