The Parthenon Marbles

I would like to first talk about the British Museum and its displaying of the Parthenon Marbles encouraging aesthetics over historical context and then I will turn my attention to whether the Parthenon Marbles should stay in London or be returned to Athens.  I do not think that it is problematic that the museum display encourages aesthetics over historical context for many reasons, although I do understand and appreciate the argument from the other side.  First of all, the Parthenon Marbles are no longer on the Parthenon and have not been for some time, thus focusing on the artistic nature of the pieces.  I know that the Ancient Greeks did not make art “for art’s sake,” but it is, nonetheless, art.  Rather than placing the sculptures high up, where they would have been seen at the time they were made, is not only impractical because of the height that would be involved, but it would take away from the view currently available.  Maybe if the carvings and statues were still painted and were relatively the same as when they were first made, I could understand the historical context argument.  But to see the detail today, without the paint, it is easier to see as they are currently placed.  And because they are in a British museum and not on the Parthenon, it seems even more that they should be viewed as the art that it is.  I do understand the argument, but I believe that people can get more enjoyment and educational value with them being placed where they now are.

The tougher question for me is whether the Parthenon Marbles should stay in London or be returned to Athens.  First of all, who knows what would have happened to the marbles if they stayed in Athens?  They could have been destroyed or taken by someone else.  Don’t get me wrong, I believe what Lord Elgin did was greedy, self-righteous, and just plain wrong.  That being said, they have been in London for a few hundred years now and the British government did pay for them, granted they paid Lord Elgin.  As one of the articles pointed out, the return of these marbles to Athens would open up a Pandora’s Box.  Every country that has had works of art taken in the past would want them returned.  It is simply not feasible to do, and the courts would probably get involved and it would take years and massive amounts of money to find a solution.

Scholars claim that it is not possible to put the Parthenon Marbles back where they came from on the Parthenon.  But a compromise between the two countries seems viable and probably the right thing to do.  The British Museum has had these on display for many years perhaps they can sell them back to the Greek’s, since they did have to pay for them.  Lord Elgin did receive permission to take the marbles from those in control at the time.  A better idea would be something that has been suggested before, the return of the marbles in exchange for a revolving exhibit in the British Museum of other Greek pieces of art.  I know that some scholars claim that they marbles are too delicate to transport, and that should be taken into account.  But the return of the Parthenon Marbles to Athens just seems right.  With all of the history of the Parthenon and the museum close by, it appears to be a perfect fit.

With that being said, I am sure that the British Museum does not want to give back the treasure that is the Parthenon Marbles, but it would be nice if they compromised and returned them in exchange for a revolving exhibit of other great pieces of Greek art.

Comparing Minoan and Egyptian Art

I am comparing the Egyptian painting Judgment of Hunefer Before Osiris on page 77, to the Minoan painting of Bull Leaping on page 88.  Both works of art are revealing in their own right, with insight into each culture.  There are many differences between these two works of art that far outweigh their similarities.

The Judgment of Hunefer Before Osiris is painted on a papyrus scroll and meant to be placed in the wrappings of mummified bodies.  They were commissioned by the family of the deceased, Hunefer, and symbolized the coming to judgment of Hunefer before the god of the dead, Osiris.  The painting shows the three stages of the induction into the afterlife, which consumed Egyptian culture.  The scroll tells the story of Hunefer being led by Anubis, the jackal-headed god of embalming and cemeteries to weigh his heart against the “feather of truth.”  Hunefer passes the test and the crocodile lion, Ammit, does not eat him.  He is then presented to Osiris by Horus, king of the earth.  In the top register, Hunefer is accepted into the afterlife and kneels before the 14 gods of the underworld.

The Bull Leaping fresco is much less dramatic and seems more realistic.  It simply shows a man leaping over a bull.  We are not quite sure of the meaning of the painting, whether it is a religious ritual, initiation or pure entertainment.  However, it shows two women on either side of the bull, one steadying the bull and the other perhaps ready to catch the man.

The differences in these works are the medium, papyrus for the Egyptian art and a fresco painting for the Minoan art.  The size is smaller in the Egyptian art as well.  The composite pose of the Egyptian work is a telltale sign of its origin, with the profile view but with frontal eyes and torso.  By contrast, the Minoan art is totally profile, but has an Egyptian influence in the frontal eyes.  Another influence of the Egyptians that are similar in both pieces of art is the shades of the men and women, the men are darker than the women.   Another difference is that the Egyptian art has all of the figures on the ground whereas the Minoan piece shows the women in air, not touching the ground.  The pinched waist of the Minoan art is traditionally their style, although it seems as if the Egyptian artwork show some figures with a pinched waist.

The Egyptian art is more somber looking, perhaps because of their fascination and living for the afterlife in contrast to the Bull Leaping which looks fun and playful.  There are many bright colors in the fresco, the blue in the background and the overlapping boarder that seems to repeat in a certain order.  Frescos are associated with Minoan culture and traditions as papyrus scrolls are associated with the Egyptian culture.  I would think the biggest difference between the two works of art is the subject matter and telling of a story.  The Egyptian piece is very detailed and symbolic about the stages of afterlife and judgment as opposed to the Minoan art which shows a man leaping over a bull, a symbol of strength.

Both works of art are unique and quite interesting; I can’t say that one is better than the other because they are so different.  But I think the papyrus scroll is amazing in the detail and it is able to tell a story from a picture whereas the Bull Leaping is not informing us what exactly the significance might be.

The Great Pyramids at Giza and the ziggurats of the ancient Near East

When first comparing the Great Pyramids at Giza to the ziggurats of the ancient Near East, they seem completely different.  The size, purpose and capabilities that were used to create each differ so dramatically.  Although the ziggurats of the ancient Near East and the Great Pyramids at Giza differ in many ways, there are similarities as well between the structures.

They ways in which each were constructed differ significantly.  The ziggurats were built on top of ruble, perhaps from earlier structures, serving as a foundation.  In contrast, the Great Pyramids at Giza had to have the foundation perfectly level in order to achieve the desired results.  Ziggurats averaged about 170 feet in height and were rectangular, with the Nanna Ziggurat having dimensions of 205 feet by 141 feet.  The pyramids on the other hand reached heights of up to 450 feet, as Khufu’s is, with a square base of 13 acres.  The ziggurats were made on top of ruble and made of a mud brick, with a tar like substance used as mortar.  The pyramids were made from 2.5 ton cut stone blocks which were covered with limestone with gold at the top.  The ziggurats were whitewashed and the pyramids had white limestone, thus having a similar color while someone would look at them.

The Anu Ziggurat was built between 3300 BC and 3000 BC, and the Nanna Ziggurat around 2100-2050 BC.  In between this time is when the Great Pyramids at Giza were built, around 2575-2450 BC.  This is important, I believe, because the ziggurats did not change much in their structure as the pyramids used mathematical calculations to ensure perfect angles that were needed for the structures to meet precisely in the center at the top.  The ziggurats were solid brick whereas the pyramids had tunnels built inside.  Pyramids had smooth sides as opposed to the ziggurats that had different entrances and stairways, as well as different slopes to the structures.

The purpose and functions differ in many ways as well.  Ziggurats were shrines dedicated to gods.  They were built higher off of the ground in order to be closer to the gods.  They were built as a meeting place where the gods could come down.  They were built to commune with the gods.  The ancient Near Eastern people would leave offerings to the gods at the cella and perhaps perform religious rituals there.  The shrines were placed on top of the ziggurats in stark contrast to the pyramids which made use of the inside portions.   Pyramids were built for the pharaohs to protect their tombs that were inside the pyramids.  The architects of the pyramids made elaborate tunnels to the tomb and throughout the pyramid as well.  They had a false tomb chamber under the pyramid to try and protect the resting place of the pharaohs. 

Ziggurats functioned symbolically as bridges between earth and the heavens, a meeting place for humans and their gods.  This could be a definite similarity between the ziggurats and pyramids.  Inscriptions on the walls of pyramids built in the Fifth and Sixth Dynasties describe the deceased kings climbing the rays to join the sun god Ra.  The angled sides of the pyramids may represent the slanting rays of the sun.

Whatever the similarities and differences there are between the ziggurats of the ancient Near East and the Great Pyramids at Giza, they are both extremely fascinating and truly amazing.

Assurbanipal and His Queen in the Garden

Assurbanipal and His Queen in the Garden is an example of Assyrian art from the Ancient Near East.  This panel depicts many people eagerly serving and surrounding an apparent affluent couple in a garden.  The impression gained from Assurbanipal and His Queen in the Garden is that of a majestic, relaxing hero.

This alabaster panel is a light brown hue of low saturation with the carvings in a peaceful low relief carving that does not jump out at the viewer.  The blocks like figures in the panel draw the viewer’s attention towards their focal point of the two figures at the right side of the image and the majestic presence.  The lines of the vines that seem to wrap around the king and queen bring them more into focus.

The composition of the figures themselves does not overtake the entire panel, allowing the viewer to see the garden in the background giving the carved panel a sense of relaxation, rest and tranquility.  Relaxation can be seen throughout this work of art.  A figure on the far left side is playing a harp while the other servants are bringing food and drink to the majestic couple.  At least four of the servants seem to be fanning the two dominant figures as they eat and drink.  The servants themselves seem to be walking towards the royal couple as their feet are placed one in front of the other.  The garden has a serene presence.  The trees fan out in glorious fashion with lines covering the palms.

All of the figures, except the king, are carved in profile, which is quite common for this era and type of artistry.  The king is the only one in the carving that is not totally in profile form.  He is twisting the top portion of his body toward the viewer, displaying his majestic presence in the carving.  The king is off his feet; partially laying on a couch or bed with a drink in hand and his left arm resting on a railing, while his queen looks on in admiration.  The queen is in a tall, majestic chair.  Just out of view on the panel is another person on the far left side of the carving.  All that is visible are two hands reaching toward the harpist.  The hands do not appear to be those of servants because they are not carrying anything.  Perhaps they are the hands of the king’s people trying to reach toward him in honor of his heroic stature.  They are trying to get a glimpse at the king to show their affection.

The asymmetrical image once again pulls the audience to the king and queen displaying the regal features of the panel.  The disproportionality of the carving suggests the majestic feelings toward the king and queen who seem larger than the servants.  They are also placed higher in the image suggesting their overall importance.  The lines in the king’s beard along with the texture imply a strong, imperial presence.  All of the figures, including the king and queen, seem to have exactly the same style hair.  The hair appears to be braided with the major emphasis on the back part of the hair around the neck.  There are four rows of braids on the back portion around the neck.  The figures also have a type of headband around their heads.

The panel carving of Assurbanipal also shows his triumph and heroic existence.  Behind the king on a table sits his sword, bow and arrows that he has put down after battle to relax.  And for his battle trophy he has the head of an apparent enemy hanging in the second tree from the right.  This signifies his overall heroic nature and majestic standing among his people.  Although the head seems a bit too much, it is a warning to others who may want to bring war to him and his people.

The form of space in the panel carving is amazing.  Although carved in low relief, the overlapping of the figures and objects in the foreground have a three-dimensional effect on the panel.  This three-dimensional effect is highlighted even more with the overlapping of different elements by the king.  There is some kind of table in front of the king, in the foreground.  Behind this lays the king, in his relaxing pose with only his bed or couch having been covered by the table, as not to cover the majestic hero.  The king then covers part of the vines that are surrounding the couple.

This carving signifies a majestic hero in many ways.  His regal stature is communicated by his disproportionate body and the elevated height in the panel.  You only have to see the head of the enemy hanging in the tree and his used weapons behind him to appreciate his heroic efforts.