Last Post

With the quarter coming to an end, I have been thinking about all the different art we have looked through. Though all of it was impressive in its own way, the one that I found particularly impressive was the Egyptian art. It feels like they had such a influential impact on art and culture from the time they were at the height of their existence all the way up until today.

The work that the Egyptians produced is incredible. Their use of precious materials within their art shows what kind of appreciation they had for the things they made and how much it meant to them to have lavish things. It is also the reason a large portion of it has been burgled through out the years. Just looking at the funeral mask of Tutankhamun illustrates how much they respected their pharaohs, to send him to his grave with such a finely detailed, golden mask that only he would enjoy once buried. I am also impressed by the Egyptians ability to communicate messages in their art using mostly pictures. Their written language is made up of symbols and their use of heiroglyphs, references to religion and images of important people in their work to convey a message is something the Egyptians did very well, and many of their techniques were picked up by other cultures. The palate of Narmer is a piece that, when viewed by an Egyptian, would tell a fairly detailed narrative about king Narmer ruling all of Egypt with the support of Egyptian gods. They also show there strength and power in sculpture, such as in the statue of Khafre carved from a solid dark stone, that glows with a blueish hue when the light hits. It has such a strong and solid appearance, that shows a leader like that equals a strong and solid Egypt. On top of that, large architecture and sculpture like the great pyramids or the Great Sphinx are like nothing that had been done before. I really wish I could have seen the pyramids when they were still cased with lime stone and had their golden caps. They are awesome now, I can only imagine the sight back then. And somehow, because it is still debated, the people of Egypt created these things. Its just amazing.

I have to talk about the traditional Egyptian style and their cannon of proportions because it was so important to them. These rules for artwork were in place for years and created such a signature look to their art that even today, at a glance a piece can be identified as Egyptian or not. The profile head and legs, with the front view eye and torso is such an interesting and effective way of depicting a human. But not just any human, these styles were reserved for kings or gods and lower class people were often depicted in a more natural way. They also incorporated the idea of a hierarchy of scale to draw attention to images of importance, to show status from one person to another.

This class was great. It exposed me to a ton of new artwork and working chronologically I was able to see when and how ideas were used and became popular. How techniques for depicting humans. painting, sculpting, and architecture were first introduced, improved and done away with. Of all the periods we covered I feel like the Egyptians were the most original, creative, lavish, and influential.   



 

The Real Post # 8 Because I Skipped Over #6: Byzantine and Early Medieval Art Art

As we have learned, every culture has their own ways and styles of creating their art. Cannons and stylizations that are so unique that when viewed today can give information about when and where a piece was created. Most recently, with the Greeks and Romans, the art we have seen has continued to build to this naturalistic and ultra realism pinnacle. The art of the Byzantine and Early Medieval periods moves back toward stylized art and they create their own conventions without much concern for the true naturalism others strived for. Two pieces that are good examples of this are The Old Testament Trinity (Three Angels Visiting Abraham) from the Byzantine period (p258) and Page With St. Matthew The Evangelist, Ebbo Gospels from the Early Medieval period (p443).

The Old Testament Trinity (Three Angels Visiting Abraham) is a tempera painting in which three angels are circled around a table. The figures are clearly human like but they are stylized by the artist. The most detail comes in the faces of the angels, where the color is smooth and the lines that make the face are crisp and clearly visible. The angels have elongated but narrow noses that lead down to a small mouth. They have large, tired eyes, and wear somber and scerene expressions on their faces. The gowns that the angels wear are shown with a number of overlaps and creases that work very well to show that their garb is lose and flowing. Aside from the faces, this is where most the detail lies, and the most prominent of this style is on the center figure and the blue cloth is created with sharp angled lines, that pop from the piece. Because these are angels, they do have wings, but the wings are actually very subtle both in color and detail. The wings are a muted yellow color and made of a soft curve and barely detailed with the slightest indication of feathers. Toward the bottom of the piece there is an attempt at perspective between the floor, table and chairs in the piece. Though it is not true to the way we might see it in real life, it is effective in giving the piece a sense of depth, forward and back. The background is dull sandy color that is speckled throughout. It works to complete the piece but also really helps the figures to stand out. It is clear that the angels are meant to be for focus of the piece because of the way they are detailed, and colored. The simple style of the background, simple shapes, blurred details and unsaturated colors make the angels jump off the page and stand out as holy figures should.

Page With St. Matthew The Evangelist, Ebbo Gospels is an ultra stylized piece that shows Matthew writing. The piece has a a sketch like quality because of the use of a number of short lines. Unlike in the Angels, where folds in the gown were created by a few angled lines, in Matthew the effect is created by sheer volume of lines. They curve, cross and build to show that his cloth is loose. Matthew's facial features are almost cartoon like and he has a strange, almost worried, look on his face. His eyes are large and his eyebrows angled. His nose is long and thin, and just barely juts from his face. The fingers on his hand are long are slender and seem to hang in a non lifelike manner. Like in the angels, there is a clash of perspective, this time between his seat and floor and the book that he is writing in, but again the effect isn't lost, it is just not how it would appear in real life. The background of Matthew is much more active than the one seen in Angels. The sketch lines show up again and darken the hill in the background, adding depth. There is also a light blue skyline that breaks the hills that further adds depth. Atop the hill are jotted lines and color that give the impression of trees and plant life without any specific real life resemblance. Between the plants are two line renderings of building that are transparent because the sky is seen through them.
  

Post #8 Roman Art

The Roman empire went through a number of leaders throughout its dominance. These leaders often had sculptures or paintings of themselves created so that they would be known and seen by their people, but also as a very potent political tool. Many of these art works are laced with political propaganda that the ruler felt was important to show his people. Two such works are Commodus as Hercules and the portrait head of Caracalla. Though these two sculptures both use propaganda in their art to show themselves as worthy leaders, they each take a very different approach.

Commodus came to rule by default when his father passed away. He was said to have very little political skill, and was seen as a pretty poor ruler. During his reign he made claims of being the reincarnation of Hercules, and in this particular sculpture, he is depicted as so. The way I see this move is one of desperate need of approval. He knows of the fame and history behind Hercules and how it resonates with the people and he tries very hard to associate himself to that. I have a hard time seeing this statement as anything but trying to piggy back the legend of Hercules for popularity. He draws allusions to many of Hercules' accomlishments maybe as a symbol of the great things he has/will do as a leader or because he is Herc reincarnate it is literally the things he has "done". Either way I find it a slightly pathetic attempt to show abilities as a leader and I think it failed with the Roman people too, because Commodus did not last long as such. All that being said, the sculpture is indeed beautiful and very well crafted. The detail in the hair and beard and the life like depiction of Commodus are all very pleasing, its the message that is lacking. In other political proaganda pieces we have looked at, many rulers show themselves associated or interacting with the gods as a way of showing favor and relationship with them. But to claim to be an already legendary hero reborn is just kind of lame.

The portrait of Caracalla has a very different approach to showing himself as a legitimate ruler. This sculpture is only of the head and neck, and I would argue is twice as potent politically as Commodus. Where Commodus fell into leadershing, Caracella wanted to be emperror so bad he killed his own brother to do so.  The expression on his face is one of anger, determination, strength, and is just fierce. He wears his hair tight in the militaristic style, showing he is a military minded leader willing to attack, but ready to defend. There are no allusions to culture, or religion or history, just a glare that makes others think twice about trying to harm Rome. The fact that the piece is constructed of marble plays a role too. The stone cold quality of the look in his eyes, the permenince of his stare, and the calm and fearless feeling the piece gives are all helped by the marble. I think the look on his face was meant to bring comfort, not fear, to his people when they saw it because that is the face of someone you want on your side. When things get bad, that is the guy you want fighting for you. I think that just knowing he was at one time a ruler, that same message is received by the piece today.

I think with all political propaganda, even today, there is a target audience and usually that audience is the people you have political power over. It can be done by showing how great you are to them and for them or by showing how great you are compared to/against outside empires and nations. However, I don't think that the message is lost to other audiences because many of the best techniques for effective propaganda are the same. I still get a sense of their message when I look at these pieces today. Most of propaganda comes from how you depict yourself and what you associate with or condemn. Self depiction is crucial and that is what I think made Caracalla and broke Commodus. In attempt to show that they are the ruler of the Roman empire, one chose to be shown as someone else and the other chose to show himself and no one else.     

Post #7 Greek Art

After reading an viewing this weeks lecture I find it very unfortunate what happened to the marble sculptures that once belonged to the Parthenon. Lord Elgin came along and saw the beauty the statues display, but had no regard for their historical or cultural context for which they were created. He then decided to move the marble figures back with him to Great Britain, where they remain today in the British Museum. Though it is not the first time I have heard of countries relocating or claiming another cultures work, but this is classical period Greek art from the Parthenon, both which have been described as perfection. These were not paintings hung on the wall, or vessels found in ruins, he had to actually deconstruct and destroy the work as a whole to get the pieces he wanted. That being said, the YouTube video provided with the lecture shows that the Parthenon had been attacked and partially destroyed a number of times by different groups before Elgin even came around. This clearly is not the worst treatment the Parthenon has seen in its existence and perhaps the figures on display in the British Museum survive today because they had been moved.

The way the pieces have been displayed in the museum has taken on controversy of its own. It is said they are shown out of context and as a result they are viewed differently than they are intended by the creator. The way they are shown is to appreciate the aesthetics and technical beauty of the sculpture. To notice how life like and detailed they are, instead of their historical and cultural aspects. The topic of the display does not really bother me, mostly because of course they are out of context, they were stolen from another country to be where they are. Because of that they are on display in the way that attracted Elgin to them, instead of how he found them. My other thought is that if the Parthenon were still fully intact and I found myself there I would still be blown away by the aesthetics and technical beauty of the sculpture because it is amazing. It would be a whole different experience to see them as part of the building, but there is little the museum could do to try and replicate that anyway.

That then raises a question of should the marbles be returned to the Parthenon? Honestly, I don't know. You could try to take them back and reassemble them but that sounds as risky as it is disrespectful to leave them in the museum. If they were able to be reconstructed as part of the building it loses authenticity to me, knowing that it was a modern rebuild, a best guess as to what it looked like then, rather than seeing the Parthenon the way it stands today. As long as the history is known about how it was chopped up, and the pieces still exist to be seen by people everywhere, and no one but the Greeks get credit for their art, I think the Parthenon is strong enough to survive the way it has all these years.

Post #5 Aegean Art

For this weeks post I am going to compare the Harvester Rhyton  from the Minoan culture (page 89 of the text), with the the Palette of Narmer made by the Egyptians (page 52 of the text). I want to start with what these two pieces have in common. Both are relief carvings of human beings set on dark stone. The harvester is in higher relief than Narmer, but both show the figures highlighted by the light against the dark background. These pieces are both art created on objects commonly used by people of the time, one being a vessel for liquid and the other a palette for grinding makeup. They are both connected to ceremonies or rituals important to their respective cultures.

 Though similar in some ways, these two pieces are very different from one another. To start, the way that humans are depicted by each culture. As we talked about, the Egyptians had very set conventions for depicting people. The composite pose, the hirearchy of scale and their canon of proportions. All come into use on the Palette of Narmer. Narmer is huge compared to the other figures, he has a profile-front-profile pose to his body, and he is proportioned to the style of the time. On the Harvester however,  the people are much more naturalistic, both in the way they are detailed, muscles, hair and clothing, and the way they are posed. It is interesting that this relief or carving is the way Minoans depicted people, not in painting, as the Egyptians are known to have done.  Also different is the number of figures fitted onto the Harvester, 27 men that overlap and run all around the vessel is contrasts the space and respect given to the over sized Narmer figure on the palette.

Different also are the scenes depicted in each piece and what they mean to the people of that culture. The Palette of Narmer is a piece of political propaganda set to show his dominance of all Egypt, upper and lower. Also shown is the god Horus helping Narmer do so, telling the people that the gods are in support of his rule. There are images of Narmer's enemies cowardly running away and stacks of decapitated foes as a warning to all those who want to challenge him. The overall feel of the Palette of Narmer is dominance, power, and leadership. This is opposite of the celebration dance shown on the Harvester. There is a sense of joy and movement created by the figures different poses, the way they interact with one another on the vessel and the way they wrap around its curves. Whether it is a celebration of spring planting or fall harvesting, the men on the vessel show their gratitude. Their  individuality and lack of formation also helps give the feeling excitement and dance, combined with with the open mouths of many of the men, showing a shared song or chant. It is also suggested that the vessel may have been decorated with gold leaf or paint when it was still in use, this would very much set a different tone from that of Narmer. The feeling of joy and celebration given by the Harvester is almost opposite that of the Palette of Narmer.

There is no doubt these two pieces come from two different parts of the world and two different cultures. At first glance one can find a few simple similarities, but after a longer look the two become very distinct works of art. Very different styles and conventions used by the two peoples. Then, with some knowledge of the history and symbols of the culture the two begin to move even further apart. The Egyptians were not the Minoans, nor the Minoans the Egyptians and it shows through the artwork that the two created.

Post #4 Egyptian Art

Egyptian art has an almost instantly recognizable style to it. This comes mostly from they're deep rooted and unvarying artistic conventions. The Egyptian presentation of humans, especially ones of important status, is in the form of composite poses. Heads are shown from the profile, while the eyes are from a straight on view. From the waist down is also in profile with the legs commonly staggered to show them both, while the torso is done from the frontal view. In Egyptian pieces, the person of status is scaled much larger than the other figures to show his importance.

It is interesting to think about creativity relating to Egyptian art. I don't particularly find their motives for making art all that creative. Most all of  artistic creation by the Egyptians was for a purpose, to record history, tell a story, religious belief, or to praise a king or god. However, they're approach, style and conventions is impressively creative. So much so it was sampled and incorporated into other cultures who were exposed to it. The composite pose convention is very effective in relief or painting where a scene is to be depicted. The head and legs in profile give direction, while the front view torso allows both arms and shoulders to be shown that gives an unquestionably human form. The use of scale to depict status is awesome and to this day gives a feeling of power to that figure. I'm very impressed by their use of symbols in art to communicate ideas of religion, politics and culture that would be easily understood by people of the time. Like on the Palette of Narmer, the whole idea behind the falcon figure is very creatively and clearly expressed using only images. When they developed a form of writing it is fully pictorial as well. In sculpture they're depiction of humans is very life like, maybe not in scale, but the distortions of their 2D work do not show up in their statues. I think the blending of human and animal parts in Egyptian art work is very creative because there is nothing in nature that support that being possible. 

The thing that interests me about the Egyptians is their mindset toward the things they create. No doubt creative and always serving a purpose but also so awesomely over the top. Six tier step pyramids built over a grave, solid gold funeral masks, fully engraved makeup stones, the Great Sphinx, all amazing. Its as if the thought was, especially for royalty, we need this thing so lets make it on the grandest scale and utmost beauty and because that, everything that survives today is incredible. To be a god king is a good thing and they made the most of it.

Post #3 Formal Analysis: Assurnasirpal II Killing Lions

   Assurnasirpal II Killing Lions is a low relief sculpture carved from alabaster. The piece stands a little over three feet tall and portrays a very detailed scene of men hunting lions from a chariot being pulled by horses. This particular work gives me a two different emotional reactions when I look at it, the initial one being danger and then through closer observation I get a sense of dominance. The image I will be referencing can be found on page 40 of the text Art History by Stokstad and Cothren.
   My first reaction when looking at this piece is danger. The eye is immediately drawn just left of center to developing conflict between the man, bow drawn, in the chariot and the lion coming in close to attack. There is a moment of suspense built by how the two could potentially interact. The aggressive stance of the lion and the armed man give a sense of danger that radiates from them both. The lion, being depicted as being stuck with four arrows already, shows that its life is in danger through the expression on its face. A last stance, defiant roar. This is also supported by the detailed strain of the lions muscles. The low relief really lends itself to depth and detail of the lion's features. The man, coming face to face with the lion is very much in danger himself. Having hit the lion a number of times, I get no real sense of safety from the cocked bow the man holds. However, unlike the lion, when reading the man's face he shows no real signs of fear, which I will comment more on later. The final figure that brings a feeling of danger is both the chariot driver and his horses. The way the driver is set leaned forward, opposite the attacking lion, seems to indicate his fear and want to escape. The horses too behave like their driver, with wide eyes and ears pinned back as they leap over an already wounded lion.
   The second response Assurnasirpal II Killing Lions gave me was a feeling of dominance. Based on the headdress of the people in the piece, it is likely the king is the man with the bow. He is featured dead center in this piece and is the only figure to be facing toward the left. While doing so he is staring right in the eyes of a very ferocious lion. The lion is set with an aggressive upward curve to his back, his chest puffed out and his teeth showing. It is a rather intimidating pose. But the king shows no signs of fear in his face or demeanor. There is a second defeated lion under his horses that suggests his unquestionable dominance. The lions are scaled to about the size of the horses and are slightly longer than the humans are tall. However, they are much thicker and the attention paid to the size and detail of the lion's muscles, deep, thick lines, are not seen on the humans or horses. This illustrates their sheer physical power and gives a feeling of dominance through the defeat of such great creatures.   
   Assurnasirpal II Killing Lions, being a low relief sculpture is not intended to be viewed from behind but instead more like a painting. The way the scene is laid out gives a feeling of movement from left to right that can almost be read like a panel in a comic book. However, unlike a painting, the low relief allows very clear physical depth and texture. Places like the lions mane and the beards the men wear. The way the figures come off the back drop allow for shadows to form and the depth becomes very apparent in places where the soldiers overlap in a row, as well as the horses.  The alabaster is a sort of brownish/gray color that is some what mundane. The lack of color does not necessarily detract from the piece because the the relief gives dimension and the craftsmanship is very detailed.
   The Assurnasirpal II Killing Lions is a very interesting piece that conveys a number of emotions and feelings when I look at it. The innate sense of danger I feel from seeing the lion ready to attack. The feeling of dominance and power I receive from the king's demeanor when I look further. All combined with a story like movement created by the figures being composed from left to right, makes me feel like I can see the action play out in my head. Assurnasirpal II Killing Lions is a very gripping piece.

Post #2 The Venus of Willendorf

After reading the online article about the Venus of Willendorf I found the statue itself very strange and interesting, but the theories and speculations as to why it was created even more so. The figurine is relatively small and very detailed in places, such as the hair, breasts and pubic area. While other parts, such as the face, arms and lack of feet are left anonymous, simple, or left out completely. It is clear at a glance the the "Venus" is obese due to her large hanging stomach and equally large breasts. This was one of the more interesting inquires in the article, I thought, about why she would depicted in that image?. Perhaps, if the carving was done by a male, this image of a woman was not only ideal sexually but even more so for motherhood. In a time when nutrition and water may be scarce, a woman as ample as "Venus" may be healthy and supple enough to properly nourish a growing baby in the womb and feed it after birth, even in hard times. Due to the realistic detail included in the sag of her belly, the hang of her breasts or the overlap on her legs, it was suggested in the article that the artist had a model to work from. How does a woman in prehistoric times manage to gain a body like that? Perhaps the model for "Venus" was the head of a tribe or clan, maybe not the solely, but as a group of women who were catered to and had all they're needs met. The fascinating thing about this figure is that very little is factually known about her. On its own "Venus" stands as an amazing find and wonderful piece of prehistoric art, but on the other side she gives a glimpse of ancient culture and raises so many questions and inquiries about the history of people.
    The article goes into much detail about the name Venus and how the Venus of Willendorf just doesn't quite make the cut as one. The name Venus means love or sexual desire, something that cannot be denied to Ms. Willendorf. However, due to the Greek and Roman culture created after Willendorf was carved, but before she was discovered, the idea of Venus was already set. The Venus of the Greek's was a sexually attractive woman but modest with exposing her body, covering her genital area and partially her breasts. This is said to be tasteful and ladylike, two notions that come from civilization. Due to Willendorf's lack of civility and her full exposure of all parts of her body, it is clear that she is female but not that she is feminine in the sense we know today. The name has been changed in some places to become the Woman of Willendorf, partly because of the sex/gender conflict and also to avoid the clashing of images already associated with Venus. As the perception of beauty changed throughout time, culturally people began to favor the Greek version or Venus over what Willendorf  presented, and the two could not exist under the same title. The word "woman" is said to make her more human and less attached to the goddess image of "Venus". I tend to agree with the term change, not to any fault of Willendorf, but because of how well established the identity of Venus is in modern culture, and she doesn't really fit. I find Willendorf much more primal and sexually charged, mostly because of the full exposure and attention to detail in her erotic areas but also because of her lack of detail in all other areas like her face or expression. Just as there is a distinction between uncivilized and civilized, there should be an equal distinction between what is beautiful, tasteful and appropriate in their art.


 

Post #1, Introduction

Hello, my name is Tom Larsen. I am a transfer student, new to CWU and am interested in pursuing a degree in an art major. Currently I am thinking graphic design but things may change. I've enjoyed art my whole life and have always tried to have some form of it in my schedule throughout my academic career, hoping someday I could make it into a professional career. I like to draw and paint, and enjoy ceramics. Types of art I enjoy viewing are sculpture and painting. I like cartoons and comic book art. I have always been fascinated with animation whether its hand done or digital or video game. I'm interested in product, company and sports team logos. I also have a passion for music and film. So that's a little about me and my tastes. I look forward to reading other posts and learning more about art.