Final post

            I particularly enjoyed studying Egyptian art. I believe that I am so drawn into that particular style of art because it has so much mystery not only surrounding the art but the culture as well. I was both intrigued by the visual details we see coming from the Egyptians as well as the culture from which this art came from.

            While I find all Egyptian art beautiful and thought provoking there are several monumental pieces that I know I find absolutely intriguing as does most of the world. The pyramids of Giza are interesting in so many different ways. I find it amazing that they were built as resting places for deceased pharaohs. To have such a large pyramid built in honor of a leader shows the respect the people had for their leaders as well as the great power that these pharaohs had. These pyramids are also very intriguing to me because they are so monumental and large and having been built with no real machinery is absolutely mind blowing. The mystery about how exactly these pyramids were built I believe is what draws me in to them and makes me want to study them even further. Something that I also find interesting that comes from the Egyptian culture is that almost all powerful figures are represented with a beard. I also find it quite intriguing that figures are at times shown with bird like heads or other types of animal heads. Another monumental piece that came from the Egyptians that also interests me is the Great Sphinx. Not only do I find the appearance interesting, the lion body with pharaoh like head, but the history that comes with the structure. One of the main things about the Sphinx that I find interesting is that for periods of time it has in fact been completely covered by sand and yet has been preserved fairly well. The reaction and emotion that I get from looking at both the Great Sphinx and the Pyramids of Giza is complete awe and the feeling of being overwhelmed by their size and beauty.

            I also really enjoyed study art from the Ancient Near East. I think the reason why I found such interest in Ancient Near East art is because there is a wide variety of art being produced. There are votive figures being produced which show the religious aspect of the culture, there are lavishly decorated pieces like The Great Lyre with Bull’s Head, and then there are also pieces that show how there society is ran for example the Stele of Hammurabi. I think that it is the visual details that draw me in more so than the historical context. I really enjoy the use of lapis lazuli in The Great Lyre with Bull’s Head. I think this piece is quite beautiful not only because of the deep blue color but I enjoy how stylized it is, especially the beard.

            Though the Egyptian and Ancient Near East art was my favorite to study I thoroughly enjoyed learning about every culture we covered. I feel that not only did I gain a great amount of knowledge of the cultures that the artwork came from but I also gained an even greater appreciation for the arts through the ages. 

Byzantine

A large portion of the art we see coming from the Byzantine and Early Medieval periods are very stylized. The artworks that are depicting a holy figure or event seem to lack a realistic look more so than any of the other art coming from these periods. We see this probably because the artists are not focused on the naturalism of the piece, but rather depicting a holy figure and representing the power they hold or what they are capable of.

In the image of Christ Enthroned, flanked by angels, Saint Vitalis and Bishop Ecclesius, found on page 239, we see several characteristics that make the image come off as very stylized. This image is located in the halfdome of the sanctuary apse in the Church of San Vitale and stands out greatly due to its gold background. The gold background is something in the image that does not come off as naturalistic. While it makes this image standout and look very grand, which was most likely the purpose behind the gold background, it is not something that we see in real life. If this was a naturalistic mosaic chances are we would be seeing the background blue as if it were the sky. Something that also makes this mosaic appear to be stylized is that Christ seems to be sitting or floating atop of a blue orb. This again is not something we would see in a naturalistic mosaic or in real life. They are showing him atop the blue orb as a representation of the four rivers that flow underneath him, however it is a very literal representation of him being above the rivers. One last thing that makes this appear as a stylized work of art is the landscape beneath the figures. The landscape represented is very small in comparison to the figures. The trees appear to be the same height as the figure’s ankles, which is quite clearly not a naturalistic representation of the trees or the figures. The use of hierarchy of scale makes it quite clear that the figures are the most important component to the mosaic and everything else is small in size so they don’t take away from the figures. The use of hierarchy of scale is generally not something we see in realistic pieces of art.

 Similarly, in the Virgin and Child with Saints and Angels, found on page 245, we see several characteristics that make this image appear to be more stylized rather than realistic. First off we see one of the main things that attract our eyes, which is the gold disks or halos behind the figures heads. This is quite obviously something that we do not see in the real world or in our day to day lives. These figures are shown with these halos to represent that they are in fact holy. In a naturalistic painting we would see the figures more realistically represented so we could tell who they are and that they are holy. Another stylized characteristic that we see is that the figures are elongated. We specifically see this elongation in the legs of the figures. As you can see both the men standing on either side of the Virgin have very long thighs and in comparison the distance from the knees to their ankles are very short. The human form in realistic paintings are shown in proportion. The last characteristic that we see in this artwork that is stylized is that the faces of these figures are outlined. This takes away from the realism however, it makes each face standout and attract attention. 

Roman Art

            Propaganda was an important way in which the emperors of the Roman Empire displayed that all attributes they obtained were positive and would be helpful in leading their society. It was a way the emperors could gain the favor of their people and make sure they had a strong following. However, the ways in which their attributes were displayed vary slightly from sculpture to sculpture, one can also see the difference of propaganda from culture to culture.

            The Commodus as Hercules and portrait head of Caracalla show us that both these rulers are trying to display several attributes they both have to their public. They both are trying to get across the point that they are strong, powerful, and capable of ruling the Roman Empire. They both show the leaders as fairly young. Youth is associated with power as well as showing they will be able to rule for years to come because they are healthy rather than old and sickly.

            However, many of the propagandistic tools that are used in these sculptures differ greatly. The lion head that is being worn by the Commodus as Hercules is a very powerful visual element that makes it easy to tell it is propaganda. Lions are well known to be extremely powerful, aggressive, and strong animals. All the characteristics of the animal are supposed to be seen as attributes the ruler obtains. He may have even killed the lion that he is now wearing as a headdress. Thus showing he has great skills and ability. His body is also fit that we don’t see in the portrait head of Caracalla obviously because it is only a head being represented. However, if we did see the whole body he would probably also be represented as very strong and fit with emphasis on his muscles. The Commodus as Hercules also has a smaller figure by his side that could possibly represent a god or goddess. This is used as propaganda because it shows that the gods are supportive of the emperor’s rule. Commodus as Hercules is also shown having a beard. This in fact represents his wisdom; this shows that he is smart and wise enough to rule.

            The portrait head of Carcalla is shown to be young. He is also represented in a very naturalistic manner. Showing him in a naturalistic way helps others see his resemblance to his other powerful relatives. This helps people understand that it is his rightful duty to be the ruler of the empire.

            The propagandistic elements that we see in both these sculptures seem to play towards the people of that time and of the Roman culture. However, nowadays seeing these sculptures we are able to connect them to being powerful figures, more so the Commodus as Hercules because we see more propagandistic elements. Today it is not likely for us to see a sculpture of say a presidential candidate wearing a lions head with his shirt off. Today that would probably be seen more as a joke and disrespectful than anything. 

Greek Art

I believe that Winckelmann has had a great impact on the way that we view Greek art, more specifically the way we view there widely celebrated statues. He put much emphasis on his opinion that the use of the white marble is what makes the statues appear as “pure” and “simple”. To Winckelmann the simplicity of the white marble is what makes the statues beautiful and admirable. The use of color is only something that needs minor consideration according to Winckelmann, meaning he believes that it would only take away from the statues beauty.

Winckelmann has made our views of not only Greek art, but art in general change drastically than what they potentially would have been. Nowadays we never see Greek statues that are painted. All that is left is generally just the white marble. Winckelmann has led us to believe that because of their lack of color they are beautiful and appear to be more naturalistic. However, little did Winckelmann know the Greek statues were in fact at one time painted. The artists of these statues used color in order to create a more naturalistic figure. I agree with the artists that with color the statues are in fact more naturalistic. We see colors in our everyday life. The clothes we wear, our hair, our eyes, even our skin is different than the white marble.

If Winckelmann hadn’t attributed the Greek statue’s beauty and impressiveness due to its lack of color many artists now would probably be creating statues that incorporated color. Yet, his opinion may be unimportant to today’s artists and they may choose to create their statues without color because they feel that the color takes away from the statues characteristics. After looking at the reconstructions of the white marble statues I now view them differently. Instead of just taking them for as they are I now try to imagine what colors they were painted with as they once were. After viewing the archer from the west pediment of the temple of Aphaia reconstructed I realized how much the look of the statue changes when color is included. When color is added, in my opinion, the statue is completely brought to life and almost makes it more relatable and possibly even more realistic. Another painted reconstruction is the “Peplos” statue. When seeing the painted version I feel that the emphasis on realism is taken away because the use of colors is what I find myself focusing on rather than the actual form. Yet, seeing that the artists did intend for the statues to be painted make me prefer them that way. The “good taste” that Winckelmann was referring to is in fact due to the aging of the statues and their loss of paint. I wonder if Winckelmann saw the statues the way they were originally if he would change his opinion that Greek art embodied “good taste.” 

Aegean Art

The first unidentified piece of artwork, of the fisherman, in my opinion would fall under the Minoan category. I chose the Minoans as the producers of this fisherman for several reasons. One very important reason being that the body style is much more naturalistic than we generally see in Cycladic and Mycenean artwork. The Cycladic people produced very stylized human depictions and the Mycenaens seemed to have more cartoon like depictions. However, this man’s waist is only slightly pinched, which is a main characterization of Minoan artwork. Yet, we are seeing him in profile view similar to what we saw from the Egyptians without the frontward facing shoulders. The Minoans were influenced by the Egyptians and were known to trade with them. That leads me to believe that this is in face a Minoan piece due to its Egyptian like stance. Another point that leads me to believe that this piece of art is Minoan is because the depiction of fish. The Minoans were very in touch with nature specifically marine life. The “Flottlla” fresco seen in this weeks lecture depicts many boats, which shows us the Minoan people were in fact fishers. In the same fresco we also see dolphins, which show us their interest in marine life. One thing however that gives me a slight hesitation in identifying this artwork as a Minoan piece is that the human is in fact painted. As touched on in the lecture Minoans were known for carving their depictions of humans rather than painting as the Mycenaens did.

The second unidentified piece of artwork of the vase appears to be from the Mycenean people. One major thing that leads me to believe this artwork is Mycenean is because the paintings on it appear to be quite cartoon like. It is hard to identify whether or not these figures are humans or animals. Their proportions are far from naturalistic and they do not have a pinched waist, which was often seen in the Minoan culture. The Cycladic people had very stylized work with the a very long almost sharp nose and elegant body. Therefore, I am led to believe that this vase does in face come from the Mycenean people. The Mycenean people were also very war oriented people. That fact helps me to categorize this as Mycenean because it looks as if the figures are riding in a chariot or some type of horse drawn carriage that could have possibly been used in warfare. The figures that are shown on the vase seem to all have a nose that is quite pointed. In this weeks lecture we saw a warrior vase that had warriors with a somewhat similar nose structure. In the same warrior vase we see that none of the figures are overlapping. That is common in the Mycenean artwork. In this unidentified vase we see no figures overlapping each other. I feel that this couldn’t be Minoan artwork because it has no sense of nature and the figures are far from naturalistic. The figures also don’t remind of the Cycladic stylized figures. Thus, I come to the conclusion that this may have come from the Mycenean people. 

Egyptian Art

The ziggurats of the ancient near east and the pyramids of Giza are both without a doubt monumental structures. They share many physical similarities while at the same time they greatly differ in their purpose and functions. When looking at the structures it is quite obvious that the pyramids and ziggurats alike share a striking similarity in form. Both are pyramidal in shape. A ziggurat of the ancient near east is basically a stepped pyramid, which can be seen as the blue print or precursor to the pyramidal shape. The ziggurats were at one time in history white washed to enhance their appearance. Similarly the pyramids at one time had a white limestone casing that would beautifully reflect the light. Both share a great importance to their cultures as well as to their religious beliefs. Another thing they both have in common is that they were both built for one person or god that has great power.

However, there are many things that differ between both ziggurats and the pyramids of Giza. The pyramids are far larger than the average ziggurat. The pyramids of Giza standing at a colossal 450 feet make an average ziggurat of the ancient near east at 170 feet tall seem almost insignificant. Ziggurats were made out of sun-dried brick held together with a tar like substance, while the pyramids are made of stone. With each stone weighing in at a mind blowing 2.5 tons. The pyramids were built as a tomb or resting place for the pharohs Khufu, Khafre, and Menkaure. Due to them being the burial site of a pharoh the pyramids were not completely solid. There has to be a place for the pharoh to rest, which is the burial chamber located at the center of the pyramid. Ziggurats on the other hand were used as a way to become closer to the gods. It is considered a meeting place or shrine that is between heaven and earth. Ziggurats are built up on terraced earth so they can be as close to the gods as possible and are completely solid. Each ziggurat would function as a place to worship and individual god or goddess. A very important difference between a ziggurat and the pyramids is that pyramids are meant for a person of importance to be laid to rest inside it, while a ziggurat was meant to have a person worship on top of it. While the shapes of both are almost identical the purposes for the shape greatly differ. It is believed that the reason pyramids are shaped in such a way is because slanted angles are suggested to represent the slanting rays of the sun. However, the slanting sides of the ziggurat were made for rain run off. Both the pyramids and the ziggurats are large scale structures that have left many baffled by their immense size and the people's great devotion to the pharohs or gods that they built these great monuments for.

The Ancient Near East

The Sumerian culture put a great emphasis on the importance of gods and deities. The roles the gods played were in fact so important in their society that much of the artwork found from the Sumerians were religiously based. Amongst those religiously driven pieces of artwork are votive figures. Dated back to 2900-2600 BCE and founded in 1932-1933 in the Square Temple in Eshnunna.

The medium used in order to create these figures was limestone. Though at the time the Sumerian artists were also using other mediums such as an array of of precious metals. These limestone figures were believed to have a much more practical purpose than what meets the eye. The votive figures are fairly small, with the largest figure standing at thirty inches. Though many are small in size the scale does not seem to take away from their powerful presence. While each figure slightly differs from the next there are several distinct attributes that each obtain. All stand with hands folded in a prayerful way. When looking at these votive figures it is nearly impossible to overlook the wide and attentive stares looking off into the distance. These gazes, at first glance, are somewhat overwhelming seeing as the eyes are intensely exaggerated  in order to put emphasis on them. The creator of these votive figures  clearly wanted the eyes to be out of proportion with the rest of the figure in order to emphasize their watchfulness and openness to the gods. It is as if they are constantly locked in eye contact with the image of the god they are set in front of. The votive figures are represented in a very stylized manner. The eyes and beards are heavily stylized, making them very recognizable to the Ancient Near East time period. We see the same stylized beard on many other pieces of artwork from the time such as Head of a Man (Known as Akkadian Ruler) and the same beard is even seen on The Great Lyre with Bull's Head. It is believed that at one point the eyebrows were inlaid with things such as stone and shell in order to put even more emphasis on the large eyes. All the figures, men and women alike, have large legs and feet. The men wear nothing on their upper half while wearing sheepskin skirts on the bottom. The women are covered in sheepskin as well. They are all cylindrical in shape with fairly broad shoulders. All the bodies appear to have a smooth texture, while the men's beards are heavily textured.

These pieces are in fact devotional figures that represent individual worshipers. Their function is to be a stand-in put in an actual shrine in front of an image of a god for an individual. Thus, it is as if they are constantly in worship even if the individual is physically not in the shrine. These votive figures are depicted as both men and women posed in a very respectful posture.

Something that I find to be very interesting about these devotional figures is that there are inscriptions identifying each sculpture. It was the Sumerians who invented writing. The words were represented as pictographs called cuneiform. It was indeed cuneiform that was used to identify each votive figure. However, it is not the individual's name that is detailed onto the figure, but rather what that individual has done in honor of the god. So some figures could be inscribed with very little showing that individual has yet to accomplish many things in the honor of the god, while others could have large amounts of inscriptions.

When looking at these figures the first reaction I have to them is that their look is somewhat frightening. Frightening because the eyes are so out of proportion with the rest of their bodies; it is unlike anything I have ever seen. However, after taking time to really examine these votive figures their prayerful stature is what I focus in on more so than the eyes. These devotional figures are very interesting and unconventionally beautiful to me.

Prehistoric Art

 The word "Venus" is commonly associated with the goddess Venus. When thinking of the goddess Venus the image that is linked to the word for most is a slim, nude, elegant woman who is modestly covering up her breasts and pubic area. Therefore, the name Venus of Willendorf seems to be somewhat unfitting for the prehistoric figure. Her name is in fact mocking her bulbous form. "Venus Pudica" is the name used to often describe the goddess Venus, who is trying to modestly cover her naked self. While the Venus of Willendorf is proudly showing her body, and making no effort to hide her figure. The term venus in this case becomes somewhat problematic because many identify the word venus with a woman that looks nothing like the prehistoric figure, as well as the name was merely a joke poking fun at the female's voluptuous figure. The Venus of Willendorf has large breasts, a gorging belly, and an exaggerated pubic triangle. This figure clearly represents the female form, however there is no real identity linked to this body. The faceless body shows us that the purpose of the figure was not to represent one individual, but to put emphasis on the female form. It is believed by many that the social and cultural purpose of this figure was to represent fertility. This well-nourished body may have been somewhat of a good luck charm for a pregnant woman  or a woman trying to become pregnant. A healthy body similar to the figure would be capable of reproducing well-nourished babies, which would result in the continuation of her clan. The Venus of Willendorf is often discussed and is a good starting point when learning about prehistoric artwork because the Venus of Willendorf is not the only "venus" we have seen from the prehistoric time period. We see fertility images very close in style from places all over. Thus showing that these figures had a great significance to many prehistoric people. Reading the article about the Venus of Wilendorf opened my eyes to how women's body image has changed so drastically. To me this figure is a refreshing take on the female form, seeing as nowadays a woman's body is only beautiful is she is thin. The media has warped our view on body image and our ideals of beauty, which has become somewhat concrete in our society. I feel as is the writer of the article has become quite accustom to these ideals, making the representation of the female form sound almost foreign.

Introduction

My name is Carly Rocha, and this is my second year attending Central Washington University. I am planning to major in psychology with a double minor in art history and art studio. I have always been passionate for the arts, and I would love to help heal through art therapy. I love all different styles of art, but  I find myself attracted to the works of art created by artists such as Georgia O' Keeffe, Salvador Dali, Ansel Adams, Annie Leibovitz, Frida Kahlo, Diego Rivera, and many more!