Great Periods of Art

I thought this class was amazing.  To see the progression of art, beginning with the wall paintings in Prehistoric art to the Gothic art we are now studying, is quite impressive.  There are definite periods where the art seems to regress from naturalistic to highly stylized art.  An example of this regression would be from the lifelike figures of Greek and Roman art, to the stylized story telling narratives of medieval art.  My favorite works of art came from ancient Egypt, ancient Greece, Roman art and Romanesque art.

The art of ancient Egypt is remarkable for many reasons.  One reason is the enormous structures that were made and survive today.  Of course, the Great Pyramids at Giza come to mind, with Khufu’s pyramid reaching 450 feet made out of 2.5 ton stone blocks.  The Funerary Temple of Hatshepsut is another monumental structure, with the massive ramps and colonnades.  I am drawn to this artistic period not only because of the massive structures, but also in the way they represented themselves.  The hierarchy of scale and the canon of proportions that were used throughout their time, along with their other artistic conventions that remained unchanged for hundreds of years are impressive.  They seemed to live for death, with all of the tombs and relief carvings and funerary monuments placed in the tombs.  My favorite piece of art from this period is the Judgment of Hunefer Before Osiris.  This painted papyrus scroll from a Book of the Dead is a very telling piece of art.  It shows just how much the Egyptians thought about and cared about the afterlife, almost looking forward to it.  The scroll illustrates how they thought about judgment in the afterlife.  The bodies are shown in the typical Egyptian convention composite pose, with the torso in a frontal view but the head and feet shown from profile, with the eye again in frontal view.  The scroll tells the story of Hunefer being questioned and then judged by weighing his heart against the feather of truth and then passing the test and being accepted into the afterlife, with Osiris, Anubis, and ankhs all present in the depiction.

Much of the Greek and Roman art seem naturalistic, a complete contrast to the Egyptians.  Although not totally naturalistic, the Spear Bearer is progressing more towards natural features with the contrapposto stance, showing the weight-bearing and relaxed arms and legs perfectly balanced and truer to life.  Still stylized and idealistic, the Greeks were very interested in representing the human body in a more natural way than the Egyptians.  The Greeks did like to build monumental structures like the Egyptians, my favorite being the Parthenon.  The huge columns are impressive, but the pediment sculptures and the friezes are what draw me to this structure.  The Parthenon marbles are very detailed for something that was sitting high on the pediment.  Before I took this class I had no idea that most of the Greek statues were painted.  It must have been a wonderful sight to view the Parthenon in all of its glory when it was first made.

The Romans also seemed to want to represent the human form more naturalistic.  The head of Caracalla is one of the most naturalistic sculptures up until this time in history.  The marble head of Caracalla seems angry and tense, but in a lifelike manner.  The detail of his furrowing brow and scruffy beard are very realistic.  After the Roman period, for instance Byzantine and Romanesque art, seemed to be more interested in getting a message across than they were in making the images naturalistic.  I find those periods fascinating as well, but they seemed to regress in the details of the human form.

The most fascinating part of the Romanesque period to me was how the artist told the story of the bible in their artwork.  It is fascinating how art evolved from the depiction and worship of many gods, as with the Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans, to the worship of one god.  The churches of this period are fascinating as well, but I will leave that for another time.

Hildesheim Cathedral Doors

I have chosen to write about the Hildesheim Cathedral doors and give a horizontal reading of the Old Testament on the left and the New Testament on the right.  I chose the third panel down, Temptation and Fall of Eve and Adam from the Old Testament and the Crucifixion from the New Testament.  I think that it is quite obvious why these are paired together but perhaps I can go more into detail.

The Temptation and Fall of Eve and Adam, on the left, represent Original Sin being brought into the world by Adam and Eve.  They were told by God to refrain from eating the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.  Adam and Eve could not follow this one rule.  Eve was tempted by the serpent, representing evil and the devil, to eat the fruit.  The serpent is seen in the panel as is Eve holding a piece of fruit and giving a piece of fruit to Adam.  This, of course, brought sin into the world and in turn, paradise was lost.

The Crucifixion on the right displays Jesus on the cross, in the center, with the Virgin Mary and John the Beloved, on the far ends of the panel looking on in in sadness and helplessness.  On either side of Jesus a Roman guard is shown, one stabbing Jesus in his side with a spear and the other trying offering vinegar, instead of water that was asked for by Jesus.  The Roman guards are portrayed here as vengeful perhaps even evil.  Christ is dying for the sins of mankind and to bring salvation to the world.  Jesus sacrifices his own life in exchange for eternal paradise for all people. 

These two panels are paired together to show how sin was brought into the world, Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit in spite of God’s warning, and Jesus Christ sacrificing his own life in order to save mankind from all of their sins and bringing salvation to all.  These panels reveal opposite themes, bringing sin into the world by Adam and Eve, and then Jesus bringing salvation to the sinners.  The panels are placed side by side for that reason, to show sin and then the forgiveness of sin.  The serpent, representing evil in the Temptation and Fall of Eve and Adam, is similar to the evilness of the Roman guards in deliberately hurting and taunting Jesus as he hangs suffering and dying on the crucifix.  This may be a stretch, but it looks as if the tree in the middle of the panel of the Old Testament is similar to the cross on which Jesus is later crucified, possibly foreshadowing the coming salvation of sinners.

The Hildesheim Cathedral doors are a magnificent and beautiful piece of Christian artwork.  The movement of the downward reading of the Old Testament into sin and hell and then the upward reading of the New Testament into redemption and heaven has remarkable sense of hope for the viewers.  And when compared side by side, the narrative of each panel has a definite connection from the Old Testament to the New Testament.

Commodus as Hercules and Caracalla

I have chosen to compare the two sculptures of the emperors, the bust of Commodus as Hercules (page 203) and the head of Caracalla (page 204).  When looking at Commodus as Hercules, I see a vain man that wants to be associated, or thinks that he is associated with the strength and courage of the hero Hercules.  He is seen with Hercules’ club and the head of a lion covering his head.  His bust is stylized, showing no imperfections and a strong upper body.  Commodus seems aloof or carefree.  His face shows no sign of passion or strength, even his eyes look half shut as if he is bored or tired. 

The head of Caracalla is quite different.  Caracalla is shown more naturalistic and intense.  Caracalla looks like more of a leader than Commodus.  He is not wearing a frivolous outfit nor is he trying to associate himself with a well-known hero, he doesn’t have to.  He appears to be a strong, courageous hero just from his attitude in the sculpture.  Caracalla’s eyes appear to be glaring at someone, perhaps an enemy.  The strong lines over his brow intensify the effect of his look of menacing anger or disgust.   Caracalla wants to be seen as this intense, no nonsense leader, even his lips appear serious and steadfast.   He has a strong jaw and even his chin gives the impression of strength.

These two sculptures have more differences than similarities.  They are similar in their propaganda characteristics.  They both want to be seen as strong, fearless, heroic leaders.  Commodus has to conjure up images and characteristics of Hercules to achieve this point whereas Caracalla shows his strength and leadership in his strong facial features alone.  Commodus as Hercules is adorned with many symbolic elements to represent leadership qualities that he may not have.  It is somewhat reminiscent of the Khafre statue in its idealized manner and perceived divine support. 

The main difference in these two great sculptures is the idealistic view that Commodus has of himself compared to the more naturalistic ruggedness in the way Caracalla perceives himself.  Commodus’ eyes are drifting off in a blank lethargic manner while Caracalla is staring forcefully and dauntingly at the viewer.  There is a symbolic nature in the bust of Commodus as Hercules with the club, lion skin, apples, and other objects that seem to have meaning.  Caracalla needs no symbolic elements; he seems to possess many of the qualities that Commodus is trying to convey in leadership and strength.  Commodus has soft features in his sculpture, the smooth skin and perfectly manicured beard and hair, as opposed to the harshness of Caracalla and his short hair and rough stubble of a beard.

The propaganda elements in these sculptures are definitely evident to the audience of that period of time.  They would have understood the comparisons conveyed by the Commodus as Hercules bust.  And, although different in form, they would have understood the strength and leadership qualities that Caracalla was trying to express in his sculpture.  In our times, I believe that Commodus as Hercules would be ridiculed and Caracalla would be seen for the strength that it conveys.  Back when these sculptures were made, they may have had similar effects on the audience, but I believe Caracalla stands the test of time.

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.