Final Thoughts

The artistic periods that I enjoyed the most this quarter were the ancient Greek and the ancient Aegean art periods. I think that this is partly because of how I've learned about ancient Greek culture and art already, so coming into the class I already had an appreciation for it, but I do love the visual details that go along with them as well. My favorite piece from this quarter was the Bull's-Head Rhyton on page 89, I love the use of lines and patterns that make each part of the bull unique and stand out from the steatite that they are carved in. I love art that is able to capture the naturalistic qualities of both people and animals, and despite the Bull not being completely naturalistic with the blue hair and gold horns, it still looks like it could be a completely naturalistic animal, and I appreciate the craftsmanship that went into making it.

As for the art of ancient Greece, I'd have to say that I appreciate the amount of detail that went into their statues, like the Archer and its reconstruction on page 113. Even though we don't know exactly what it looked like, the colors, the patterns..etc. I can still see all of the fine details that the Greeks brought into consideration when making this statue and others like it. I also have a liking for their painted pots and vessels, which can be seen on page 117. I've taken ceramics classes before and I know about all of the hard work that goes into making a vessel. So when it comes to the Greeks I'd have to say that the visual details and the amount of craftsmanship that goes into their work is what I like best about it.

Stylized Paintings

The first work that I have chosen to examine is Battle of the Bird and The Serpent, Commentary on the Apocalypse by Beatus and Commentary on Daniel by Jerome, on page 434. The bird in the image is a very stylized painting. Around the majority of the bird there is a very heavy outline that makes its body very flat and cartoon like, especially around the face. Its eye also has this thick outline, and the eye it self is much larger, and less detailed, than a natural bird's eye. The peacock's feathers are also made up of various geometric shapes, such as: the circles on its neck; the rectangles on its body and chest; and the longer and larger rectangles and circles on its wing.

Its legs on the other hand don't seem to fit with the rest of its body. They seem a lot more naturalistic, though there are a few rectangles that make up the scales on the legs. The talons though seem very life like and I think that it so add emphasis to the painting in order to connect it more with the story that it was illustrated for. The story (or allegory) that goes a long with this is the triumph of Christ over Satan. The snake (Satan) tried to attack the peacock (Christ), but the peacock managed to trick the snake into thinking it was harmless and caught it in it's mouth and killed it.

For the most part the bird seems relatively harmless with the way it was stylized to have a very general and simple appearance. You can really only tell that the bird is a peacock because of its extravagant tail feathers, and even these have been generalized into another simpler pattern to just give us the impression that it is a peacock (rather than it actually being a natural looking peacock).

The snake in the image is a lot more naturalistic in comparison to a real snake. The only stylization that I see is in the face and at the end of the snakes body. The face has a very large and un-snake-like eye on it that's very flat with a rounded pupil. There is also a somewhat natural pattern running down the snakes body for its scales, however this pattern is cut off at one point for another less detailed pattern near the end of the snakes body.

There is also a tree (plant?) next to the animals that is very generalized to just give us the impression that it is a plant. The tree has a very thin trunk and branches, each with either 1 leaf or flower on them. As far as I know there are no natural trees out there that look like this, so I would have to say that overall the tree is very stylized. The size of the animals in the illustration also suggest that this is a more stylized piece, because snake is longer than the tree, and the peacock is almost as tall as the tree. It's not natural, and I do believe it does convey God like forces fighting against one another (like in the allegory).

The second work that I chose to examine is Page with Christ Washing the Feet of His Disciples, Aachen Gospels of Otto 3, on page 451. This piece is incredibly stylized. The more I look at it the more strange things I see in it. Overall the painting is entirely flat, so there is no depth of space, except for in spots when one person or object is placed in front of another person or object.

Every person and object in the painting has a thick line outlining it, like a cartoon. The faces are also very generalized with: small noses; mouths made up of 1 line; and small/simple ears; with very large and simplified eyes. Each face also carries the same facial expression as every other face in the painting. And I've also just realized that, aside from Peter, the old man in the background, and Christ, everyone in the painting has the same hair color and hair style.

The most recent object in the painting that has caught my attention is the tree stump in the lower right hand corner. At its base it starts off fairly normal, but then seems to bend so that its flat top is facing toward the viewer. You also see this bending taking place in feet and with the wash bowls.

The only thing in this painting that has any bit of naturalism in it is the clothing that each person is wearing. The folds and lines of the clothing flow well and act like clothing should act on the human body.

Also does anyone else think that Peter looks like Sean Connery in this?

Commodus and Caracalla

In Commodus as Hercules I believe that he wanted to put out the statement that he was a god (that we was the reincarnation of Hercules.) However even though he is showing himself off as a powerful figure it is not the same kind of power that the portrait head of Caracalla puts out.

Commodus in his portrait seems smug, like nothing is a challenge for him and that no one can stop him from what he's doing. I see this especially in the way that his eyes have been sculpted. They're not open all of the way and looking off to the side as if he doesn't care about anything because of his power. The way his arms are positioned suggests that as well. With the way he has the club tossed over his shoulder and by the way he is holding the apples casually in his hand. I could picture him lightly tossing them or caressing them in his hand like bobbles.

The whole sculpture also seems very decorative (which demonstrates Commodus' vanity) with the amount of curls and detail that have been put into his hair, and with all of the godly symbols adorning him. The whole thing is very showy, and I think the propagandistic message that he wanted to put out was that he was perfect in every way, and because of that perfection he should be thought of and worshiped as a god.

The portrait head of Caracalla is quite different though. His portrait demonstrates nothing but pure power, strength, and wrath to me. Just by the portrait I would not want to mess with this guy or his country. His eyes and pupils have been carved as if he is staring up at the heavens, in a way that shows that he's not even afraid of the gods, and that even they shouldn't mess with him.

I feel as if someone went and stepped even on the wrong blade of grass in his country that they would be dead before they could even dare to step on the next blade.

Unlike Commodus the lighting on Caracalla's portrait is very harsh and shows off extreme light and darks, giving his face a very stern and sharp look to it. He has a very strong bone structure, and the angry wrinkle lines on his face are emphasized. Also unlike Commodus, his hair is very short and not a lot of detail has been given to it, even his facial hair isn't given a lot of detail, but you can still tell that it's there. He seems to be very well kept, but not in a vain flashy way like Commodus.

I think that the propaganda in Caracalla's portrait is just meant to show off how powerful he is to both his citizens and enemies, while Commodus' portrait is more like that of a spoiled rich kid who thinks that no one can mess with him, and that's why people should follow him, because he's perfect and god like.

I do think though that with both of these portraits that they could be understood by a wide audience, especially Caracalla's. I know that I sure wouldn't mess with the guy, and I never even knew who he was until now, an I can also tell the kind of character that Commodus had just by looking at his portrait.

Painted v.s. Non-Painted Statues

I'm not entirely sure if Winckelmann has affected our modern perception of Greek art or not. I say this because I've never heard of him before, and I doubt that most of the general population has as well. Most people are only exposed to pictures of these statues, and what they see in those pictures is what they think of when they think about Greek art.

They think of welly sculpted, white marble, figures (unless of course they have seen articles in the news about how they were painted). And I do not believe that they think of, “good taste” or “pure” or “simple” when looking at the statues. However, Winckelmann might of affected how other art historians or artists in general view these Greek statues. But, that being said I do not think that art today would be produced differently if Winckelmann hadn't promoted his ideas. This is because of the wide variety of art styles that you can find in sculpture, some are painted, and some are not. I believe that it's up to the artists to decide on how art is produced.

The first time I saw painted Greek statues was a few months ago, and back then I wasn't sure what to make of them. It took a long time to get over what I used to consider Greek statues (white marble) and to be honest the painted statues reminded me of hummel figurines, or something that I would find in my grandmother's house. However, now that I'm looking at them again I can see just how much detail went into these statues to make them as life like as possible. Not only were the Greeks masters at sculpture, but they were also masters at painting. The Archer on page 113 demonstrates this, with how the patterning applied to the Archer's legs changes in size in accordance to the size and shape of the body beneath it. This change in size gives a more 3 dimensional and naturalistic appearance to the figure.

Option #2 Mystery Images

I would have to say that image number one, the fisherman, is a Minoan work. This is because of several things that I noticed in the piece, when comparing it to other images of Minoan art.

The first thing that struck me was how curved the fisherman's back is. This curve and this stylization of the human form is shown in several images found in our textbook. It can be seen in Bull Leaping on page 88, in The Harvester Rhyton on page 89, and in the Vapheio Cup on page 90.

It also has another similarity with The Harvester Rhyton with how the fisherman's face is in a profile view, while the upper torso is in a front facing view. Several figures on the Rhyton share this same pose. The fisherman's profile face also reminds me of Girl Gathering Saffron and Crocus Flowers on page 80 (which is another Minoan painting). The style that his eye, chin, nose, ear, and hair were painted in is very similar to that of the Girl Gathering Saffron.

Another thing that gives this painting away for me is the way it was colored. The colors for this image are very bright and unshaded. Which is a characteristic of Minoan painting. I would also have to say that the painting is a buon fresco rather than a fresco secco because of how well preserved it looks. I could be wrong, but I'd imagine that a lot more of it would have chipped off by now if the painter had not of painted it on a wet plaster surface.

When it comes to image number two though I have to say that it is a Mycenaean work. I feel kind of like I've cheated on this one though, because I've learned about this piece in an ancient Greek studies class, that also covered the Minoans and the Mycenaeans. Off-hand I remember learning that the Mycenaeans copied the Minoans in their ceramic/pottery work. However they not only copied the Minoan's work, but they vastly improved the craftsmanship behind it.

The Mycenaeans created highly refined ceramics, and the first thing that gives this piece of pottery away to me, as being Mycenaean is the very long and thin handles on both sides of it. In the book we see two examples of Minoan pottery, the Octopus Flask on page 90 and the Kamares Ware Jug on page 86. In both of these examples the pottery has smaller, thicker, and rounder handles. The handles from image number two look nothing like the Minoan handles, and I also know that these thinner, longer, pulled handles require a lot more skill to make. (I've made them in a ceramics class before).

Another thing that gives it away as being Mycenaean is the overall shape of the pottery. From the very wide and open top, to the very small and curved in foot. This all suggests a highly refined form of craftsmanship, that could be associated with the Mycenaeans. On page 99 the Mycenaean Warrior Krater bowl has a very large, pulled, opening similar to image number two's.

The last thing that gives it away to me as being Mycenaean is the highly stylized painting decorating the pottery. The Mycenaeans were known for having highly stylized (or very geometrical) paintings. An example of this is once again the Mycenaean Warrior Krater. Which has very stylized and cartoon like warriors on it. While image number two has highly stylized bird/chicken people that are riding on a cart being pulled by what looks like a horse.

Similarities? I think so.

Ziggurats and the Great Pyramids

Ziggurats can be described as stepped structures with temples, and or, shrines at the top of them that were built from bricks/mud bricks that had been baked in the sun. Some of which can even take on the form of a stepped pyramid, though their meaning and purpose are much different than that of a pyramid.

The purpose of the ziggurats was to protect shrines from flooding, but it also carried other purposes and meanings as well. Such as, it showed off the wealth, prestige, and stability of a city's ruler. It also glorified the gods in the area and acted as a bridge to them. And by bridge to them I mean a bridge between heaven and earth where humans could meet and interact with the gods.

(A side note before getting to the pyramids at Giza)

Stepped pyramids were formed by stacking six mastaba like elements one on top of one another, and decreasing in size with each level. The meaning behind these structures was that they were to act as a stairway to the sun god Ra, and their purpose was to protect a tomb. The first of these stepped pyramids was designed by Imhotep who was originally planning on building a single level mastaba as a tomb for Djoser. However after building it he changed his mind and decided to build/enlarge the structure on top of it.

Unlike the stepped pyramids the Great Pyramids at Giza are in the shape of a true pyramid, which has a square base with four sloping triangular faces.

At Giza there are three of these great pyramids: Menkaure, Khafre, and Khufu. With Khufu being the oldest and largest pyramid covering 13 acres and built somewhere between r.c. 2551-2528 BCE. This pyramid had been originally finished with a veneer of polished limestone to make the sides of the pyramid seem smooth instead of stepped.

The second smallest pyramid at Giza is Khafre, which has the Great Sphinx in its valley temple, and is the only pyramid to have retained some of its veneer finish; while the smallest pyramid is Menkaure.

All of these pyramids were connected to their own funerary temple by a causeway. (Which is an elevated and closed pathway or corridor). This causeway also connected to a valley temple on the bank of the Nile where a kings body was sent to after being embalmed for ceremonies. The causeway was used to carry the kings body to the chapel in the funerary temple where food and drinks could be offered to him. Other religious practices where preformed here and finally the kings body was taken into the pyramid itself and entombed in a vault. These tomb chambers were then sealed off with a 50 ton stone block after the burial.

When it comes to the Great Pyramids and ziggurats the only real similarity that I can connect between them is the notion that they were a way to connect humans to the gods. With the ziggurats acting as a bridge and the pyramids acting as a set of stairs where gods and humans could meet. There are other small similarities that kind of connect them when it comes to them being used for religious practices, but other then that they were pretty different.

The Ishtar Gate

The Ancient Near Eastern art piece that I have chosen to write about is The Ishtar Gate. I chose this piece of architecture because when I look it at I get the feeling of a very powerful civilization. From the structures sheer size, to its bold colors, and to all of the materials and skills that were needed to create it.

The first thing that is striking about The Ishtar Gate is the pure size of it. With the gate it self standing at 40ft tall and its four crenellated, military defense, towers standing at 100ft tall. The structure is very blocky and sturdy looking, and to anyone standing near it, it would look very formidable. It's easily understandable why Babylonia would want to create such a powerful ceremonial enterence to give patronage towards their god Marduk, and toward their goddess Ishtar.

The second thing that really makes The Ishtar Gate stand out is the colors that were chosen to decorate it. The majority of the bricks are a very vibrant and bright blue color that gives it the impression of being made out of lapis lazuli, which was in it self very expensive stone. This strong color was then complemented by gold images and patterns, adding to the buildings richness. Which definitely shows the new power that has come to Babylonia in both the form of strength and wealth.

These colors were comprised of a thin glass glaze that was placed over the surface of the bricks before being fired in a kiln. However along with these glazed bricks there are specially molded turquoise, blue, and gold-colored bricks that were used to form images and symbols of the gods and of the goddess Ishtar.

The symbols that you can find patterning around the gate are: lions which represent the goddess Ishtar; dragons that are composed of a body and head of a snake, the forelegs of a lion, and the hind legs of a bird of prey symbolizing the god Marduk; and there were also bulls with blue horns that represented the storm god Adad.

These specially molded bricks have a form to them, and they pop off the blue brick background. When looking at closer images of them you can see intricate details that really make them stand out. With the Ishtar lions you can see muscle mass in the figure and its mouth is wide open and showing off its sharp teeth. This creates a very strong and powerful image of the goddess, and great detail is even given to her in the lions mane which is made up of a pattern of diamond shapes.

Marduk's dragons also have this very powerful form in their lion legs, and especially in their bird of prey legs. The claws on the bird feet are very sharp and dangerous looking compared to the rest of the form creating the dragon. All of the areas in the form that are similar to a snake are a lot softer and curvier by comparison. However these areas are also full of more diamond shaped details that give the impression of a snakes scales. These scales can also be seen in details of the bird like feet.

Adad's bull figures are given form through muscle, but not as much as Ishtar's lions, and most of the detail seems to go to their manes, tails, faces, and horns which give it a very decorative look compared to the lions and dragons.

Another interesting pattern that can be found at the bottom of the gate is a row of bricks that have a flower design on the. I'm not sure what kind of flowers they are or what purpose they hold, but they remind me of daisies. And they add a feminine touch to the gate, which could be another way to connect it to the goddess Ishtar since this gate is supposed to embody her and her power. 

All of these elements put together create the image of a very power set of gods as well as a very powerful and wealthy civilization.

Venus blog 9/28

I think that the Willendorf Venus is an important historical find and because of that it should be used to look back on the past to try and help us get a better understanding of prehistoric human life.

The Willendorf Venus is from 24,000 to 22,000 BCE. and despite how ancient it is, it is carved very well and in some areas it has incredible detail. When looking at the shape of the woman you can feel a softness to it, despite it being made out of stone. This is something that I find very uncommon in statues, and seeing it done this well, so far back in time, just brings a smile to my face. The different areas on the stone have been emphasized so well that you can easily tell that it is a figure of either a pregnant or heavily set woman.

Now whether this figure was used as a doll, a fertility idol, a sexual object, or as a teaching tool for women, I have no idea. Out of those options though I would like to be able to see it as either a fertility idol or as a teaching tool for women when it comes to changes in their body. I also like the idea of it being an idol that displays an ideal healthy fertile/pregnant woman, rather than just a fat woman as the writer of the article put it. Not that it has to be that, or that it is that, but if there were to ever be more information found in regards to this idol (and to the other idols) then that is what I would be hoping for.

As for the term Venus, to answer one of the suggested question, it was first used to identify this carved figure because its discoverer, the Marquis Paul de Vibraye, had mockingly named it “immodest Venus” after a Classical Venus statue called the “modest Venus.” He did this because the female in the “modest Venus” tries to cover her breasts and pubic area, while the Willendorf Venus does no such thing. And in fact the statue emphasizes both of these regions of the female body, while diminishing all of the others. Except for the amazing detail in the braids where her head and face would be.

I don't really see how this term is problematic, however in the article it does talk about how the term Venus disconnects us from being able to relate to her as a human being. And that it will only make us think of her as a goddess or idol.

The reason why I do not see this term as problematic is because we do not know what she really is. If she is just a regular woman that someone carved into store, or if she was some sort of fertility/and or sexual idol. If that is the case then I see no point in not connecting her to other Venus idols throughout human history. If anything that just shows how culture has evolved over thousands of years in regards to what humans see as desirable when it comes to women and fertility.

Either way it still shows us a desired form of women in the past, and basically what I'm trying to say is in this is that I do not believe it should be something that people should spend time arguing about. They should spend their time trying to collect more information on it, if possible.

Art. 235.A01

Hello everyone,

My name is Amanda Hanson I'm a Senior fine arts major here at Central, with an emphasis in drawing/painting. My favorite painting medium is watercolor, but I cannot wait to start learning oils in the winter. In the past I learned how to paint using acrylics at Portland State, and hated every minute of it. But while I was there I gained an appreciation to watercolor, and now I just wish and hope everyday that Central brings back at least part of their watercolor program..

In my "free time" I am the President of the Fencing Club here on campus, so if you're at all interested in fencing then please leave a comment letting me know. I also enjoy going fishing with my amazing boyfriend (or anywhere for that matter).

I'm going to attach a link to my tumblr blog.

http://amandartist.tumblr.com/ 

Both of these blogs were created a long while ago to save the name. And I recently started updating the tumblr with my own art, thoughts...etc.

While this blogger blog is bow going to be used for Art. 235