Types of Art That Left An Impression

           

                The types of art that I was particularly drawn to were the relief types of art. This type of art work was very interesting to me, because not only were we able to see its progress throughout history, but we could also see how many different cultures used this technique without having contact with one another.

                The Stele of Naram-Sin is a relief that was done between 2254-2218 B.C. there is a little weathering that has taken place on the bottom of the piece, but towards the upper portion and center of the art piece there is very little weathering that has happened. This makes it easy to see the depth of detail that the artist put into creating this stele. Although there is little detail that can be seen in the facial features of the individuals, if you look closely you can see there was an attempt to incorporate some facial features on the individuals on the stele. Now, when you look at the relief of Assurnasirpal II killing Lions you can see the progression of skill in the use of relief done on that continent. With the progression of time you can see the detail and possibly the skills that have been passed down or obtain through imitating other’s works within that area of Asia. When you compare the stele that was done of Naram-Sin and other individuals in that art piece with the relief done of Assurnasirpal II Killing Lions you can clearly see what I am talking about. The lions have amazing detail as do the people. With the people the details even extend down to their feet. You can see the detail in their sandals and their toes. Now, when you take a look at the Naram-Sin piece the people are barefoot and it appears as though Naram-Sin could have been wearing sandals, but you have to look very closely to be able to make this out. Nevertheless, it does appear that he is wearing sandals.

                Furthermore, what is nice to see when looking back at these reliefs is the material that was used and the tools used on that particular material. When you compare the Assurnasirpal II Killing Lions with Bison relief done in 13,000 B.C. where they used unbaked clay to do complete their art piece. The relief of Assurnasirpal II Killing Lions uses Alabaster, which is a name applied to a variety of two distinct mineral gypsum and calcite. Calcite is the alabaster was probably used during these times. What is very interesting to me though is the fact that even though the one done during 875-860 B.C. (Assurnasirpal II Killing Lions) may have come later the fact that earlier artist could produce such a well developed relief is extremely impressive. To me this makes me not only appreciate the craft, but those who were able to produce these beautiful art pieces during their times.

                In conclusion, the creation of reliefs in art is a beautiful craft and by being able to see its progression through history helped me to gain an even greater appreciation for what those whom came later and those who arrived earlier in history and the thoughtful pieces of artwork they were able to produce.

Discussing some stylized features on art work done by Byzantine artists and Early Medieval artists

The two pieces of art that I would like to point out some certain features that have been stylized within the art pieces are both crucifixion images. The reason for this is both show stylized features, but in different ways. Some ways are even similar to one another. The two art pieces are Crucifixion by the Church of Dormition, Daphni, Greece and the Gero Crucifix.

                One of the areas that was stylized on the Crucifixion by the church of Dormition was the way that they drew his hands. Studies have been shown that for them to have had that open look would be very difficult to do. Who knows why they chose to do this, but one explanation could have been to not make things to depressing or negative. Another explanation could have been that by having the hands open you can clearly see that the nails have been driven threw his hands. This may make a lot of sense since these are one of the major focuses when people visualize the Crucifixion. The Gero Crucifix has the same features it appears, although his hands are not as wide and open as those done by the Church of Dormition. The Gero Crucifix show his thumbs less lively, which gives a more depressing look.  In addition his head is being held down further than the Crucifixion by the Church of Dormition, which points out yet another feature that was stylized by the Church.  His head is tilted, but not being drawn in a position that shows pain and suffering. To me the position of his head is very similar to that of the Virgin of Vladmir. Nevertheless, the position does give a sense of negativity, because he definitely isn’t looking up or like it doesn’t faze him.

                Moreover, going back to the hands on both the Crucifixion done by the Church of Dormition and the Gero Crucifix studies have also been shown to suggest that it would be very difficult to have the nails in his hands at all. This is because it would have been difficult for the hands to support his body weight. Now although this may have been unrealistic to some it doesn’t rule it out. I mean if you think about he was put there to suffer and not to give him comfort. So although the studies may suggest that this was difficult to do even they admit that its not impossible. Also, the blood that comes out of his hands in the Crucifixion done by the Church of Dormition has the blood going directly down instead of flowing down his arm as it would probably do from that positon. Also, the blood  coming out from his side in the Crucifixion done by the Church Dormition is obviously stylized so that it will get viewers attention. This is because most likely the blood would go down his side and not come out of his body as if it were a fountain.

A comparison of Christian art work with that of Roman art works.

                Some of the differences in the Roman art and early Christian art that I noticed was with the way they presented the individual that they were drawing, painting, or sculpting. For instance when you compare the hair styles of those used in Roman art work with that of the early Christians you can see that the Christians didn’t put major emphasis on things such as this. It appears that the early Christians were more focused on the content rather than the appearance of the individuals in the art work.

                Two of the art pieces in particular that show this are the Young Flavian Woman, which was a sculpture made of marble and the painting of the Virgin of Vladimir. There are other paintings from the early Christians that also put less emphasis on the individual’s beauty such as the lady in the painting of David the Psalmist and the painting of the Empress Theodora and her attendants.  While looking at these art pieces you can get a sense of feeling that those who sculpted the image of the Young Flavian Woman wanted to show how beautiful the woman was in more ways than one. Not only does her hair express extravagant beauty, but there is beauty in her facial features as well. Her eyes appear to have perfect symmetry, her nose, and lips all fit well with one another. Now if you look at the painting of the Virgin of Vladimir you kind of see the opposite. Her hair is covered she doesn’t have a lot of emphasis on her physical features at all. The only thing that they seem to have in common is the fact that there is symmetry in her face. However, even with viewing these the Flavian woman appears to have larger eyes and semi-fuller lips whereas the painting of the Virgin of Vladimir has smaller lips and sadder looking eyes. Although the Virgin of Vladimir has a sadder look to her you also get a stronger since of humility throughout the entire art piece whereas with the sculpture of the Young Flavian Woman you can’t sense any humility at all throughout the art piece especially when you gaze at her eyes and hair.

                Furthermore, while looking at the sculpture of the Young Flavian Woman it is difficult for me to tell what she is trying to express outside of the beauty. I know that it is more than just beauty that is being expressed here, but the first thing that comes to mind is how extravagant her hair is. However, what is her facial expression saying in relation to her hair? On the other hand, if you ask yourself what is the painting of the Virgin of Vladimir trying to express? A few things come to mind such as love, humility, care, protection, warmth, sincerity, selflessness, or maybe even sadness. You can see emotions and expressions like these just by looking in her eyes as well as looking at her body language. There seems to be a lot of content expression that was made noticeable when you view the art work of the early Christians. Now its not to say that the Romans didn’t express this in any of their art work, because they did.  For example the sculpture of Caracalla clearly shows this. Nevertheless, with his facial expression you still see major emphasis on the aesthetics of the art piece. His hair is nicely done even his facial hair has detail.

                In closing, I think the differences that can be easily be noticed when you look and compare the art work of the Early Christians to that of the Romans you can see that the Early Christians were not trying to put major importance on beauty rather they wanted to put emphasis on the content of the art work.

Winckelmann's Affect On How We View Purtiy In Art

                                                  

    Winckelmann’s view of the Greek statues was one that I think a lot of people could relate to and understand.  He mentions “good taste” in regards to art. He also, explains that art should be “pure” and “simple” as we saw in the video.  I believe that regardless of whether Winckelmann would have voiced his opinion or not it would have had very little impact on the way that we view Greek art today. I believe that what Winckelmann did do was give us something to relate pure art to. Had he of not done that maybe someone else would have or maybe we would have sought after other works of art to relate purity and simple like ideas to. I say this because you have to wonder what does he mean by “purity” is he talking about the art work itself as a whole or is he just referring to art work and its color. When you say that “art” should be pure and you view these Greek images you can see the art work as a pure sculpture and focus on what the sculpture is doing rather than being distracted by colors. In this sense you can see the art work for a pure form of art and accept what it is trying to express to the viewer.

                One of the reasons that I believe we can relate to his statement and why his statement wouldn’t have changed our view of purity in art works such as these is because when you view these sculptures they have no color as explained in the lecture. Now, with that in mind if you have someone from Asia view those images they don’t see a pale, mocha, or dark-skinned man they can actually picture someone of their own complexion whether that be darker or lighter (because there are different shades in all cultures) or whatever complexion comes to mind. In addition to this it makes it difficult to criticize the art piece in terms of color or be biased because you prefer a certain type of color over another. Winckelmann helped us who are exposed to these types of cultural art pieces have physical objects that we can all see and relate it to purity in regards to art sculptures like these.  As mentioned in the video the Greeks did use color in a lot of their art work. You can see that in their ceramic art work (speaking of which if you notice most of their work there has either colorless or completely dark figures as well), which leads me to believe that maybe their clothing was painted, but not their skin complexions.

                Another reason that I believe his ideas of purity and simplicity wouldn’t have affected our opinions of Greek painted art is because beauty is in the eye of the beholder and as he stated himself, “color ought to have a minor consideration in the role of beauty” now if that were true we wouldn’t be able to see colors as well as we do or relate to them as well as we do. What I am saying is that color has been a part of art for a long time for us and in most cases it isn’t the absence of color that creates purity but how much of a certain color is being used, when, where, and how. However, what we can do with these images is see a colorless image that we can relate to as an image of a person and imagine a color that we may or may not feel belongs there. Also, all of the images in Greek art have color whether its black, white, bronze, gold, or what have you. So from my understanding it isn’t the absences of color that is creating the purity, but the lack of different colors that may either contrast, enhance, or compliment another color that is creating the purity and in that regard the color that we are viewing is indeed pure to us.