Conclusion

My favorite types of art that I enjoyed studying were the ones from the Ancient Greece and Roman eras. I find that their use of marbles and creating statues of people are really spot on and inspiring. I feel those places are so rich in culture and history that their art in which it’s originating from has so much to say and there is so much to learn from. I have been to Italy before and seen the Statue of David; ever since I have been there all the sculptures and statues of all of the famous figures always fascinated me. Also, I have wanted to travel to Greece ever since I was a small child. I find that the inspiration is endless in Greece, some place where all people can admire the history itself. I will say that the history is what intrigues me most about Ancient Greece and Roman art. The rich society and how historically impactful the locations are really encouraged me to dive deeper into studying the art and culture.

In Ancient Greece, I find that the depictions of people on vases are exaggerated and stylized; something that I find to be greatly appreciated is the detail in which the artists partake. I especially enjoyed the “Achilles and Ajax Playing a Game.” The exaggerated faces, the super buff body image and the black and gold paint for the piece really brings out that stylized look for the vase. I also like the fact that each interpretation of these people is godly and superior. They stuck to their beliefs and used them to create masterpieces that everyone worldwide will get to enjoy.

For the Roman art, my favorite piece would have to be the architectural wonder of the Flavian Amphitheater, or the Colosseum that we know it to be. Its greatest feat would be the sheer size, and the history of it really amazes me in so many different levels. Other great pieces I enjoyed were the busts of the Young and Old Flavian women. The detail in the hair from the Young Woman and the exaggerated facial features of the Old Woman was just phenomenal. It really shows the great patience and skill it takes to recreate the human face.

I am really glad that I took this class; I feel that I learned so much more about my favorite types of art, the pieces of art that came out of my favorite periods and all the new things I learned along the way. I hope to learn more as I read farther into the book, discovering new things that just might intrigue me more.

Medieval Art

I feel that in the two works of Medieval Art I want to tackle is the “Woman Clothed with the Sun, the Morgan Beatus” and “Christ and Disciples on the Road to Emmaus.” Both pieces, I feel, really demonstrate that stylized look. Both works of art stray away from naturalism to a degree but still hold the own of setting a realistic tone. For example, in both pieces, we see figures and actions that we can still constitute as recognizable events and people. However there are subtle differences in the two works that tackle the stylizing in different ways.

The Woman Clothed with the Sun, The Morgan Beatus, page 433 in our Medieval Art book, is a great example of abstract reality and stylized story. First off, we get a sense of chaos in the choice of colors by the artist Maius. This illustration is based the biblical text of the Apocalypse in Revelations 12:1-18. I like how anyone with any Christian biblical knowledge will easily recognize this scene. This aspect is naturalism and realistic, something we can relate to and see on paper. Where the stylized part comes in is where we see each individual part of the illustration. The top left hand corner depicts a woman wearing a robe with the sun emitting from it. There she is extending her arms towards this multi-headed beast. The realism in this scene is null; it is left to an individual’s faith and imagination to decide whether what is real or not. What I find most stylized is the top right hand corner of the illustration; there are four men set apart from the rest of page, one of the men is sitting on a throne. I’m going to depict this as God and the others are angels. I find it the most stylized because of the garb they are wearing and the way the angels’ wings are set; one wing is off to the side while the other is set above the top of the picture. All of their eyes seem to bug out and widen while they witness this scene. Another interesting part is the scene in the bottom right hand corner; angels are dropping naked people into what I’m interpreting as hell. Now this part is straightforward and “natural,” however I feel that what is stylized are the body positions of the people and how Satan is positioned as well. He seems to be lying down with his arms up; I’m not sure how to describe what I think of this but it is not something I had expected.

            Christ and Disciples on the Road to Emmaus, page 452 in our books, greatly shows subtle stylization that I felt should be recognized. Firstly, we can see that these men greatly resemble a human in the sense of proportion, facial expressions, and hair. But it is in these features that I see the stylization. In the faces of these men, the eyes are again bulging and wide; there are not eyelids and very small under eyelids. The beards are very thick and “cartoonish,” very unrealistic and “stylized.” The way the mustaches fall perfectly over their beards is unappealing in the sense of recognizing a real beard. Also, their hair is reflected in the way the beards are perfectly assembled. I also feel that the mens’ robes are very detailed and unrealistic to that era. Christ was a poor man and his robes do not reflect that, I want to express that in my opinion, THAT is stylization…because Christ is a major and highly regarded religious figure the artist may have stylized his more to reflect his reputation.

Roman Art

I find that this era of art is one of my favorites to talk about. I love the old war generals and emperors of Roman history and these two beings are prime examples of great art and culture. Both the portrait head of Caracalla and the bust of Commodus as Hercules reek of proud attributes and power hungry individuals. The bust of Commodus as Hercules is a more obvious example of an over the top representation of a human being. We have Commodus, son of Marcus Aurelius, in what seems to be a lion or tiger jaw and skin draped around his head and neck. He holds a club in his right hand and apples or small fruit in his other hand. On the base of the bust are two kneeling Amazons though one is missing. Beside the Amazon is a globe with the Zodiac signs; on top are Cornucopias’ with the Amazon’s shield. After doing some research as to what the base represents, I came up with a few different outcomes. All of which concludes with Commodus’ idea of power and heroism. It is said that Hercules solely represents these elements that Commodus is replicating. Commodus had ordered people to characterize himself with Hercules whenever sculpted or painted. He had built a sort of relationship with Hercules by being this power-driven person in the arena; he said that he is the rebirth of Hercules himself and his physical dexterity was greatly seen.

Now Caracalla, son of Septimius Severus, was a Roman emperor from 209 to 217. Caracalla is known to be one of the most notorious and unpleasant emperors of Roman history. Because of the massacres and persecutions Caracalla allowed and initiates throughout the Empire, people feared and hated him throughout the Roman Empire. The marble portrait of Caracalla is subtler than the former art piece of Commodus as Hercules. Significantly more damaged, the portrait head of Caracalla shows his power hungry instincts and personality in the facial expression than Commodus’ actual outer appearance. The first things I notice from Caracalla are the eyes. The eyes are protruding from the face and looking up, almost thinking or plotting of ways to better him. This plus the stern eyebrows and forehead we get a sense of unyielding and demanding actions from his man. Now I find this part of the head most chilling is the relaxed mouth but tense jaw. For me it shows great strength and relaxation in times of many destitution and adversity (and not hardships for himself that is).

I feel that many propagandistic messages can be seen from both pieces of art. We definitely get the sense of power and class from these individuals. Speaking from my own thoughts and imagination I would never want to be alone in a room with either or these men from what I see from their statuesque busts. I can see these propagandistic messages be widely understood by everyone. I feel that that is why these were made like this, to show people from all different kinds of cultures and backgrounds that these guys are not messing around. I feel that everyone will interpret facial expressions in the same way. A menacing and chilling facial expression from Caracalla will only allow so much interpretation from different people that we get the sense of what is being said. It goes for Commodus as Hercules when we see his dead lion skin and spiked club. We know, as human beings with the same natural instincts, when we are being shown something that can deliver harm our way. Both of these men’s busts give off the sense of control, power, supremacy, and rule of hundreds and thousands of people.

            

Greek Art

I feel that the Parthenon Marbles, being a great piece of history and art, should not be in London in a British Museum. Their rightful place should be in the Parthenon where they originated. I would go as far as saying that it would be like taking the Liberty Bell or Abraham Lincoln’s statue and displaying it in a German Museum. Taking a piece of a country and society’s history is almost an insult to them; basically saying “Nyah Nyah” and leaving them with their jaws open. At what I understand about the Marbles, Thomas Bruce or the earl of Elgin had “purchased” these marbles. There are speculations and questions about the authentication of the documents that prove Lord Elgin had indeed purchased the art pieces. His intent was to take these Marbles home and decorate his mansion with them and live with his wife in luxury. But after he had come back to England, she had left him. The pieces were the center of a large financial dispute and were sold. It has been said that the Greek Government has tried to and unsuccessfully gain back the marbles for the Parthenon.

            I feel that is it is very problematic that the British Museum is only focusing on the aesthetics of the piece. But encouraging the aesthetics of the Parthenon Marbles, we overlook the historical context and do not see that its rightful place is back in Athens. We can appreciate the extent the British Museum is putting out about the artistic and visual components of the Marbles; the talent and skill needed to make these incredible works of art is highly recognized and valued. However, as beautifully exhibited and displayed the Marbles are, it is still known to be original pieces of the Parthenon in Athens, Greece. These pieces derive from the Greek and it should be there displayed in the Parthenon, which has been around since 438 BC.

            The Parthenon marbles should not stay in London at all. Though Thomas Bruce had “purchased” these marbles from himself and later displayed in London where he had resided, it’s rightful and equitable resting place should be where it had been taken so long ago, Athens. I feel that by reuniting all the missing pieces of the Parthenon will give a better understanding of originality, respect, and most of all culture. It was built to remain intact and, as a temple of Athena, remain undestroyed. Now aging and time has deteriorated most of the structure, the creators knew that this would happen. I understand that by taking these pieces and restoring and protecting them would be ideal but I believe a Greek Museum could do the same; even restoring the actual Parthenon could always be a possibility.

            I know that there are many controversies surrounding the issues of the Elgin Marbles. From looking at both sides of the argument, I feel that history and aesthetics can be both satisfied if returned to the rightful owner and place of the Parthenon in Athens, Greece.

Aegean Art

I’ve chosen to compare the “Mask of Agamemnon” from the Mycenaean period and the “Head of Senusret III” from the Middle Kingdom of the Ancient Egypt. Heinrich Schliemann discovered the “Mask of Agamemnon” in a shaft grave in Mycenae in 1876. The solid gold mask was placed over the face of a body thought to be the legendary Agamemnon. Agamemnon is popularly known as the commander that united the Greek to fight in the Trojan War. His wife, Clytemnestra, had taken a lover by the name of Aegisthus whom later killed Agamemnon when he returned from war. Some other versions of the story are that Clytemnestra herself killed Agamemnon. The mask found on the body was dubbed the Funerary mask of Agamemnon reach the height of 12 inches. The “Head of Senusret III” in our art book rests in the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art in Kansas City, Missouri. There have been multiple copies and statues of the Heads of Senusret III. Khakhaure Senusret III was a pharaoh of Egypt ruling from 1878 BC to 1839 BC. He was the fifth monarch of the Twelfth Dynasty. Senusret was a “dynamic king and successful general who led four military expeditions into Nubia,” He helped regain control over the country’s increasingly independent nobles’.

            There are a significant amount of things that are similar and different between the two pieces of art. The first and obvious similarity is that fact that they are both faces of an important war authority. Both men led great armies through war and combat. Being so old and so worn, Senusret has missing attributes to his face such as nose, ears, and lips and Agamemnon is beat up and worn down. The head of Senusret III was not used as a funeral mask but a piece to show, or a portrait of their leader. The Mask of Agamemnon was used a funeral piece for the body that was discovered by Schliemann.

            The Mask of Agamemnon was made entirely out of gold with the height of 12 inches. It was normally mixed with other metals to make the entire piece stronger. The Head of Senusret III that is currently located in Kansas City, Missouri is made out of yellow quartzite with a height of approximately 18 inches by 14 inches by 17 inches. The pieces, or portraits, of Senusret III are mostly made as busts or full three-dimensional objects whereas the Mask of Agamemnon is a flat two-dimensional piece of metal. Both show distinct facial features that depict strong and noble men of their era and place. Even with the wear and tear of the Mask of Agamemnon and the broken and missing pieces of the Head of Senusret III we still get a great sense of importance and dignity theses two men shown in their lifetime.

            The Head of Senusret III is a really distinguishable piece of Egyptian art. From the headpiece to the recognizable facial features and style we can tell this person is of Egyptian decent AND most likely a person of great importance. The Mask of Agamemnon is a little harder to distinguish its origin to the Aegean period.

I believe that the embellished facial features of the eyebrows and mustache really give of the sense of that time period. We even see the detailed hair on the bottom of the mask. I feel that this piece is really a treasure all on its own.

Egyptian Art (Convention)

The term convention, in art, (artistic convention) is defined as established ways of representing forms. The Egyptians used the artistic conventions to specifically represent humans and their actions and expressions. These were to be followed out for three thousand years to ensure minor changes to the people. The people represented in the artistic conventions were proportioned to have multiple viewpoints. The heads’ profiles were shown so that the nose, forehead, and chin are clearly seen. Also, the Hips, legs, and feet were drawn by profile. To show that the figure was walking, the figure would have the other leg exposed. The only difference in from all of the profile representations is that the torso of the figure is fully frontal. They used this to depict royalty and other dignitaries. When they would represent people of lesser social statuses, they would have them engaged in active tasks so it seems more lifelike to our standards.

Narmer Palette

         I believe that creativity in art can come from anything. Being in love with all types of art forms, you can really find creativity and inspiration from anything. Being creative shows people what you see through your imagination and/or original ideas. By using different kinds of means through painting, drawing, sculpting, photography, film, and expression, creativity has a whole door to come through and be seen by everyone.

         I can see controversies through which Egyptian artistic conventions can be considered either art or not. Since these representations are of real people it seems that they are more like pictures of actions and perhaps portraits. I can see the sense that any abstract markings on the people are clothes and accessories they wore but who is there to say that those were not art? I find that they’re way of life and their depictions of clothes and head gear were an art form in itself. The Egyptian artists and their way of representing their people is a classic way of art and creativity. Whenever we see the “Egyptian pose” we think of the classic arms out and legs in front with the profile. The Egyptian artists’ creative art of humans has had a lasting effect thousands and thousands of years later AND throughout the world.

         I believe that the Egyptians felt their creativity was important to them. Who wouldn’t want their art to be important? Especially when they wanted these depictions to last thousands of years into the future. They’re use of tools and other means of creating art was special and specific to these people and their appreciation of these are widely known to any who have seen these marvelous creations.

         I do not believe that ancient art needs to be a manifestation of creativity in order to be valued today. When the people of ancient times started to create these pieces of art, they might not have believe what they were making were “art.” They would usually makes these to show and depict lifelike or real people of their times. As the pieces become older and worn and our world starts to develop a sense of what art is and how it comes to be made, we start to also appreciate the “artists” and their stunning success of making lasting pieces of creativity.

Ancient Near East (Votive Figures)

The Votive Figures date back from 2900-2600 B.C.E. These figures were made of limestone; they were excavated from the Square Temple in Eshnunna (which is present day Tell Asmar, Iraq). These Sumerian sculptors were experts in the materials used to create such art. They would combine precious metals with other material to achieve authentic Sumerian art pieces. The sculptors from these times wanted to follow Sumerian art to a T. The figures have stylized their faces and bodies, dressed in clothing that show off its shape. By sculpting these figures in the way a worshipper stands, hands folded and arms across the chest, these figures are ready to approach their god in the way they were made to do. The Votive Figures are of men and women that are related to the Near Eastern devotional practice where the worshippers would sculpt images of themselves in a shrine and place them in front of an even larger image of the god they were worshipping. The figures hold many people, each with diverse qualities. The Votive Figures demonstrate the “One Who Offers Prayers;” each figure has different heights, clothes, faces, and shape.

By taking a close look at these figures we see the incredible attention to detail on their faces. The men all have a similar beard and hairstyle while the woman and treated the same with similar hair. Each face on the figures are so meticulous that we as a viewer know that so much time and effort went into each figure. I am intrigued to know what kind of tools and instruments were being used to achieve such a thorough look on their faces. Even the facial expressions have such happiness and thought-provoking ideas for us to question. I sense a lot of skill is needed to accomplish this sort of great exhaustive work.

Each figure is placed on a pedestal, and my first initial thought is that the figures were sculpture from a block of stone. There is a piece on the largest figure where there are markings on the base.  I am not sure what it means and/or what it is exactly. I get the sense of great ability and aptitude from the artist, or artists, to sculpt such detailed work. Each figure has a significant different size than the others and the impression I receive is that the artist does not allow size to hinder his or her work.  The precision and skill to create the smaller statues is incredible and I feel much effort and passion has gone into it. To create these statues that symbolize faith and devotion to a higher power, the artist must show the same amount of devotion to these figures.

            I find the subtle hand folding of the figures to be made quite beautifully. By ones’ self, a figure would look like a simple man or woman but combining twelve of these figures we get the sense of worship and praise.  There is one figure that stands out the most to me and it is the figure that is kneeling on the ground with no stone base. This figure is different from the rest by the base and head gear. I feel that this figure is one of a kind and perhaps the start of a whole new set of votive figures that the artist did not get around to.

Venus of Willendorf

By taking some earlier art classes in the past; I recognize the “Venus of Willendorf” sculpture. Reading through the article of the art piece gives me a more in depth picture of the time and cultures of the era in which it was made. Measuring at about 11 centimeters (4.3 inches) high, the “Venus of Willendorf” figurine was discovered around Willendorf, Austria. It is dated around 24,000 to 22,000 B.C.E.  Its image and reputation is somewhat controversial due to its shape and representation of women. By using the term “Venus,” people are given a preconceived notion of what a female figure would look like.

            The term “Venus” is defined as “a beautiful woman.” “Venus” is also linked to the Roman Goddess of Love; she also goes by the name Aphrodite. By giving the statuette the name “Venus of Willendorf” we are now associating this image with beauty and love. The way Venus is interpreted is nude and slightly covering her breasts and pubic region. The way the “Venus of Willendorf” is made is of a woman who is completely nude, with bulging breasts, large stomach and thighs, and a clearly visible pubic area. The image of Venus has been made to resemble a fairly attractive “curvy” woman. With the slight covering of breasts and privates, our culture and society dub this as art and beauty.

Without breaching the line of vulgarity and abrasiveness, the Birth of Venus and Capitoline Venus both show the subtle art of nude posing and sculpting. When compared to the “Venus of Willendorf,” many major differences stick out like sore thumbs. One being the obvious body shape of the woman; her obese figure is emphasized with a bulbous stomach, thick thighs, large buttocks, and hefty breasts. In our society, larger, more obese women are not considered physically beautiful; therefore when we see “Venus of Willendorf” we do not think she is a beautiful woman. Instead, the women we see, for example, in the Birth of Venus are what we would consider a beautiful woman.

I see this being problematic, especially for our society and culture, because it gives us a “one-way” viewing on what we consider beauty. With the way our society has grown into the idea that beautiful women must be thin, tall, long hair and big breasts; our young women see it fit to go to any measures (safe or extreme) to achieve this certain beauty. We get so fixed on our outer appearances that we begin to lose our own beauty from within. This beauty and sexual attractions are there to impress a male counterpart. Though the interesting thing about this “Venus of Willendorf” is the fact that the sculpture was made by a woman. This shows that this culture was probably matriarchal and do not see the need to label beauty to this sculpture.

The other controversial piece of the sculpture is the obvious genital view of the labia. This is somewhat vulgar to our society as it is not a common thing to see in art and/or visual means. The big topic of seeing this part of the woman anatomy is that “Venus of Willendorf” is a fertility idol made for that society.

I enjoyed beginning with this piece of art for our class because of it controversial meanings and images. I believe by talking about this piece without knowing much about it really makes us dive into the time era and culture that it was created in.

Introduction

Hi my name is Rebecca, but I like to be called Becca. I'm a senior here at CWU majoring in Film and Video Studies: Production. Film and Video is my life and passion; I'm excited to get started in that field after leaving Central. Being a visual person and having a deep passion for the visual arts, I find myself enjoying all aspects of Art. I have recently found a love for Photography and showcasing abstract images through pictures. Like film, photography has allowed me to capture the images I see in my head for the world to see. I have taken a couple art classes, ceramics and drawing, here at CWU for fun and found myself to thoroughly enjoy each one of them. Though the idea of making a living through art is a fun idea, I feel that it would take away the love I have for it. So I have strictly decided that any drawing I do would be for fun and fulfill any time-holes in my day. By taking this class, I hope that I can grow to appreciate different pieces I come across; I love the ancient and medieval time periods of our culture and can't wait until this class goes underway.