Unit 2 Summary

Unit 2, we finally got into the actual art.  We went into the ancient world and discussed the differences and similarities of the art pieces of three different areas; Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Greek-Roman.  The differences in the art evolve because of the differences in the culture.

Let’s start with Mesopotamian art.  Their art had the ideas of hieratic scale.  The more important the person the bigger they were portrayed in the piece.  In the Standard of Ur, The biggest person is the king. Even when he’s sitting he is still big enough to break the registar.  The servants look like children compared to him.   Their art is also made to represent their wins and conquers.  To “honor” the strength and power that they have.  The people in their art are very stiff in movement and don’t really have identifying details.

In Egyptian art there are many symbols to represent other things.  Usually using animals to represent the different Gods that they have.  Since there is a different animal to represent each person, it is relatively easy to distinguish between the different people.  In the Narmer Palette there are many different animals engraved into it for the different people and this is just a “utensil” to hold makeup.  Also the crowns represent the different sections of Egypt (North and South).  There also is a component of hieratic scale.  The God or King of most importance is the largest in the art piece.  With the least significant “character” as the smallest.

In Greek-Roman art is where the idea of humanism starts showing in the art.  The belief of humanism is where humans are the center of everything.  This belief is present in their nude statues.  Many pf the Romans statues were copies of Greek statues however, the Greeks used copper which melted down, and the Romans used stone.  The Kroisos is a nude sculpture of a boy used mark and honor a grave.  Their standards of beauty were different than anywhere else at that time.  They looked at the nude body as beautiful, especially on a young, buff man.  The art started out as stiff with no movement but after a while the statues started having curved lines as opposed to straight lines.  Also, the art was detailed enough that you were able to see the movement in the muscles through the skin.  Most of the sculptures also didn’t have any facial hair, since that wasn’t beautiful, unless you were really important and didn’t have any time to shave.

Unit 2: The Ancient World

In unit 2, we explored art within Ancient civilizations, including Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece, and Rome. Much like everything else, the history of their art also provided us with insight into the state of their society and environment, as well as their beliefs and values. These civilizations had many similarities and differences in their art, which also reflects what they considered to be of importance.

One of the most common theme amongst the art of the ancient world was religion. The Mesopotamian’s and the Egyptians were similar in the fact that their “Gods” often had animalistic features. This was a way to create obvious distinction between the power and status of the Gods and humans. We can also see the blatant socioeconomic differences between rulers and common civilians in both of these civilizations art. The Standard of Ur, from the Royal Tombs at Ur, is a good example of Mesopotamian art that depicts this. With two sides to the “standard” we can see the two sides of life at the time: peace and war. Not only does the standard depict order and chaos but it also makes the concepts of the class and hierarchal system of the society more evident. The people (and animals) on the bottom level, who are the common people are less detailed, while the people on the top who are royalty are much more detailed. This is similar to the Egyptian Palette of King Narmer, because it also portrays scenes of war, power, and hierarchy. Narmer, who was royalty and the Falcon, who was a God are both the biggest and most detailed are in the top level, to show their importance. Meanwhile, those on the bottom are much less important as they appear dead. This kind of art was common and showed that the people during this time valued royalty and religion. It also allows the audience a peek into the significant details and lifestyles of the civilizetions.

the standard of ur
Palette of Narmer

 

 

Doryphoros

 

 

 

The Greek and Romans, unlike the Egyptians and Mesopotamians, embraced humanist concepts more frequently. They believed that embracing the human qualities was important and portrayed their Gods to have such qualities. While the Greeks used their ability to illustrate motion and stance in their more idealized versions of the human body, the Romans on the other hand chose to make their sculptures appear more lifelike by focusing on the details of the human body and face and not shying away from the “flaws” of humans. For example, Polykleitos’ Doryphoros represents the Greeks’ idealistic image of the male body. Doryphoros’ contrapposto stance, with his weight resting on one leg and his shoulders more balanced, provided a more realistic stance than those of sculptures from earlier civilizations. Nevertheless, where his body exuded strength, power, and athleticism, his face lacked any distinguishable features.

 

Despite taking inspiration from the Greeks, the Romans looked past the practically unattainable “perfect” male bodies, choosing to focus more on the imperfect human aspects. They even made sure their Gods were portrayed wearing clothes rather than complete nakedness. The Romans chose to go with the concept of portraiture because it reflected their goals as a Republic. They were eager to represent themselves with balding heads and wrinkles which they viewed as a way of showing wisdom and hard work rather than flaws.

 

Summary of Ancient Art-Unit 2

Art of the ancient world is an expression of the different cultures. The way the statues and art are made differ depending on what the culture deems important. For example, Mesopotamian and Egyptian art focus on Gds and Deities. While Greek culture is entirely different their art focused on Humanism. The idea that humans play an important role in society. This Humanistic belief is carried on to Roman culture with slight differences in the nuances.

Mesopotamian and Egyptian art are both very expressionless and their figures are formed in a way that makes them seem aloof. They lack the curvature of a natural body and their figures lack movement. Formal frontality is used to describe the forward facing stance of most Egyptian sculptures. Most sculptures were used for ritual purposes often their hands are clasped and eyes wide which represents their attentive attributes towards the Gds. Ready to listen, pray, and perform for their Gds, all for the purpose of an afterlife. You can see in the image of King Menkaura his and Queen that although they have one forward in a sort of motion the rigid positions they are in lacking

the feeling that they are realistic.

The art coming from Greek culture takes a completely different turn from what we know Ancient art to be from the Egyptians. They introduced the idea of Humanism, Where people were not a nuisance to the Gds as previously believed rather an important and vital role. The Greek period is divided into four stages; Geometric, Archaic, Classical, and Hellenistic. The Geometric and Archaic art more similar to the Egyptians as depicted in the sculpture of the Kouros. They imitated their marble carving technique and the sculpture stance is similar to what we already know. The Classical and Hellenistic period is where Greek art gets most of its fame. Their sculptures represent an authentic version of the human body. Trying to imitate and even idealize what humans are meant to look like. Their fame for little or no clothing and the Olympics further show their appreciation for humans. Even their Gds have human 

characteristics, unlike Egyptians. As seen in the Bronze sculpture which is believed to be the Greek Gd Zuess (missing his lighting bolt) looks to have a completely human with unrealistic and idealized features. The Greeks were also famous for introducing contrapposto pose that many sculptures have which shows philosophical thinking and are meant to make the sculptures come to life.

The Romans continued this Hellenistic belief and their sculptures furthered this idea by making them even more Naturalistic. The sculpture of Augustus the first Emporer of Rome has many fine details including the Gds portrayed on

his armor. Although he was meant to be a fierce warrior his muscular build doesn’t stick out as unnatural rather a more relatable strength. A common representation of Roman art is Portraiture. It shows the fleshy naturalistic style the which was most common in their culture. They often used Portraiture for ancestry worship and had large funerary processions displaying ancestors.

unit one summary

Well, to be honest, I’ve learned to look at art with a whole new perspective. Most of us just look at art and say wow what a splendid piece of work or etc. Due to learning about formal analysis, it actually helped me, well, give art a more thoughtful meaning for me. It inspires me to take more time to evaluate art in it’s meaning and why it was created. I was actually quite inspired with learning about formal analysis because it kinda gave special meaning rather than just calling it looking at a painting. I feel like the word “formal analysis” gives the definition more meaning and I guess it gives me inspiration to actually maybe do some formal analysis of my own when I go to a exhibit. I found learning this to be the most important in my opinion.

Formal Analysis

Formal analysis is basically looking towards a piece of art and trying to figure out the meaning, purpose and positions for why inspiration has taken place for these artworks. It’s the process of trying to skim the surface of what the artist is trying to express and display for the viewers. We look at  the parts in which catches our eyes, parts in which expresses brighter colors  than others. We look for the explanation in parts that we are able to question and observe and sympathize with the artist on their choices for each stroke. We could only infer what the artist could imply by their choices of scales in light or dark colors, or even warm or cold colors. Trying to see their composition and how we could read the story they’re trying to tell from their creation.

Unit 2 Summary

Art in the ancient world varied from nation to nation. The Mesopotamian’s had sculptures of people that would pose but lacked in depth features and characteristic’s. For example, Kouros from six hundred  BC, depicts a person standing with their left foot out and their right foot back to keep some form of balance for the sculpture.  This is also seen in the sculpture also named Kouros but was found in Anavysos and was made approximately 530 BCE. At first glance the two are almost copy’s of each other however have slight differences. Such as the toning and definition given to the second Kouros’s torso. The head isn’t elongated as the first sculpture and feels more expanded. The arms are larger as well as all other parts of the body in the second sculpture.

    One thing that may stand out is how or why would different nations construct the same sculptures with only minor differences? In the Ancient Era when nations pillaged the other they would claim not only the city and population, but also absorb a piece of their culture and art pieces. If not by war were the sculptures plundered it was simply through cultural diffusion and trade of knowledge. Later on the ancient Greeks made their own version of Kouros; It is named Polykleitos, Doryphoros made around 450-440 BCE. In this version of the Kouros, the sculpture is more muscular and more defined than previous versions. It resembles a more realistic depiction of a Greek athlete male in his youth. The foot work is similar in that the right foot is forward but the left leg is back with a bend to give a sort of balance to the sculpture. The right arm is not put down and side to side but are active, which symbolizes he could be holding either a spear or flag further creating the assumption he is a solider of some kind.

Much after the Greeks had their rise to prominence, another nation rose from it’s luster. The Roman Republic which later became the Roman Empire adopted much of the culture form the Greeks, this includes a basic democratic system as well as sculpture and art. One Roman sculpture has similarities to the previously mentioned  Polykleitos, Doryphoros, it is Augustus of Prima. The Roman Republic at the time turned into the Roman Empire due to its civil war between Augustus Caesar and Pompey. It concluded in Pompey’s defeat when he was found executed by the Alexandrian’s to present to Julius as a extension of faith. The resulting civil war caused the the public to be uncertain of what would come next. Augustus knew how important self image was, and that being the legitimate ruler of Rome was a important to not only show but enforce unto himself. To show the strength and the military ferocity of their new leader he erected many statues such as the Augustus of Prima. The statue is very much similar to the  Polykleitos, Doryphoros; for example the footwork is the exact same style as the Greek version. As well as the left side of the body positioned to hold a spear. The notable differences is only the features on the head and hair which depict Augustus Caesar.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

      

Unit 2 Summary

 

Both Greek and Roman art have similarities in the way that they both usually make art that represents their leaders such as sculptures. They both also have many different monuments that honor history that have been made after a significant event.

Something that differentiates Greek and Roman art a lot is that Roman artists did not strive to create perfect representations of human forms. They created sculptures of emperors exaggerating their art to show power of the emperors however something that Romans did was they put into consideration all of the flaws that the rulers had whether it had been saggy skin, skinny, or modest build.  The Greeks also made their rulers look very powerful and made them look great however, they made the rulers look perfect like they gave them clear skin a good lean build made them tall and they were also symmetrical.  I thought that this Separated them the most  because it showed how the Greeks wanted people to look back on them like they were this great genetically perfect species that were powerful and perfect. The Romans wanted people to look back and see exactly what their rulers look like and they wanted people to remember more than anything. This is why roman art felt more genuine when looking at Greek art it makes you say yeah right and you doubt the authenticity of the people that are in the piece of art.

Something that they both have in common is that aesthetic aside they both want to make their rulers look powerful they like to make their rulers the center of attention. Something that looks as if similar is the material that was used to create these sculptures they both look as if they used limestone or marble in order to craft their monuments. Both of these places thrived around the same time period so a lot of their work looks similar and can be mistaken to be from either side.

Both of these look as if they take influence from each other after doing a bit of research Roman art was considered “copied” from the Greeks and that is why it is valued as less than the Greek pieces.  I also discovered that both the Greeks and the Romans like to depict the gods although they go by different names in each culture such as Neptune and Poseidon.

Something that these culture have also shown is that they are both very fierce and they are not afraid to show violence in their works and depict how merciless they were in war and how they kill the prisoners in war. Both of these places loved to show how powerful they were and flaunted their power in their works of art they wanted to seem powerful so they would both dishonor the other works of art from other countries by defacing them and making their own pieces of art over them they might even change the face of the pieces of work into the faces of their emperors. Often they would make the most powerful people the biggest in works of art and they would emphasize this so that people can assume the most important people.

MD: Unit 2 summary

              Ancient greece, a city state formed  between 800 B.C. and 500 B.C. was ruled by Gods and Goddesses, similar to the ideals of ancient Egypt, however, these supernatural beings were brought down to the standards of the human being.  Humanistic actions, emotions, and ideals, were seen through the their artwork. Humanism emphasizes an importance to human culture, our values, problems and needs rather than only the needs and ideals of supernatural entities.  The Kouros figure was made to emulate an ideal human, though it was abstract. The eyes, and the face were not as realistic as we see in art from other civilizations. The Kouros stands on its own two feet, which emphasises the humanistic action of walking, and it stands freely.  Additionally, other sculptures, such as The Doryphoros, resembling a body-builders highly muscular body type (geometrical and balanced), resemble humanistic qualities, because they reflect Greek values. For example, the sculpture may have emulated this male physique because of their participation in the military, and  their love of sports as well. The artist chose to show that they are physically fit, and “God like”, yet have human values. Additionally, nudity was a major factor in Greek humanism. They embraced nudity, which was a sign of Greek culture, allowing the focus to be on the individual rather than their status in society, unlike in Egyptian art.

               Ancient Egypt, founded in the Early Dynastic Period (3100-2686 B.C.) highly valued their gods and goddesses. Unlike in Greek art, in Egyptian art, the Gods and Goddesses were seen as completely separate beings, that were not supposed to have human like attributes.  They were held at a separate rank in society. Unlike in Greek civilization, where artwork showed gods and goddesses that were standing freely, in Egyptian art, Gods and Goddesses were boxed in the walls of pyramids, creating a sense of separation and distance between humans and gods. They were also clothed indicating their hierarchy, as nude figures were looked down upon in society.  

               Finally in ancient Rome, founded in the 8th century BC, hellenistic art, which was inspired by Greek art was created.  We see a shift to a more realistic form of the human being. Realism, an unidealized form of the human being was seen in their artwork.  In Roman Portraiture, emphasis was placed on age, by showing details in the skin  including wrinkles. They emphasized age to show the importance of wizdom, learning, experience, achievement (possibly in the military), and patience in society.  Romans showed things how they actually look in the natural world, not placing ideals on looking “perfect”. Adding on, In Roman art, figures were clothed, unlike in Greek art. Finally, we see an appearance of a female figure, who were seen as non human in ancient Greece.

            Within ancient cultures such as Greece, Egypt and Rome, their specific values and traditions are reflected in each of their different styles of art.  Unlike in ancient Egypt, where Gods and Goddesses were held at the highest value in society, in Greece, an emphasis on the ideal human was reflected in their art and in Rome, a more realistic human was depicted.

Blog Post 9: Unit 2 Summary

In Unit 2, we  learned about art from the Ancient World. This includes art from Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece, and early Rome. Their styles of art varied greatly in some ways and insignificantly in other ways. I’m choosing to focus on Mesopotamia, Greece, and early Rome, although Egyptian art is similar in some ways to Mesopotamian and Grecian art, in different ways. The Mesopotamian art focused more on function than it did on form, so its sculpture of the Sumerian worshiper did not have naturalism to it. Although it had general features of a person, its eyes were exaggerated to be enlarged, its hair was fancier than natural for a person, and it did not have many human details in its features. Greco-roman art differed in this aspect greatly.

Greco-roman art had a lot of humanism in it. Both the Doryphoros and the Bust of a Roman portraiture had a lot of details that made them appear as though they could be in the room with you. The Doryphoros had good proportions and one can see that the Greeks had a good eye for detail in his knees, torso, and arms. His face was a bit idealized, however, and looked a bit ‘perfect.’ The Bust of the Roman looked like an individual that you might run into on the streets. His expression was very clear, and there were details specific to him in the sagging of his cheeks and chin.

The Grecian art and the Mesopotamian art both shared a sense of idealism in the way they made their art. The art was made to idealize aspects of the sculpture (for Mesopotamia, it was the function of faith idealized; for Greece, it was the young human male body idealized). Roman art, on the other hand, cared not for idealizing what it portrayed, but in capturing the true look of the person who was being sculpted.

Both Greece and Rome wanted to capture form over function, unlike Mesopotamia. They wanted to capture humanism in its strongest way. The Greeks did this through the use of apparent motion; the Romans did this through careful incisions in the face that made the person look almost as though the material was skin not rock.

Unlike Mesopotamia and Rome, Greece actually did not use stone to cover the Doryphoros. They used bronze, but the only thing left of this work of art, was the marble copy that Rome created to celebrate the Grecian art. This shows each cultures’ preferred medium for creating works of art.

Interestingly, of these three works of art, the hairstyle is not consistent. In fact, as time passes, the amount of hair sculpted actually decreases. The Mesopotamians clearly valued hair for it is highly aestheticized. The Greeks clearly did not for there is very little detail put into the hair (even though they are clearly capable of doing so). The Romans did not care for it either, but only because the man they were sculpting did not have hair (and they wanted to portray the man as he actually was in real life). 

.