Last Post #9

Through out this quarter I have enjoyed learning many different types of art. Some were more interesting then others. Out of all the different periods we learned about two of them stuck out more then others, those were the Ancient Greece and Ancient Egypt. I even would tell people all the cool facts and information that I learned, because I really did think they were awesome. I think the reason I liked these periods so much was because I had learned things about these times before. To this day some art works from those times still stick out in my brain one is the Giza Pyramids. They are so amazingly made with each brick being 2.5 tons, and there not just solid Pyramids they have a bunch of tunnels and rooms for the burial of emperor. which to me is just mind blowing that they could do something like that when they didn't have cranes or forklifts.
Another piece of art that just sticks out in my brain from this quarter that I really liked learning about is the archer from ancient Greece. It is so different then anything I have ever though of from that time era it is the one piece of work that is changing my opinion on what I originally thought of Greek art. since I first believed that all Greek statues were white and the Archers definitely proves that wrong since it was vibrant with color patterns. All the accepts of this period is really interesting with there hand painted vases and statues.
I really did enjoy almost all of the stuff we learned because it shows me things I didn't know about a lot of different cultures art and history. At first it was the visual details that sucked me into wanting to learn about then the history kept me wanting to learn even more because some of these period, which the people just amaze me.
Even though those two periods were my favorite I also enjoys different art works from all different times including the cave painting from the stone age. they were so realistic and really appealing to look at from the thoughts people have of the cavemen you would have a hard time believing that they made those paintings and they even did them in the dark! Another art work that stood out to me was the bronze doors on the Catholic church. They were amazing with such great detail, and had hidden meanings that foreshadowed the different scenes from the Old and New Testament.
Over all, I really enjoyed this class a lot more then I thought I would. I learned a lot of fun and useful information about ancient and medieval art. I am really excited to take the next art class next quarter.

Byzantine and Early Medieval Art

I chose to do option number two.
The Doors of Bishop Bernward where made almost entirely out of bronze. This was said to be the largest and most detailed bronze casting done since antiquity. Each panel has small intricate details that make up a different story from a book of the Bible. Each panel was paired with a another panel which was horizontally next to one another for different reasons like some people believed the stories depicted from both the Old and New testament had parallels that matched them together.
The two horizontal panels I chose to do for my post were from the sections called 'The Fall' and 'The Passion'. The names from the book of these two panels are "Temptation and Fall of Adam and Eve" and "Crucifixion". The "Temptation..." panel depicts Adam and Eve being tempted to eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The part where Eve is giving the fruit to Adam in the Garden of Eden is the exact moment that is shown. That scene is a part of the Old Testament. While the panel horizontally next to it is the "Crucifixion". Which depicts the story of when Jesus was nailed by his hands and feet to the cross like a criminal. The exact scene on the panel is when he was already nailed down and looks like they were stabbing him with spears, while people watched. Both of these panels have a lot of open space in the back ground unlike some of the other that have almost there entire space filed with something. the open space show one of there main similarities because they are so basic yet each of them tell such deep meaningful stories and they do not need a lot of space to do it.
I feel these scenes were paired together because they both show signs of weakness, for example Jesus cannot do anything he just has to wait and Eve has temptation that makes her weak to which then she passes it on to Adam. I also feel that they have similar themes that fit together to tell a mini story. this one personally has the first sin happen when Adam and Eve disobey God by eating the fruit they were specifically told never to eat. The next scene from the New Testament shows Jesus dying on the cross for our sins so we can be forgiven. The Tree of knowledge of good and evil shows sin while the Cross show life and a chance to start over.
The Old Testament panel that I chose foreshadow what could come in the New Testament because it shows people will always sin even if they promise not too because temptation is hard to just make go away. Though it means that later on God sent his son to die for the peoples sins because he showing that he will still forgive you even if you sin and he made the biggest sacrifice of all.
Over all when this amazing bronze cast door was made for specific reasons and example that had them line up a part of a story from the Old Testament with a story that has similar hidden meanings from a story in the New Testament.

Roman Art post #7

I decided to do option number one.
By just looking at the Bust of Commodus as Hercules, on page 203 of the text book, you can see many different things the rulers wanted to be made about themselves. The first thing I noticed on the bust was the skin of the lion on the head and the club in his hand making him look like he was strong and just had a victory against the lion. He has more of the youthful look with no wrinkles on his face and a muscular stomach. The fruit in his hand makes it look like he has an offering or is bearing a gift, meaning he was generous. The bottom of the bust has grapes that I feel represents the god of wine and there are two birds at the bottom I feel also represent a god. So this could mean he wanted people to relate him to the gods.
The portrait head of Caracalla, on page 204 of the textbook, is very different then the Bust of Hercules. First it looks older with the frustrated look that gives him some wrinkles. It gives off the persona of strength with a powerful look. He looks like someone you would not want to mess with or you would be in serious trouble. He probably would want people to associate him with being powerful and his looks to be showing he could handle anything. While his portrait looks real with the details in his face and eyes. The hair on his head seems unreal, though it has some texture to show its hair it doesn't look like hair.
Both of these sculptures look like powerful men that have had many victories in their lifetime that make them very important people. They do not have a lot of similar qualities. I feel like Hercules looks more like a powerful ruler then Caracalla. Caracalla looks like he is a powerful solider after battle or going into battle. For me though it was hard to tell what he is by looking at it because it is just his head so it doesn't show his status unlike Hercules who shows more than just a head so it gives you a better idea of the situation. They both have realistic features that make them seem life like but, Caracalla has more of the intense realism. Also like the Head of the elder that was described during the lecture. While Hercules has a realistic statue it feel like he was only a statue, meaning he looks more posed not real especially with his facial features.
Each of these sculptures serves a different purpose and is meant for specific audiences. Hercules was for all the people to show how courageous and strong he was. Also to show how good of a warrior he was by slaying a lion and skinning it to wear the skin as a head dress. I feel Caracalla was meant to show determination that he had. Also to show that he had strength by his facial expressions. This sculpture I feel was made for a small group of people to show how great he was.
All in all, while this sculptures are very different, but amazing works of art. They both show many different example of how rulers and people wanted to be seen by others. It also shows who they were made for in the first place.

Post #6 Greek Art

I picked option one for one main reason when I listened to that lecture it really got me wondering if I could look at a painted piece of Greek work and actually know it was Greek because I have for so long put the white statues to Greek art. Especially white statues with no arms and it always made me laugh how Disney made it Hercules fault they had no arm when he accidentally broke them off. Johann Joachim Winckelmann was a art historian and also a archaeologist that took roman art works to promote and discover things about Greek works. he stated that art should be pure and simple like the Greek art ( the statues being fully white with no color) and that "pure"white marble is ideal beauty. Also that color shouldn't play a big role in people view of beauty. I personally feel that his ideas and perception has greatly affected our perception today of Greek art. The Disney movie Hercules shows proof because all the statues that where seen were in fact white and very simple. also like I said earlier I do not think I could look at a painted statue and figure out it was Greek because it put into my mind that they were always white. I'm not sure though if art today would be different if Winckelmann did not promote his ideas. there might have been a chance that if he didnt say anything that people could have thought that white is not pure which I guess would affect the look of some art works that look was for pure beauty on those standards. Though now days color is used every where in art even on statues and if color isn't used they are not really white or simple for that matter, like statues today have so many details like clothes or hair, ect. When I saw the example in the lecture of a Greek statue painted I did not really know what I thought because I like the pattern details with the paint, but I felt that the white seemed more realistic which is weird because the painted one probably showed have looked more realistic. For example, the "Dying Warrior" looks so realistic as he tries to hold his body up this statue makes me see in my head a man doing the same thing, but while I look at the "Reconstruction of the Archer" it feels cartoon-ish to me like someone just decided to color on the statue no that it was made that way for a reason. If i look at the actual "Archer" statue I feel like someone is really doing something. My perception of Greek art really hasn't changed that much because my mind is still telling me it must be from a different era or civilization. It has however made me realize that there work wasn't really simple that it had detail it just has all disappeared. I think it will definitely take a while for me to actually believe they were painted because I still just can not see it.

Aegean Art post #5

I chose to do option number one.
From the Minoan Civilization the art work "Bull Leaping" caught my eye because the colors and textures. Also like the Minoan art work the Egyptian work "Ti Watching a Hippopotamus hunt". They both have a strong sense of texture that gives the painting definition. There textures make them eye catching because when you look you do not have to touch it to feel the texture you can just look at it. Also they both have a lot of little details within the border on the Minoan art work and the animals on the top and bottom of the Egyptian piece. Both pieces tells a story of something that is happening to people in their lives. Another thing that these works of art have in common, even though they were made over a thousand years apart from each other, is that have almost the same human structure. They are shown in profile with only one full eye showing, but are also showing both arms and legs.
The Hippopotamus hunt is a really busy painting with the back ground having all the vertical lines. It's color emphasizes what's actually happening so it draws attention to the main idea then you see the rest of the picture like the animals at the top. This picture really does show all the styles of the Egyptian time period. Having the high power people bigger, and more unrealistic. While the servants or in this case hunters are smaller and have more realistic quality's. By looking at the painting I could really imagine them traveling down the Nile hunting down hippos. The differences between the two paintings are there structures,and the colors used. With the Hippo Hunt the colors are darker and natural and semi more realistic colors you would see.
The Bull Leaping the colors are light having the women be white and the bull is a light brown. this piece of work to me is not very realistic. The waist of the people is way to small and the bodies are disproportionate. Also when I look at this painting I have a hard time believing that they jumped over bulls or were able to grab a bulls horns to slow him down or get control. while i do not feel this is realistic the details in this work are amazing. For example, the little lines on the bull representing the hair the bull has and the border with its little lines or the thicker patches of paint that make it look like the wax seals people sometimes put on the back of letters. One key detail that the Minoan time used was every person had the smaller waist then normal as seen in other works of art from this time in the book like "Woman or Goddess with Snakes". Even though both of these works of art have the similarities and differences they both tell you a story that wanted to be told and draw you attention to look at it and try to figure it out.

Egypt post # 4

For my post I decided to do option number one because while reading the chapters in the book and listening to the lectures I became very interested in both the pyramids and the ziggurats.

Pyramids of Giza

Ziggurat of Ur

There are many things that are similar and different about the ziggurats from the ancient near east and the pyramids from Egypt. While they do have some of the same aspects they are very different in the physical aspects and in there purposes.
Both of these amazing structure were made out of mud bricks then white washed. They were made around the same time frame thousands of years before us, though thousands of miles away from each other, ziggurats around Iraq and the pyramids in Egypt. Not all but some of them are still around today even if they are not in there original conditions. They are still however very fascinating to look at even if its just a picture. Besides the time era and the materials used to make them they do not really have anything else in common.
The ziggurats were made to be temples that priest preformed sacrifices. Each ziggurat was dedicated to a different god or goddess and was a major place of worship. They were tall with slightly slanted walls believed to be made that way so the floods that happened every year would not destroy them and so the priest could escape the floods. Also believed to be made that way to rain could slide down the sides. They were made in rectangular shape with three ramps with stairs leading up to the top. They had many different rooms throughout a ziggurat. The ziggurats were very tall ( no where near as tall as the pyramids though), there height was over and one hundred feet tall and the width and length about doubled the height. It towered over the flat plain symbolized things like wealth and stability for the cities ruler. The ziggurat was believed to be the "bond between heaven and earth" where people could go and meet there gods. For example the ziggurat pictured in the book after its reconstitution is the worship temple to the god Nanna which is the god of the moon.
However, the pyramids were funeral structures for the pharaohs and possibly there queens. That was the only purpose of each of these structures. With different compartment to house the mummy's, and all there riches for them to take with them to the afterlife. It is said that the tomb was barricaded with a fifty ton stone after the burial. There were also dead ends put in to get thief's of the tombs lost. The tallest pyramid in Giza is 450 feet tall. Each brick of the pyramids used was 2.5 tons. the base of the pyramid was about 13 acres. Its crazy to imagine people moving them with out machines. These pyramids were made in the shape of a three dimensional triangle that each point signified the point on the compass. The pyramids are one of the seven wonders of the ancient world.

The Votive Statue of Gudea

I decided to do my formal analysis on The Votive Statue of Gudea. This sculpture brought attention to my eye when I was reading chapter 2. This piece of work as a whole looks busy at first, but when you look at it longer or at it several times it becomes more peaceful and balanced. The statue was found in Gisru, modern day Telloh, Iraq. While in the book the statue looks big taking up almost a full page it in reality is only 29 inches or about 2 and a half feet. It is made from a harder stone called Diorite that is harder to carve. This statue is really breath taking with it's detail and over all design. It is constantly keeping your eyes moving. also with all of its details it seems like every time I look at it I find something new I never noticed.
At first glance the part my eyes fall on or the focal point is the pot thing Gudea is holding in his hands. The pot and his hands have a rough looking texture though while looking rough with texture his hands do not look tense they look relaxed. The design on the stone gives texture to this sculpture all by its self. It gives the skin look of the stone a blotchy two color look which is somewhat realistic because some skin does have different shades and isn't exactly the same color. This stone also has a marble or granite type look to it.
Then as my eyes look at the pot they move to the wavy lines going out of the top of the pot and traveling almost all the was to the bottom, four thicker lines symmetrical on each side. Not noticeable tome at first when looking at the lines next to every indent there is small fish with details of the scales and fins on each one, which I find incredible. on this sculpture it looks like the fish are swimming up the line or could be up stream to the pot.
At the bottom, towards the center, of the statue of Gudea there are a bunch of different symbols and lines which are called Cuneiform, a type of writing. These symbols are so precise for there being a large group of them in a small area.
The top part of the Votive Statue of Gudea appears smooth. His face has no emotion to me, it looks at rest or just at peace. There are tiny lines, that are symmetrical, that work together to make it look like the hairs that make up eyebrows. His shoulders are sculpted so they lay flat instead of up like when you feel stressed or tense. He has one shoulder open while it looks like the other shoulder has cloth on it from his outfit. the bare shoulder has in depth detail on his muscles and down to his elbow to his fore arm. Also at the top the hat like thing on his head has the most detail in this whole statue. Each little square that make up the hat have a tiny swirl in them. giving the hat the look of wool or knitted.
I am not completely sure of this, but from the look of the statue from the point of view I was given in the book I feel this statue is sculpted in the round and is not just flat on the back. Also clue that give me hints it was sculpted in the round are how the hat wraps around the head and at the bottom the statue is rounded. The light plays a part in this too because the way it is angled it gives the statue a more three dimensional feel to it like its an actual person and not just a statue. Even though I know at one point it was.
Overall, this statue has to much detail and has different things going on all over it, still looks peaceful and balanced, even though it might still look busy in some areas. I still to this moment am finding more hidden little details all over it and I have probably looked at it over a hundred times!

Woman or Venus of Willendorf

When thinking of a statue showing a woman I think of the kind with no arms, trying to be modest that can have fountains attached. When I first looked at the Venus or Woman of Willendorf statue I instantly thought of the tribal shops were you can go in and buy figurines of different things, which was extremely different then what I imagined of a statue. As I read through the articles I came across many different subjects of one little 11 centimeter statue. For example, I saw a full discription of the statue in material terms, and then i read about her name and the different accepts of that name.
Venus or Woman of Willendorf as it is called was found in Australia in 1908 by archaeologist Josef Szombathy. This figurine is known as the most famous woman statue and also the first woman. The article said it was carved out of limestone, which is not found in the area of where the statue was. They also say it was carved using flint tools. while in the many decades after the findings they kept changing the time era of which the statue was from, they finally came to a conclusion in 1990 after a study was made that Venus of Willendorf was from 24,000-22,000 BCE (Witcombe 1).
The name Venuswas used throughout time by people with different definitions in mind. The name was adopted by many men startingin 1864 to describe Palaeolithic statues of women. "The ironic identification of these figurines a "Venus" pleasantly satisfied certian assumptions at the time about the primitive, about women, and about taste" (Witecomb 2). Through this article there are many types of Venus including Classical Venus, Renaissances Venus, and what they called a failed Venus. From the classical Venus look naming the statue Venus of Willendorf Venus it makes her to be a negative image. The negative image outlook is from the standards of the classical Venus because Woman of Willendorf is not beautiful of sexually attractive. Also "The name "Venus" encourages us to judge her as a piece of sculpture against the standards of isealized Greek, Roman, and Renaissance art, where she again fails miserably" (Witcombe 2). I feel the name Venus was wrongly disposed upon her because of the definition given to it and the way people think they see the name.
I feel that the Woman of Willendorf statue was somebody, while it probably isn't someone strong or a leader, it was still someone. In the article they describe her physically because that is all we really all we know of her. We can assume things about her by items around her time, but we don't know for sure why she was carved or her purpose. Although this article does mainly talk about the statue it also has underlining issues from todays world like self image and how the ideal beauty is in the world. It proves that even way back in the day there was always a line for who was beautiful and who wasn't. Venus of Willendorf was given the wrong name because of the names label. maybe in her time she was the face or the body of beauty and that was what every girl wanted to be.

Intro about me

Hi! I am Jennifer. I am a technical theatre major, though I do love every part of technical theater lighting is what I want to do. I have always been interested in art like photography, graphic design, but I do have to say that I probably would not be taking this art class if it wasn't a requirement for my major. I do like the history of the anceint and medieval eras, so i am hoping to really like this class.