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.