Favorite Art Periods

I learned a great deal about Ancient art in this class. I truly enjoyed learning about how people made art thousands years ago. More specifically, I found most enjoy when studying Egyptian art and Greek art.

            Egyptian art is quite interesting from the composite view to the Great Pyramids. I found the composite view enthralling, mostly because the Egyptians used this technique for such a long time. Composite view is the use of multiple views incorporated into one, such as the head in profile with a front facing eye. Not only that the Egyptians used the technique but many other cultures took on the technique too, for instance Minoan art utilizes the composite view. The canon of proportion was also used for a very long time in Egyptian art.  The canon of proportions is achieved by drawing a grid first and conforming figures to the grid, that way all figures portrayed are the similar looking. The Judgment of Hunefer before Osiris is an example of both the composite view and the canon of proportions. All figures portrayed are in composite view, their heads in profile with front facing eye, frontal chest and the legs are viewed from the side. Overall composite view is not a very naturalist but this technique conveys important features in a way that best describes them. Although most people have a general history of the Great Pyramids, in this class I learned that these enormous structures can be seen as art. The Great Pyramids were built for the Kings Menkaura, Khafra and Khufu. The pyramids serve as tombs for these kings. When learning about these structures I did not know that once the structures were built they then had a thick polished limestone veneer which has eroded since then. I think part of the reason I find the Great Pyramids so interesting because of their size and that they were able to build something of that size without machinery.

            I also enjoyed learning about Greek art. Most everyone has seen some sort of Greek art, stark white marble sculptures, little do they know that at one point these sculptures were painted. After learning that Greek artists painted their sculptures I have a completely different view of their art. Painted or not Greek sculptures are quite beautiful. Peplos Kore is a sculpture of a woman, if she is seen without paint you can see details of her long hair and face. If you view the same statue with paint, she comes alive, which is the reason Greek artist painted their work. Greek artists felt that their statues are more naturalistic when painted. The Archer, from the west pediment of the Temple Of Aphaia, my favorite Greek statue is transformed when seen painted. Unpainted the Archer is simple and plain. The painted version is fun and colorful, his tights are patterned, his face is natural, his arrow bag has a design, overall is more intriguing.

            Egyptian art uses techniques, like the composite view and the canon of proportions, to refine their art for generations to come. Greek art transforms with paint to become lively and more naturalistic. After everything I learned this quarter, I can not wait to learn about more art history. 

Sin and Salvation

           In the Early Medieval art the Doors of Bishop Bernward were created for the Hildesheim Cathedral. The doors represent holy figures and events which is an example of iconography. These doors are unique because they can be read in various ways that depict scenes from both the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Left door is read down with Old Testament scenes, and the right door is read up with New Testament scenes. The doors can also be read side by side, in a way Old Testament vs. New Testament.

Let’s have a closer look at Adam and Eve from the Old Testament in the third panel on the left. In this particular panel Adam and Eve take apples from the forbidden tree in the Garden of Eden. Gesture and foliage express the narrative similar to the other panels. Adam and Eve are gesturing with their arms to the forbidden tree in the center to convey that they picked the apples from that tree. The branches of the foliage on the sides of the panel express the focal area, Adam and Eve. Now, to the right of Adam and Eve’s panel is a panel that depicts the Crucifixion of Christ from the New Testament.  Although there is not any foliage to help express this scene, the gestures make up for it, the two men wearing longer gowns are positioned in a way that causes your eye to move towards the center. Then the two men with spears are standing in a way that again moves the viewer’s eyes to the focal area, which are Christ and the cross.

I found these two panels to be the most interesting pair. I think that these two panels are paired together because the Adam and Eve panel expresses the fall of man and sin, while the panel of the Crucifixion expresses Christ forgiving man’s sins. These panels seem to give a simple explanation of how Christ forgives sin by sacrificing himself on the cross. The panels express opposite themes, Adam and Eve’s panel is sinning and the Crucifixion panel is forgiveness of sin. In a way both panels express sin because Adam and eve eat the apples, and the two men spearing Christ are also sinning. When comparing the panels side by side, it can be seen that each focal area is basically in the center of the panel. The way that the figures in each panel helps convey the focal area, along with the foliage in the Adam and Eve panel, where in the Crucifixion panel the spears direct your eyes. These panels could be paired to mean that no matter how big or small the sin is that you commit, you will be forgiven by Christ, the savor.

            The panel of Adam and Eve expresses sin and the fall of mankind. The panel of the Crucifixion expresses forgiveness of sin. By placing these scenes together helps convey that Christ is their savor. Overall I think that they were placed next to each other very thoughtfully. 

Commodus as Hercules and the Head of Caracalla

            In some Roman art and previous art has a propaganda quality. In many cases the ruler wants to be seen as a strong powerful leader. The Commodus as Hercules and the head of Caracalla represent propaganda in Roman art.

            The Commodus as Hercules is an interesting piece. There are many elements in this sculpture that reinforce the idea of propaganda. I think that Emperor Commodus commissioned an artist to create him embodying Hercules because Hercules is a powerful warrior, not to mention he is Zeus’ half mortal son. In this sculpture Commodus is wearing the skin and head of the Nemean lion; this could signify that Commodus can slay a lion proving he is a powerful warrior. Commodus has a club in one also proving his power.

            The head of Caracalla is simply just the head of the Emperor Caracalla. This sculpture of Caracalla serves propaganda through his facial expression. He is scowling to provide a message that he is a strong powerful Emperor, who is “hard-as-nails.” His facial expression looks as if he is glaring out at us, not smiling; he is toughened with a tightly held jaw almost angry. When I see this sculpture I would not mess with this Emperor, he appears to be feared.

I feel that the head of Caracalla demonstrates propaganda more so then the sculpture of Commodus as Hercules. To me Commodus is pretending to be a powerful leader by dressing up as Hercules. Commodus does not have much of a facial expression. In the book it says that “it captures its subject’s weakness. The foolishness of the man comes through in his pretentious assumption of the attributes of Hercules.” I really agree with this because one can not dress up to appear as a powerful man like Hercules and expect people to fear you. If anything that would make you fear Hercules due to his power. This ultimately makes Commodus out to be a coward for dressing up in such a childish way. Another reason I feel this way is that the way Commodus is captured, he appears too youthful. Caracalla on the other hand has a toughened face. By looking at his sculpture you have a feeling that this man has been through a lot and has aged in the process, he is captured more naturalistically. If one naturally has a daunting glare then you will naturally be feared.

            I am unsure whether these sculptures are for a particular audience or if they are widely understood. I almost feel that Commodus as Hercules could be for any audience because his message is most likely not immediately seen due to the fact that he is just dressing up. I think that Caracalla head is for a more narrow audience, perhaps for his enemies as a way to say “look into my scowl; you will not under estimate my power.” I also think that Caracalla’s message is more immediate because of his intense facial expression.

            Overall Caracalla head sculpture is a more successful example of propaganda in art then Commodus as Hercules. Caracalla will be seen as a fearful Emperor whereas Commodus will only be seen as an impostor.

Painted Vs. Unpainted Greek art

            Johann Joachim Winckelmann an 18^th century archaeologist thought that Greek art represents “good taste” in art because of it’s simple white marble exterior. Many people would be surprised to know that many Greek statues were actually painted.

            I think that Winckelmann had a huge affect on how Greek art is perceived. Winckelmann encouraged the pure simplicity of unpainted statues. He once wrote, “Color ought to have a minor consideration in the role of beauty.”  If Winckelmann had not promoted his ideals about Greek art, maybe art today would be different. I’m sure it would not be a drastic change, but art would be affected. Perhaps statues like the Abraham Lincoln memorial statue would be painted rather then having a simple white marble exterior. Not only did Greek artists paint their statues they also painted their architectures. If Winckelmann never encouraged a pure simple taste in art, it is possible that the White House would have been painted with color. Although, I am unsure if Winckelmann’s ideals would have had affect in other kinds of art expect for statues and architectures. It is quiet interesting to think of all the possible changes art would have if Winckelmann had not promoted the white marble.

            After learning about Greek art, my perception of it has changed rather drastically. I always thought that the sculptures are very amazing with all the naturalistic details in the carving. Although, I am not very fond of the plain white marble, I think it is boring and uninteresting. Can you imagine if all Greek art was only white? The cities would have been very dull. When I saw the reconstruction of the Archer from the from the west pediment of the Temple of Aphaia, I was truly amazed by the liveliness of the painted statue. The unpainted statues definitely have a naturalistic perception but the painted statues come to life. This is because in real life we see everything in color, without color it lacks the true essence of life. Now imagine the painted version of the cities, they are full of energy and life. The unpainted Peplos Kore is impressive with the detailing, but the painted reconstructions give the statue a sense of a real woman. Her dress has elaborate details, her lips are red and full, the recreations give us an idea of what color her hair could have been. One can not have the same perception of the unpainted statues verses the painted ones. Not only do the painted statues appear more lively, so does the painted architecture. The Treasury of the Siphnians has painted details for example the Ionic frieze near the top of the structure. This structure would not have caught my attention without these painted details.  I feel that looking at these artworks is like watching a black and white film in color for the first time, it’s the same film yet you have a completely different viewing of it making it exciting and new.

            Winckelmann, an 18^th century archeologist, changed the way Greek art was supposed to be viewed. Greek artists painted their statues because they wanted them to appear naturalistic. Instead Winckelmann promoted the idea that Greeks did not paint their statues so that they appear naturalistic, pure and simple with “good taste.”

Which Aegean culture do these art pieces belong to?

In this post I will be identifying which Aegean culture created the Fisherman fresco and the terracotta Vessel. The Aegean world consisted of three main cultures; Cycladic 2500-1900 BCE, Minoan 2000-1400 BCE, and Mycenaean 1600-1100 BCE.

            The Fisherman fresco resembles the Minoan culture, even though Minoans typically craved humans rather then paint them. Minoans usually painted marine life. One of the reasons I feel that this piece was created by Minoans is that the young man has two locks of youth similar to the Young Girl Gathering Saffron Crocus Flowers (101) who also has a lock of youth. The lock of youth indicating he is merely a child and the blue hair suggesting his hair has grown and he is more man then child. The colors used in the Fisherman fresco remind me of the colors used in other Minoan frescos; rose, blue, and yellow. These colors have been used in the Akrotiri, Thera palace frescos, for example the Spring Landscape (102) uses rose, blue and yellow. The dead fish are painted similarly to the dolphins in the “Flotilla” fresco (89), blue covers the top half of the fish and yellow covers the belly of the fish. The way the young man stands is in composite view with his head, hips and feet in profile and his chest and eye in a frontal view. Although this young fisherman does not have a pinched waste like the figures in the Bull Leaping fresco, the border around the piece is reminiscent of the simple border at the top of the fisherman piece. Another clue that this piece is a Minoan fresco is that the young boy has caught two bundles of fish. Minoan people were very interested in marine life because they lived on Crete and Thera which are islands near the Mediterranean Sea.

            I think the terracotta vessel is most reminiscent of the Mycenaean culture. The shape of vessel is called krater because of its wide-mouth which would be used to mix water and wine. There is a register decorating the vessel, registers are used to narrate a story in art, many ancient cultures used this technique. Within this register is what looks like people. The people depicted are rather unusual looking and look more cartoon like. Mycenaean culture, unlike the Minoan culture, painted humans unrealistically.  Although we can not see the entire krater, there are two figures riding what looks like a chariot pulled by a horse. The narrative is unknown yet there is a militaristic feeling given because of the chariot. The figure to the right of the chariot looks to be a woman holding her arm up which is a sign of power. The way that the vessel is painted strikes a resemblance to the Warriors Vase which also depicts men militaristically (111).

In conclusion these two pieces from the Aegean cultures can only be from one of three cultures, Cycladic, Minoan, or Mycenaean. I think that the Fisherman was a creation from the Minoan culture. I think that the terracotta krater was a creation from the Mycenaean culture.

Ziggurat vs Pyramids of Gizeh

In ancient times many monumental structures were created. The Sumerians, in the ancient Near East built Ziggurats around 2100 BCE. The Great Pyramids were created by the Egyptians for their pharaohs during the fourth Dynasty, 2601 to 2515 BCE. When one comparing the Ziggurats to the Great Pyramids the underlying structures are similar.

Ziggurats are flat multi platform pyramid structures, made from countless mud-bricks, with a temple or shrine on the highest platform. In Gizeh there are three pyramids built for the fourth Dynasty kings, Menkaura, Khafra and Khufu. The Great Pyramids are similar being that their base is Ziggurat like. The Pyramids are constructed with a square base with four sloping triangular faces made from limestone blocks. The largest pyramid, built for the Pharaoh Khufu, covers thirteen acres and is four hundred fifty feet tall. The only example of a Ziggurat that still exists today is the Nanna Ziggurat at Ur, built for the moon god, has a rectangular base, one hundred ninety by one hundred thirty feet. Some Ziggurat interiors had elaborate clay mosaics created by pressing fired cones into wet plaster. Many of the Ziggurats were built from previous Ziggurat structures that were destroyed, some times using the same bricks to rebuild the structure. The Ziggurats were solid brick structures. When the Great Pyramids were built they were cased in polished white limestone. After many years the casing stones were ruined and fell from the pyramids. The Pyramids were built with interior chambers. The chambers serve as burial tombs holding the Pharaoh’s sarcophagus. The three Pyramids at Gizeh are aligned in the sun’s east to west path.  The base of both the Ziggurat at Ur and the Great Pyramids are aligned to the points of the compass.

The Ziggurats and the great pyramids at Gizeh were created for different religious reasons. The Ziggurats in the Near East symbolized bridges between earth and the heavens for humans to meet their protective gods. This is said because the Ziggurats are mountain like structures with long ramps leading to the entrance. The pyramids at Gizeh symbolize the deceased pharaohs climbing up the rays, slopped sides of the pyramids, to join the sun god Ra. The purpose for the Ziggurats was to proclaim prosperity, reputation and stability of its city rulers and to glorify their gods. The Great Pyramids were created as funerary structures, monuments for the afterlife. The pyramids purpose was to give the king’s Ka, soul, a suitable resting place. The Egyptians believed that the deceased king affects the well-being of the state. The Ziggurats were raised temples for the people to praise the gods. Comparatively, the pyramid and the ziggurat are similar because they both serve as a connection between humans and the divine.

The Ziggurats and the Great Pyramids at Gizeh are engineering and architectural marvels. There are similarities of the structures themselves, such as proportions and alignments. Over all the Ziggurats were built for the people and the Great Pyramids were built for the deceased Pharaohs.

Lamassu

            The ancient near eastern ruler Ashurnasirpal II, 883-859 BCE, embarked on expansion, conquering and enslaving. The enslaved captives built a new capital in Nimrud. The new capital covered an area of about nine hundred acres. His palace in Nimrud had intricate art throughout the palace walls.  Among the art created was Human-Headed Winged Lion, Lamassu, double the size of a person this creature appears strong, protective and wealthy.

            Lamassu, stands over ten feet tall, has the body of a lion, wings of an eagle and the head of a man. I think that Lamassu was created with elements of different creatures to produce an all together strong and fearful beast. The beast has the body of a lion, muscular, and athletic. The sculpture emphasizes robust muscle with line in the leg area. This creature expels a very dangerous vibe with very large clawed feet. This intimidating sculpture created as a relief, from Alabaster makes you want to move around him. In the frontal view you see standing in front of you a man’s head on a lion’s body. Viewing the beast from the side, you see a creature striding in motion. If you see the beast at the right angle it can be seen that it actually has five legs. Lamassu has a fifth leg to possibly appear immobile to enemies. I think the creator included the fifth leg because if the creature was viewed from the side it would only have three legs and this is unsatisfying. The Lamassu has the wings of an eagle, majestic and sturdy. The wing span is very large and detailed on the Human-Headed Winged Lion. This beast also has the head of a man. Giving the creature the head of man gives the creature complex thought, making him a smart defender.

            Ashurnasirpal II once an almighty king needed a frightening protector. Lamassu stood at the entrances of the palace and throne rooms. The statue is built into the palace signifying that the beast is stable and strong like the palace and the king. The way the Human-Headed Winged Lion stands territorial giving off an overwhelming intimidating feeling. The eyes on the beast are open wide as if he is very alert. His stance from the front is quite strong and looks as if he is ready to pounce on an intruder. Viewing the beast you have a feeling that this beast strides back and forth repeatedly to protect his King.

The king’s guardian, Lamassu, stands very lavishly.  Some parts of this beast are very stylized; the way there is perfectly tight curls throughout his beard and hair. The beast is wearing earrings and a luxurious looking hat. Lamassu is also wearing a detailed belt. Even the wings of an eagle are stylized. By sculpting Lamassu in this wealthy way reflected on the kings to say they too are wealthy.  I think that the Lamassu was created to show power and dominance of the Kings.

Human-Headed Winged Lion, Lamassu the guardian stands strong proudly at gate and throne entrances. The contribution of the man’s head, the eagle’s wings, and the lions body create an all together fierce, authoritative beast. As a result of the creator sculpting the Lamassu this way he sends a message that he protects the king. This brute of a statue represents the wealth, power, dominance, and strength of the king, Ashurnasirpal II.

"Venus of WIllendorf"

In the article about “Venus of WIllendorf” by Christopher L. C. E. Witcombe the statuette is referred to as a Venus. The term refers to goddess like attributes, sexual love and beauty. Sandro Botticelli’s “Birth of Venus” painting shows an example of a classic, tall curvaceous young woman concealing herself, a sexual Venus like goddess figure. Due to the Willendorf’s large unconcealed breasts, the obese size of her figure and the detail in her pubic area she could be described as “primitive” which makes the term Venus unsuitable for the “Venus of Willendorf”. Labeling the statuette Venus may hinder the viewer that the statuette is comparable to standards of idealized female art which she is far from. The “Venus of Willendorf” is beautiful in a sense that the woman is natural and unchanged to the perception of what a ‘beautiful’ woman should look like. Today, the term Venus is interchanged with the term woman which alters the way people perceive the figure. The “Woman of Willendorf” name change allows one to see her more as a human and less like a goddess, also allowing further interpretations.

It is interesting to talk of a statuette which we know little about because you can ponder the way it might have been used or viewed in the day and age when the Venus was created. The “Venus of Willendorf” was thought to have been a fertility idol. This was thought because the sculptor incorporated features needed only for conception and nurturing children. The sculptor left out features like her face and feet yet added much detail to her hair. The Venus’ hair consists of seven rows varying in size. The fact that there are seven rows is significant because years later seven was considered a magical number.  Hair was viewed as a very erotic feature not because of length or color but more for the odor, which plays part in mating. It seems as if the sculptor added such detail to her hair to show a sexual significance. Because the woman has no feet she seems more likely to have been held in the hand rather than free standing or lying. The “Venus of Willendorf” is transformed into a sensuous object while being held, the woman’s body seems soft and flesh like.

The obese size of the woman raises a considerable amount of questions. Is this Oolitic limestone sculpted from a real Paleolithic woman? Does her size mean she had special treatment? Is this what all Paleolithic women looked like? We know from archaeologists Stone Age society survived from hunting and gathering. If this was indeed a real Stone Age woman she would have been unable to sustain foraging and gathering to survive. Her obese size could mean that she was superior and had people catering to her. We may never know the true intent for creating this small sculpture although we can admire her natural beauty.

About me

Hello there, I'm Taylor Harris. Currently, in my first year at central, I hope to graduate with a bachelor degree in studio art. I have always enjoyed art. In high school I had a remarkable teacher who opened my heart to ceramics. I truly love both ceramics and painting. One day my dream is to open a taco shop.  

When I'm not working or being artsy, I am most likely found outside with my boyfriend, Kevin, and our 5 month old puppy, Zeppelin.


Zeppelin =]