Monday, November 28, 2011

Post #9 Reflection

I really enjoyed learning about both Greek and Estrucan art this quarter. Greek history was something that I have always been interested in and studied a lot during school, so I was interested in actually learning about the artwork for the period. Estrucan art on the other hand is something that was totally new for me, all I had learned about the Estrucans was that they were the predecessors to the Romans, but did not know anything about their history or artwork. In school we had always gone over the Greeks and moved straight into the Romans barely even mentioning the Estrucans. Learning about Estrucan art gives me a better understanding of their culture but also serves as a bridge between Greek and Roman art.


Specifically in Greek art, I enjoyed the new viewpoint I gained about the actual appearance of Greek art. The idea that Greek art was plain and simple was a viewpoint I had always held, but this was shattered. The “Peplos” Kore really illustrates what color can do for the piece. My reaction to the piece is totally different in its form of color. The premade idea I had of Greek art turned out to be untrue, and I even felt a little uneasy with the colored Greek pieces. The same came with the piece depicting the archer. Looking at the plain form, I would have said it looks like a perfect example of simplified Greek art. However, taking a look at the reconstruction, I am greeted with a mass of colors which throw off my interpretation of the piece all together. The initial reaction of the use of color is off putting to me, it takes a bit to process and analyze. The discussion of Wincklemann and his promotion of pure and simple Greek art helped with the accepting of the colored pieces. I actually got a little mad with the result of Wincklemann altering my understanding of Greek art to actually be false.  It was nice to be able to learn about how Greek art really was, not just the interpretation of what it should be.

Etruscan art on the other hand was something I had known nothing about coming into this class, so I was interested to see what it was all about. The most interesting part of Etruscan artwork I found was the change in tone which occurred in tombs. For example, the tomb of hunting and fishing depicts a very upbeat outlook. It consists of a very naturalistic viewpoint; it was interesting to see how quickly this outlook changed. The “tomb of the blue demons” sheds light on this change presenting a very different outlook. The artwork seems very dark, and I was surprised to see forms of demons and serpents present. The relation to these changed in the pieces of artwork and the downfall of the Estrucans was something I found very interesting. I liked the fact that with time the artwork even changed with the climate the culture was in. Another piece of Etruscan art which really caught my eye was the “Tomb of Reliefs”. The amount of detail use with all of the tools and items painted or carved into the tomb is pretty surprising.  It seems to be very thorough with having all the necessities present for one to bring to the afterlife. It even reminded me of Egyptian pyramids, and all of the material sent with one to the afterlife. Overall I found Etruscan art very unique with its tombs, not only with the detail but also the tone of the artwork that changed. 

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

Byzantine and Early Medieval Art Option 1

Taking a look at Byzantine and Medieval art, there is a big discrepancy with regards to naturalism than what was seen in Greek or Roman art. I find this to be interesting because in time, one would think that abilities improve, so naturalism would improve, but that does not happen here.
                The first piece that I think illustrates this difference is the “Presentation page with Abbess Hitda and St. Walpurga” located on page 450. The lack of naturalism becomes clear very early with looking at the size of the two people in the image in relation to the buildings. Another part, the center character has his head outlined with a gold flat halo, which is more symbolism than who one would actually appear. The figures also have a black outline, this outlines is used for physical features along with outlining their cloths. The use of line in place of actual features was not used in Greek art and is not a naturalistic trait. There is no sense of physical form or features present, Greek and Roman art emphasized the physical form and muscles. In this piece, the people are covered from head to toe in very loosely fitting clothing reflecting no physical features at all. On top of this, their appendages do not match their bodies. Both figures have abnormally small hands and feet compared to the rest of their body. What is interesting about that, the character on the left, despite having small hands, has abnormally long figures. There seems to be a lack of caring when it comes to correctly adding proportions to the characters. It is also clear that like medieval and Byzantine art, the figures are elongated abnormally in this figure. The distance between their feet and their waste is not naturalistic at all. Overall, I get the sense that the content of the piece takes precedent in making the figures look natural.            
                Another image which adds to the idea that medieval art stepped away from naturalism is the “Matthew writing his gospel” on page 431. Although not as blatant as the first one, there are some aspects of the people in this piece which really go away from naturalistic works. First is the existence of the halos like in the work before, used in more of a symbolic form than natural looking. Onto of this, all of the figures use outline and lines to represent their features. For example, Matthew’s beard and hair, does not look natural at all. Instead, it is stylized using lines of different colors; I do not know one man who has colored lines like that for hair. Also, his body parts seem unnatural, his feet are awkwardly lines up one behind another, it actually reminds me a little of Egyptian art. I also see this with his hands; this second hand which rests on the bible seems to just disappear off into mid air, normally one would see the arm continue in some fashion. Although not as evident at the other work, this form seems to be also elongated, longer than a person normally would be. The clothing is also used to really hide a lot of the physical characteristic. Like the previous work,  it appears that emphasis is placed on the subject matter and story told rather than representing people naturalistically. 

Monday, November 7, 2011

Commodus and Caracalla


The pieces featured Commodus as Hercules and the head of Caracalla are similar however provides some distinct differences that help to visualize how the rules portray themselves. The bust of Commodus as Hercules is made from marble in typical roman fashion. In the message, Commodus seems to not rely on himself to appear great, but has to relate himself to being a descendent of the gods in the form of Hercules. He is depicted very ornately featuring almost perfect features and muscles, armed with a club, apples, and a lion’s fur, with distance hair and beard. It seems like he is trying to get the viewers of this piece to relate his image with that of Hercules, however, now days we do not have a good idea of what Hercules looks like, so to us, it just looks like Commodus is going to great lengths to add to his appearance. The bust uses light to its advantage with the use of the lions head as a hood; it focuses the eyes on Commodus’s face. Overall the image tried to depict Commodus as a worthy ruler that can be related to the gods, signifying that Commodus has divine backing, because he has relation to Hercules.


                The head of Caracalla, a bust as well, serves a use of propaganda but not in the form of presenting himself to be godly or appear to be someone he is not.  Just like the bust of Commodus, this is made out of marble and is a piece of propaganda. This however, is where the similarities end. The head of Caracalla does not show humans in their perfect form like the bust of Commodus as Hercules does. Instead, Caracalla has lines in his forehead, and a very stern brow. He presents staring eyes, with an almost frown upon his face. Along with this, his beard and hair are very short and barely visible unlike Commodus who has very curly hair and beard. This piece portrays Caracalla as a very serious ruler, just looking at his face a viewer can tell that he is not easy going and has a lot of concern in his face. This is unlike Commodus, who seems to have a very perfect, neutral expression. Someone looking at this piece from this time period would be able to relate the face with the struggles the empire is facing at the time and know that Caracalla, the stern looking ruler takes things seriously, unlike Commodus who is just playing dress up. Even looking back today, not knowing the time period or Caracalla by appearance, we can discern that he is indeed a serious man. Looking at his face, it might even give the viewer a sense of fear if against this man, or a sense of safety knowing that he is in control. His serious expression is even added upon with the use of lighting with the darkness on the right side of his face and the darkness above these eyes. Looking at these pieces, one gets the sense of the periods they lived in relation to the Roman Empire. Commodus, coming out of the height of the empire, is carefree, and able to portray himself as whatever he wishes in perfect form. While Caracalla has a more simple serious representation of himself, with no time to or need to represent him as anything different.