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.