Tag: Blog #9

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.

Chapter 2 Summary

The art of the ancient world allows us to understand the era and time in which it was originated. We were able to fully discuss and interpret the art of ancient Mesopotamia Egypt, Greece and Rome. Each region and time period had a different perception of humanity, deities, and the cycle of human life. Looking and formally analyzing ancient art is important because it reflects the society that creates them. Societies that without these art works, would be very difficult for us to understand. The symbolism, colors and materials can tell us a lot about the culture that produced it.

The ancient Egyptian art had some variations under the each succession but, overall had a similar portrayals of the rulers, the common people, the God and even the animals. The Palette of Narmer from 3000 BCE, served not only as a palette for aesthetic needs but also an opportunity to be reminded of the greatness of King Narmer. It is quite fascinating to see that Egyptians used art as a medium to preserve the glory of their rulers, who gave the people stability, wealth and most of all aspiration. In the palette, King Narmer is the larger figure, standing dominantly, showing his power through the staff in his hand and the slave/soldier of war he is holding by the head. King Narmer also seems to be receiving the crown of Lower Egypt from the falcon. This again goes to show his dominance in uniting the two regions, and creating one unified nation. This brings the concept of harmony, and social order into discussion because the Egyptians really revered living an honest and just life, as shown by the portrayal of after life in many Egyptian art work. This idea, and the unity they hoped to achieve in the after death with the Gods was central to the civilization. Egyptian art was different from Hellenistic and Roman art, in their depiction of humans. Also, the evolution of Greek and Roman art brought about many drastic changes in the portrayal of art itself.

When we first think of Greek art, our thought first goes to the elaborate and magnificent temples and building architecture developed by the ancient Greeks. They had developed very standard ways of constructing many places of worship, and other important building. In addition, Greek sculptures and stone work of human being show the understanding of human anatomy and structure. What the Egyptians portrayed as a stoic, rigid, and animated figure, the Greeks gave their human sculptures a more defined perspective of the human form. Even though it didn’t have an individualistic touch, early Greek art still gave a standard portrayal of the human body. For example, the Kouros constructed in 600 B.C.E. give the audience the correct human dimensions for the figure in the sculpture. The knee, the body muscles are well highlighted, and even the hair though not very realistic seems to have taken an effort to create, as each individual hair strand has a wave. This had more similarities to the stone sculptures of ancient Egypt than the classical periods of Greek and Rome. As we move towards classical period, human portrayal looked much more natural and had realistic facial expressions. For example, with eh Kritios Boy, though the facial expression still remains to be a bit dull, the body construction is very well realistic and natural.

Roman ancient art by far neared closer to the realistic portrayal of the actual human body, as much of their ideology was centered on the concept of humanism. The people, and even the deities, resembled a glorified human. This was unlike the ancient Egyptians where they depicted their Gods with animal heads and a rigid body. The Romans, glorified the human body through their artwork. Starting with the sculpture of Polykeitos in 450 B.C.E. who has this amazing athletic human body with well constructed human anatomy. The figure though lacked an individualistic touch to the face and a bland hair style, still outwardly portrayed a realistic human look. As we move forward we see the Dying Gaul, the portrait of Alexander the Great, the Seated Boxer, which all have a very realistic portrayal of the human body evidenced by the formation of the hair strands and the portrayal of the human body. The sculptors during this time took time to define the human musculature and present the body as realistically as possible.