My Favorite Part

Before this quarter, I have never studied ancient art. I enjoyed every time period that we went through, but I was most interested in prehistoric art.

For example, the Venus of Willendorf was quite astonishing in the sense that even in the beginnings of human kind; prehistoric people were already advanced enough to carve her from a chunk of limestone. This was before any technology existed, and since sculptures such as this are some of the only evidence of prehistoric human life, these people must have been more intelligent than most of us believe. There are several debates on what these carvings were used for. One of the possibilities that appeals to me is that these little sculptures were intended to be used as fertility idols and perhaps education of feminine hygiene. I am particularly intrigued by the statuette’s lack of feet and facial features. Also, her voluptuous shape seems rather unsuitable for the time period of hunters and gatherers. I found the idea that pregnant women may have used their own bodies as a model very appealing. As if they observed each side looking down and as a result, it creates this obese effect. The Venus itself is quite interesting in shape and size; however I think I am more curious about its historical context. Where is it from? How did they carve the limestone? Were they using a model? Did they carry it around with them everywhere as an idol?

Other works of art that I found most interesting are the cave paintings. I am so amazed at how talented prehistoric people were. For example, the cave paintings at Lascaux, France are so captivating. The walls are so high; I am curious how they even got up there. Not to mention how people were able to crawl and climb through the dark, narrow caves where some paintings are located. One thing I found really interesting is the silhouette of a handprint next to the painting of the dotted horse. The fact that they blew pigment from a straw to get this airbrush effect is astounding. My guess to why that person’s handprint is there is that it was intended to be a signature, or form of identity. I am also curious if the stories portrayed in some of these paintings are memories of true events. For example, one of the Lascaux paintings demonstrates a man lying dead in front of a bison with its intestines hanging out of its stomach. I also find it interesting that prehistoric people probably painted these figures without any model or picture, purely from imagination. It was fun to explore these different possibilities in class. Because this piece is so ancient and there is no proof of origin and no recorded history, no one really knows the answers, we just have theories. I find this very fascinating.  

Byzantine and Early Medieval Art

The artists of the Byzantine and early Medieval period focused less on natural or realistic properties in their art and more on the stylization of their subject and the piece as a whole. This was done to evoke specific emotions and feelings in the viewer. Two pieces from this period that demonstrate this quite well are the Crucifixion (Stokstad 250) and the Virgin and Child with Saints and Angels (Stokstad 245).

The Crucifixion is an eleventh century mosaic from the Church of the Dormition of Daphni, Greece. This work demonstrates the death of Jesus Christ on the cross as Mary and the apostle John mourn below him. The background appears to be of gold which creates the illusion of another world, or some empty space. However, the flowers at the foot of the cross may represent life or keep the viewer grounded in the material world. Mary and John’s movements almost seem restrained with the way that they are posed. Perhaps this was done to impose feelings in the viewer to strengthen their means of worship and prayer. Also, the top of the mosaic has been worn away, but perhaps angels were above the cross praying for him, which could imply the power and importance of prayer as well. Something I noticed immediately that is very unrealistic was the blood and water spewing out of Christ’s right side as if it was a fountain. It seems like the Virgin Mary is reaching out to catch his holy blood. This reminds me of communion in a Christian church, when one takes the blood and body of Christ in worship to thank him for his sacrifice. This could also attribute to baptismal rites. Another subject that is heavily stylized is the skull laying in the foreground; the nose is shaped as a sharp triangle and it shows only three teeth. This skull is said to symbolize Golgotha, which is where the crucifixion supposedly happened outside of ancient Jerusalem. The blood dripping down from Jesus’ feet onto the skull demonstrate the belief that he was the new Adam, and that his sacrifice saved all of the people from the corruption and sins of Adam and Eve. For example, in I Corinthians 15:22, Paul wrote, “For just as in Adam all die, so too in Christ shall all be brought to life”. The purpose of this mosaic was to help devout Christians establish an emotional and intellectual connection with the divine power through worship and meditaiton.

    

Christians in the early Byzantine period used painted panels of Mary, Christ and the Saints to aid them in prayer during worshiping services. These were known as icons. The Virgin and Child with Saints and Angels is an icon from the second half of the sixth century. Mary, who was also known as Theotokos, which is Greek for “the bearer of God”, is centered and surrounded by two saints and two angels. She was known as a forgiving and powerful mother, also referring her to the Seat of Wisdom. Mary is holding Jesus in her lap as she sits on a golden throne. Other depictions such as this one perhaps imply that she is the Throne of Solomon. There are two angels behind Mary and Jesus looking upward toward the Heavens; neither four of them are looking straight forward. The two saints, on the other hand, are gazing right at the viewer. These men, known as George (right) and Theodore (left), were brave and courageous saints who exemplify the happiness of the Church instead of paganism. These two saints appear to be the only stylized aspects of the painting. Their garments completely hide the human form underneath them. There is no sense of depth or dimensionality achieved and they are completely motionless. Perhaps their intense stares and crosses at hand are meant to intimidate the viewer into staying faithful to God. Their stiff and long posture gives off a sense of security while their peering eyes and blank faces demand conditional respect and devotion to God.       

Propagandistic Sculpture in Roman History

At the start of the Common Era, Roman leaders used imperial portraits of themselves as a source of propaganda. Two sculptures in particular that reveal this quality are the bust of Commodus as Hercules and the Portrait Head of Caracalla.

Commodus Aurelius reigned from 180 CE to 192 CE after his father Marcus Aurelius. Although Marcus was an attentive and powerful conquer, these characteristics did not succeed to his son’s rule. Commodus had no sense of political authority, or social skills. He treated himself to luxury and thought very highly of himself. As one can see, Commodus is crowned with the head of the Nemean lion, has Hercules’ club and is holding the golden apples of the Garden of Hesperides.  Also, the ringlets of his loose curly hair are a classic example of Greek portraits, thus implying he was a god. This proves that he believed to be the manifestation of the god Jupider and the epitome of Hercules. He was really feeling cocky when he wanted to acquire consulship presented in a gladiator’s ensemble, which in turn led to his arranged death by his mistress and affiliates. His conceited personality and flamboyant attire go along perfectly with the stylized body build portrayed in the statue. The meaning of Commodus’s statue is aimed towards the Roman people. He was conceited and his ego seemed to be larger than his political popularity.

The other figure of Caracalla on the other hand was tough as nails but needn’t express it with extravagant things. The high contrast and intensity of his eyes alone gives him a strong sense of authority and power. Caracalla and his brother, Geta, shared the co-emperor position. However, Caracalla wanted the power all to himself so he killed his brother and became emperor of Rome from 211 CE to his death in 217 CE. This clearly demonstrates his selfish and dominating habits from the get-go. The angry expression and hardness of his face depicts his lack of tolerance for anything that disturbs his authority. His short and well-trimmed hair gives him a solid and ready-to-fight appearance. He guarded the Empire and confronted enemies with control and stern authority. This is what makes his statue more widely understood among others; he wanted to be seen as a powerful leader and to have an influence over everyone, including his enemies.

These two statues are similar in a sense that they both try to portray strength and power, however, Commodus is bluffing and Caracalla is the real power-house. These figures also represent a shift in the constitution of imperial rule from a previous ruler such as the peaceful Agustus to the firm grip of Caracalla.     

Our Perception of Grecian Sculpture

Just a few hundred years before Common Era, Greek artists sculpted white marble to create life-like statues of people. Historians and scholars claim that these statues were painted instead of leaving them white, which, due to age, is how we see them today. When art historian Joachim Winckelmann presented the idea of “good taste” during the eighteenth century, he gave the impression that art in its simplest form is the most beautiful. He was convinced that the Greek people intentionally left their sculptures paint-less and praised the Greek artists for their pure and simple style. According to Winckelmann, less is more.

I feel that this idea brings us to think that the art we view from thousands of years ago is how the artists intended it to look then. We can study art in its state today, but we also need to look further back to figure out how it looked when it was made. Paint, for example, may flake off over time. It seems unrealistic that a piece of art can look the same for thousands of years without any sign of corrosion or damage. Understanding the history of the piece is going to help us learn about the Greek style and how we as human beings have developed new artistic techniques over time.

Greek art is notorious for appearing naturalistic. However, they used the paint to give their work a more natural look. The Greeks rendered the human body perfectly and I think the paint may have distracted from the beauty of the form in a way that wouldn’t be pleasing, especially with the use of busy patterns and primary colors. After seeing the reconstructions of the Peplos Kore and the Archer, I think that they would seem more realistic with paint, but I do not like the color choice so much. I love bright and vibrant colors, but they almost seem too doll-like. I never realized that these old sculptures were originally painted until now. I believed that the Greeks left these statues as white marble to emphasize the power of the gods, as if they were not human. I agree with Winckelmann in the sense that the pure unpainted marble makes the statues more beautiful.  The fact that the remains of Grecian art are so old and precious gives them an angelic and immortal kind of vibe when I see them today. Most of the sculptures are nude and the viewer can see the figure in great detail. It is almost as if the sculptures have a natural glow without paint. I am extremely fascinated with the human body so seeing these great sculptures without color allows me to see how the light hits the curves of the human body. For example, the sculpture of the Dying Warrior demonstrates the muscles throughout a man’s body. The high contrast of the highlights and shadows in his abdomen and face are really eye catching and I love the vividness of it. I cannot get this effect as much if the figure is painted. 

Fisherman Fresco

After observing this painting, I have come to the conclusion that it was created by the Minoan people during the “Old Palace” period, around 1900-1700 BCE. This piece depicts a man with handfuls of fish hanging from ropes as if he caught them and is bringing them back home to eat with his family.

 The early Minoans were completely dependent on themselves. They produced their own food and agriculture including cattle, sheep, grains and various fruits. Not to mention the location of their civilization on Crete allowed them to become a trading super power.

Painters at this time preferred a large-scale canvas and did several murals. These paintings usually consisted of nature or humans performing every-day activities. This fisherman painting demonstrates the abundance of life in Minoan culture. There is a similarity to Egyptian art in this piece, which is the twisted perspective of the figure. His body is in profile view, except for his shoulders and torso is shown from the front. Perhaps they chose to stylize this figure in such a way to be appealing to Egyptians while trading. Other evidence that suggests that this is a Minoan painting is the border along the top edge of the painting. My impression is that it is a border, and the Minoans tended to do this with their wall paintings. 

Egyptian Portrayal of the Human Form

An artistic convention is a method of representing something. Rather than observing things around them or using a still life, the Egyptians made their art based on concrete and distinct conventions while giving it a life-like appearance.

One convention that the Egyptians commonly used after their ancestors was the application of hierarchic scale. This allowed artists to represent figures of importance by enlarging them, and keeping other individuals much smaller to signify their social status.

Egyptian art is full of symbols. This doesn’t only include hieroglyphics, but also animalistic figures were used repeatedly to portray a specific person. For example, the God of Earth, Horus, was usually depicted as a falcon, or a falcon-headed man. The Egyptians paid great attention to the human form. In art, they exhibited every recognizable perspective of the human body using composite poses. The head, hips, legs and feet were all created in profile, while the torso and eyes were seen frontally. The use of this convention stayed with the Egyptians for many millennia. In fact, they used composite poses to express power of leaders in conjunction with hierarchic scale to make them seem much larger and more god-like than the small people in the background.

I feel that the Egyptians acquired a great sense of creativity because of their ability to depict their subjects solely on the use of conventions. However, it can be said that most of the figures portrayed in this art are almost exactly the same. Since they based their art on these conventions of the human form, there is no diversity in each person. In other words, if they had created their art with the reference of a still life or a model, then there would be more differences in the characteristics of people. I think that this gives them more creativity, though, because they don’t necessarily need to constantly look at something as a reference; they can create those images from memory. Although, these human figures look similar, the viewer can still distinguish who the person is in the piece because of symbolism. In order for the Egyptians to characterize important figures and gods, they personified animals that symbolize these rulers, like that of the falcon and the god Horus. I don’t believe that the Egyptians created art to show off their talent as an artist, rather they did it as a symbol of importance of the gods and rulers of Egypt. For example, The Palette of Narmar is a clear representation of Narmar, the ruler of Upper Egypt, and his control of Lower Egypt. In conclusion, the Egyptians used hierarchic scale and composite poses to create these images of figures with the intention to represent something important to the people and the deceased.   

Formal Analysis: Heracles Smiting Acheloos

As my first formal analysis, I will be sharing a wall relief from the Ancient Near East called Heracles Smiting Acheloos (in the form of a bull). This fragmented piece is an example of the Late Egyptian Period. Sculptures such as this one were typically created to decorate, if you will, the public part of the tombs of Egyptian pagans. The deceased were often represented as a being of Greek or Roman mythology. For example, a nymph may assume the role of a young woman. In this case, the man portrayed, Heracles is the son of the Greek God, Zeus and is the epitome of masculinity. The bull is a representation of the Acheloos River in Greece because in ancient Greek mythology, the river’s spirit was that of the god named Acheloos.

The photo above displays this high-relief limestone carving of Heracles grasping a bull by his horn. Courage and stability is portrayed through this sculpture in various aspects. The way the man’s body is positioned and the rock-like shape in his hand suggests that he is about to strike the bull to kill it. The bull does not appear angry or mean, but he looks as if he is feeling threatened. Since prehistoric times, the bull has represented strength and nobleness; the fact that the bull seems to be dominated by Heracles demonstrates the bravery and power that this pagan must have had.    

The deep shadows behind Heracles really bring his body foreword in the piece and make him appear more important than anything else. I also notice the large black holes in the deep-set eyes of both the man and the bull. This is interesting because I see similar holes in the background (to the left of Heracles) with the plants. Perhaps those holes are the eyes of others, watching and admiring Heracles from the bushes.  One thing that I am drawn to look and in this piece is the man’s beard. Because of its more detailed texture and wavy characteristic, Heracles’ hair stands out from everything else in the scene, making him seem more god-like. The careful carvings of his abdomen emphasize the shape of his muscular body in which gives him a physically mature and dominant appearance. There is a likeness of these forms on his abdomen to the shapes of the plants and leaves in the background connecting him to Earth also giving him a godly personality.   

               

 If this carving really was a part of a man’s tomb to symbolize his personality, then this man must have been a hero.

Venus of Willendorf

The Venus of Willendorf is such an important work of art not only because it is a prehistoric treasure, but because it is so intriguing. I’m curious why the artist chose a model with such an unattractive shape. I feel that it implies that she was important to him/her in some way or another.

I accept Witcombe’s idea that perhaps civilization back then was dominated by female power, but as time progressed, men took the lead in society. Perhaps she was Mother Earth as Witcombe's article proposes.  Maybe the artist was so infatuated with this uncommonly voluptuous woman that he/she wanted to recreate her. This Venus is exposed without a face, or feet, but is presented with the most detail in her torso and pelvis. The fact that she is obviously over-weight must have made her stand out from other women then. Although, if she had such a status that allowed her to eat and have others fetch her food, her face would be just as important as the rest of her body. Perhaps the fat tells it all.

I believe that this statuette was created from a live model and I also find this piece very alluring. As an artist, I am so fascinated with the female body; any nude woman is beautiful. One thing that I love about this work is that despite her size, she has a sense of confidence in her sexual appeal. The way her unrealistically thin arms are carelessly draped over her large breasts and her thick thighs pressed together. Her pelvic region is so detailed that you can see the definition of her labia, but she shows no shame in revealing herself. 

This statuette was given the name “Venus” with a bit of sarcasm because she is the exact opposite of the classical Venus character. The classic Venus like that portrayed in the renaissance era is slender, and seems embarrassed to expose her naked self. Also, The Venus of Willendorf shows more detail in the sensual areas of her body. For example, her pelvic area is extremely detailed, her buttocks are large but not shapely and round, and her breasts are much larger yet not sagging. I think that the Venus of the modern era is a bit more conservative mainly because of religion. We are told that to be naked in front of one another is immoral and therefore, an adulterous sin. We wear clothing to keep ourselves warm and protect our bodies from various environmental factors, but have we always been required to wear clothing? Centuries ago, when hunters and gatherers scavenged the earth, I don’t think they felt any shame in nakedness. It probably seemed natural then, whereas in today’s society, we drape ourselves with fashionable clothing, and make ourselves look more attractive with material things. Honestly, if it weren’t illegal or immoral in America, I would walk around naked. Venus of Willendorf doesn’t need these things to flaunt her appeal. However, giving this figure such a name that creates the expectation of seeing a certain image that is completely different than what is really there might have been a bad idea. It is almost taken as a joke, which I think ruins the piece as a whole.

I'll be in the books too.

"I'll be the next DaVinci!" I used to say, with broken crayons in both hands. I've been drawing my whole life... I've got a binder full of most of my old drawings. I was really infatuated with snakes and cars for some reason. Anyway, I've really grown to appreciate art and I love making my own. I've never extensively studied art before the renaissance period so I'm looking forward to this class. Hey, maybe one of us will be admired centuries from now!