Week Nine

Doors of Bishop Bernward:

“The Temptation/Fall” vs. “The Crucifixion”

On the left and third panel down on the Doors of Bishop Bernward – “The Temptation/Fall” – the narrative describes Adam and Eve falling to the temptation of eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.  I think on the right hand side you can see a snake or serpent in a tree holding a fruit out to Eve in his mouth. To the left of that is Eve passing a fruit in front of another tree to Adam. On the far left there is a serpent in another tree watching Adam accept the fruit. The point of the panel is that Woman and Man were tempted by Satan, and in this moment described, humanity is about to be condemned.

In the panel to the right, there is “The Crucifixion.” In the center of this panel there is Christ on a cross, and immediately on his left and right are two soldiers or guards torturing him with spears and a container – meant to be vinegar. On the outsides, two apparently holy figures (John and Mary with halos) cringe as they look to see Christ suffering. This event is to show viewers that in the storyline, Christ is tortured and crucified and humanity is about to be redeemed.

These two narratives are paired next to each other because they are the direct cause and effect of each other. Christ had to suffer and die as a consequence of humanity’s sins which were a result of the temptation and fall of Adam and Eve. Their implications are opposite each other: the first showing mankind’s doom and the second showing the rescue of mankind.

Even though they have opposing ideas, their composition is incredibly similar and balanced.

The significance of each figure depicted is shown by relief. In “The Fall,” Adam and Eve are of the highest relief; the serpent pops out of the trees, but recedes into lower relief; the trees surrounding them are very low relief. As far as I can tell in “The Crucifixion,” Christ is the highest relief, the next highest is the two outer figures, and the lowest relief figures are the soldiers. Both figures have every other figure pooping out making itself significant. Next to each other, the high, low, high relief pattern is continuous which makes the two panels visually connected. Individually, “The Fall” has the central and outside figures as the least important while “The Crucifixion” has the opposite. If I am wrong about the figures in “The Crucifixion,” we could look at them this way: The characters in both panels are in higher relief with the ground and the trees (including the cross) are in low relief. Despite the demotion to low relief, we can still see that the trees (still including the cross) are significant to the stories because of the detailing used.  The trees could have been left very simple without becoming unrecognizable, but they were not. We can see veins in the leaves, blossoms and fruits in the trees, and markings on the tree trunks. The cross is also decorated some. They both have plain backgrounds successfully pushed back so the foreground is obviously what is important to see. They create three distinct planes: sky as a background, the natural (trees and ground) in the middle distance, and then the characters in the very front.

Every shape in one panel is mimicked in the other. The central tree in “The Fall” has its branches reaching out like the cross in “The Crucifixion.” Adam and Eve have their arms stretching upward a little, similar to the spears of the soldiers pestering Christ, while the other figures lean in toward the central figures looking to see the key actions that change humanity’s path dramatically. The outside trees’ branches from “The Fall” flatten out on the tops to parallel the flat halos of Christ’s mourners.

Overall, the stories connect and the visual compositions are sure to remind us that they have to been seen as related and one cannot be balanced or necessary without the other.

Week Eight

A lot of Christian art seems to resemble Roman art sometimes. That probably has something to do with the fact that all Christians were either Romans or Roman citizens or under Roman rule at the time. Romans had a fairly big empire back then. I think there are also some tendencies that relate more to Jewish or Egyptian art, but even those cultures were currently being influenced or controlled by the Roman Empire. Also, because of this, I think that Roman culture would have been more relatable than the minority religions and cultures, certainly more so than the budding Christianity’s values. Roman art was probably the only art Early Christians (and most of the world known to them) knew.

Early Christians did not seem to know exactly what they were trying to do or express. I think it is more than likely they were preoccupied with other things like staying alive and true to Christ, not so much defining a unique art style. So it is safe to say that they were easily influenced by the cultures surrounding them, especially from the dominating Roman Empire, and less so from the Jews. I would think that Christians would try to take after the Jews, but Jewish art was apparently not setting much of an example. And at the same time, there were a lot more Romans and my assumption would be a lot more Roman converts, or at least more influential converts would be Roman.

Because Romans were polytheistic, their art and stories focused on depicting the characteristics of all their gods and goddesses. That would explain why early and more orthodox Christians’ values were (or are) placed on saints and depictions of those saints as well as Christ. Greek, Roman, and eventually the Early Christian art all seem to want to depict these key characters. Page 238 of the third edition of our textbook (I do not know if they kept it for the next edition), there are Christian symbols depicting St Matthew as an angel, St Mark as a lion, St Luke as an ox, and St John as an eagle. That is definitely not something that Christians would have picked up from Judaism.  Depicting a person or god as an animal is more of a polytheistic tendency, which you can see in another culture feeling the Roman Empire’s control: Egypt. Romans and Greeks do not seem to have much of a problem having their gods being animals either.

At the same time, we can see that Early Christian art used to some degree narratives. We can see in comparison to what little Jewish art we have, and also with Ancient Egyptian art, there can be a focus on narratives. When Christian art relied on narratives, we can see that they valued things beyond Roman influence. Their narratives show what morals they value and what saints and martyrs they value, as well as what their favorite stories may have been. Jonah seemed to be a favorite. His story showed how God could save and resurrect from death. Other examples are on the “Sarcophagus of Junius Bassus” from our lectures. It has several narratives showing favorite stories and the values behind them. The figures from this sarcophagus suffer some proportion issues, so we can see that reality is not that important in these depictions, something that differs greatly from a lot of Roman art. Other works supporting that idea are the Good Shepherd sculptures that stylize to some degree, which we did not see in any of the Roman works we looked at. Also, the Good Shepherd sculptures and other artworks that depicted Christ tended to use a young man or boy. When Roman art used youth to make depictions of their rulers look strong, sometimes we can see that artists were still concerned with creating works that looked natural, as we can see with “Caracalla”. But we can also see that Romans were moving away from this naturalism back toward stylizing along with those Christians, like we can see in “Commodus as Hercules” and the Basilica Nova’s statue of Constantine. All in all, though Christianity started form Judaism, they mostly grew alongside the Romans and their art shows us that.

Week Seven

Honestly, I think Winckelmann's influence is quite impressive.  The man stated and enforced his opinion which managed to shape the perspectives of viewers and artists up to centuries later so far.  Even though he may have been incorrect about the basis of his argument, he still convinced pretty much all of Western Society that sculpture is most beautiful when plain and uncolored, as well as assisting in the beginnings of art history and archaeology.
It is hard to say whether or not our society would have eventually drawn the same conclusions about art and sculpture if the Greeks' paint and colors had remained on their works long enough archaeologists to see how Greek art looked originally. Perhaps the idea of simple white sculpture being the purest and most sophisticated would have come to us no matter what we found. I am sure this we would have reached this mindset at some point, but the real question is if we did not have white Greek sculpture to look at and consider "classical", would white become an ideal as a trend or as permanently or timeless as it has been? We may phase in and out of valuing busyness and colorfulness since the Greeks, but the cold white of marble has always been considered classic, timeless, and sophisticated - the epitome of sculpture. Personally, I prefer the white because it leaves room for shape and shadow to speak at first viewing, although color does add a lot of interest and can make an image easier to look at for longer time periods. I am inclined to think society would have come to agree with this whether we looked to Greek sculpture or not.
I wonder if it was popular at all for Greeks to color only simply or subtly or if all sculpture was as bright and interesting to the eye as some modern reconstructions are. For instance, the archer in the lecture (from the West pediment of the Temple of Aphaia) was shown next to a rather brightly colored reconstruction with busy patterns on the sleeves and leggings. The way the original looks today may be pleasant for our minds to appreciate, but the reconstruction appeals only to the eye by giving it plenty to look at as one walks by. I would prefer to have something simple and subtle for me to ponder at for a little while and assess what makes it beautiful, but I think modern reconstructions make Greek sculpture more logical for the time. The way that art functioned in that society was not for expression or contemplation necessarily.  Artwork had purposes other than just existing.  Ancient Greek art was there to make necessary, functioning objects (religious, spiritual, or mundane) more interesting to look at. The more color and designs included, the more an average type person could look at it and appreciate it without getting bored.  You can see this from the statues of the Hellenistic period all the way back to the vases of the Geometric period. If artwork functioned then as it does now, then it would have made sense for the colors to be omitted right at the get-go. We look at those marble sculptures to analyze and appreciate raw beauty and form, but that just was not what the Ancient Greeks were necessarily after.
Winckelmann may not have had all the facts, but he had the good idea to appreciate what he had in front of him. I think the sculpture we have now is serving a purpose even without its original color for modern artists - so long as we keep current functions separate from historical contexts.

Week Five

I’d like to compare a Minoan-influenced work with a rock-shelter painting from somewhere between 4000-2000 BCE in Spain. They are my figure 1-13 (I have the third edition), which should be in the fourth edition page 13 or 14, and my figure 4-1, which should theoretically be in the fourth edition page 80 or 81. I’m just guessing at their location in that edition so I could be totally off.

The rock-shelter painting is of “People and Animals.” On the right-hand side, there are 8 or so human figures lined up, possibly all women, but I’m fairly certain the middle figure is male. To the left, and dispersed around the human figures are large-ish animals depicted.  There also are some sort of unrecognizable markings here and there.  They are line drawings, essentially, painted on rocks inside of a shallow cave with little to no color. There is no real perception of distances, background, or foreground; every figure is drawn floating in space, carefully placed so they do not layer on top of one another.

The other piece, the “’Flotilla’ Fresco,” however, has some sense of depth because some images – such as boats and landscaping – are layered, but everything is rather flat when considered individually. Also, every human figure and some animals are firmly planted on a plane of some sort because of the inclusion of landscape and boats. This fresco secco is from Thera c 1650 BCE, so it is possible that these two works were created within 350 years of each other. They have some similar ideas, but of course, they differ also.

Both pieces feature people interacting with each other, possibly lounging but most definitely at ease with their surroundings. The rock-shelter painting features hoofed animals in motion, as does the “’Flotilla’ Fresco,” but Thera’s painters found it necessary to also depict lions, dolphins, smaller cats, and birds. Both artists found it desirable to us the composite views to show identifying features such as legs and antlers, and both featured tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny waists. Each artist must apparently value the animals and nature around to include them in their artwork, but both works take care to have people with other people and animals separate from them. Some animals get very close to the people, but the animals never break the humans’ ranks. I think that both of these artists had very similar experiences and ideas in mind.

However, two cultures from across the Mediterranean can’t be exactly the same, especially when more likely than not they were thousands of years apart.

The Minoan artist was sure to include his civilization’s accomplishments. Having been settled on their island for quite some time, it makes sense for there to be somewhat elaborate buildings and boats depicted, along with plants, rivers, ocean, and hills. Also, they were on an island, so boats and marine life were included. The Spanish rock-shelter painting is found much further inland than the “’Flotilla’ Fresco,” and only reveals a limited variety of animals. The rock-shelter painting does not describe any shelters or scenery, possibly because those people were transitioning between migrating and settling. They may not have been attached to their surroundings; only living creatures were significant.

I noticed in the rock-shelter painting, figures are line drawings sometimes filled in. Where they are filled in, the edges are darker, giving the shapes a sense of roundness and bringing the images forward in a three dimensional way – which in my personal experience is what drawing teachers want us to do. That is something that appeals to us. In the Minoan works, images are line drawings filled in with solid and bright color, giving the pictures a flat, two dimensional effect. This is what we think of as a childish or primitive way of representing images. I think it is interesting that we would consider the Minoans far more advanced and civilized, and they have much more interesting or busy artwork, but the rock-shelter paintings start to achieve what a lot of beginning artists strive to do.

Week Four

It is easy to see the ziggurats and artwork of the Ancient Near East and think that they are similar to the pyramids and artwork of Ancient Egypt, but our current understanding of these cultures show us that they are also drastically different. They may share many physical similarities, but their purposes and extravagance differ.

Both ziggurats and pyramids are the largest monuments of their respective cultures that we know of, and are some of the largest monuments of the ancient world. Both went through their own progressions, building off of previous structures and ideas. They share an equal significance to our knowledge of ancient culture’s religion, providing us with artifacts and artwork describing ceremonial or religious values and narratives. Each of them is set aside from everyday living, setting up an atmosphere conducive to their unique and important function.

Architecturally, these monuments at some point were constructed the same. Ziggurats were solid all the way through, as were many older pyramids, and it is possible that some (for all we know maybe even all) ziggurats and pyramids were colored to be white. Both were built off of a sloping or incline idea, though the reasoning behind that may be different. As both had religious and ceremonial functions, they each provided some sort of a processional route, usually utilizing one or more long stairways.

Even though both cultures managed to create monuments seemingly related or alike, the functions and attitudes involved were very different.  Ziggurats expressed a desire to be pious, bringing our attention to the gods and humbling the ancient peoples, while making an effort to be closer to the celestial and bridge the gap between mortals and gods.  Pyramids, on the other hand, expressed a ruler’s desire to be happy and important even after they have left this world. Egyptian rulers must have immediately started planning for the humongous monuments to themselves once they knew they would come into power.

The pyramids were much more luxurious, large, and elaborate by the end of their evolution than any ziggurat. Pyramids also varied more overtime. The first and last ziggurats that we know of are easy to look at and realize they are related or the same, but the earlier pyramids look dramatically different from the more recent. This is because of the attitude of the culture. While the Ancient Near East may have had some conceited rulers, there was enough gratitude and humility for ziggurat temples to exist. They needed a place where they could worship and pay homage to their gods. The pottery, sculpture and architecture of ziggurats were directed at or revolving around the gods and the peoples’ piety. Pyramids, however, are lavishly filled with artwork meant to satisfy the dead rulers of Egypt. These rulers, or pharaohs, already believed themselves to be gods or worthy of being considered one, where as in the Near East, they knew they were stuck on the Earth as mortals, as is supported by the ever popular Tale of Gilgamesh.

Despite the obvious physical appearances making us assume ziggurats and pyramids are related, Ancient Near Easterners were continually aspiring to be closer to the gods, which ziggurats were used to do, but Egyptians used pyramids to show how great and godly pharaohs thought they already were.

Week Three

The Ishtar Gate –originally built in Babylonia; now on display in Germany -- is a double gateway with guard towers and crenels built with glazed bricks. In 6^th century BCE, it was the ceremonial entrance into the older part of Babylonia. The glaze depicts some patterns and images that include dragons and bulls to tie in some of the deities of the Babylonian society. To me, the gate exudes a sense of victory and arrogance, or an overall attitude of showing off and snobbery. It gives a sense that the makers or owners had mastery and control over their dominions. In other words, when I look at the gates, I feel its creator was trying to exemplify superiority. It commands your attention and flaunts the fact that the owner knows who is in control.

First of all, the main color is a very vibrant blue, and it is paired with colors from the orange family – blue’s complimentary color. Nothing says, “Hey, look at me! I am what deserves your attention,” like deep blues and oranges covering a large surface. To me, the clash and vibrancy of these colors are on the same level of self-importance as a man walking around with his chest out a little farther than most people think is humanly possible.

The depicted animals are posed with stiff lines, their strides able to express an austere military feel or that of superiority. To me, the blue bricks look like the reflective surfaces of a calm water, and bordering the edges are rows of flowers.  Combine the strut with the lazy waters and flowers, the figures look self-important and at ease, relaxed knowing that everyone around is looking at them and they are in control, but still concerned that they look their part.              

The detailing in the specific images are stylized, but accurate. You know exactly what you are looking at. From what I can tell, the figures are low relief forms painted with scales and hair, talons and tounges, and there are attempts at shadowing as well. Each figure has the same intense detailing, whether it is eye level or thirty feet above you.

The stiffness and military effect from the figures are supported by the regular and organized lines of the flowers along the edges. Meanwhile, the crenellation at the top is there as if to say, “I am prepared for battle,” but the triangle shapes of them leave the guards at the top exposed saying, “I am prepared, but if you tried to defeat me, your chances would be so low that I do not even need to protect myself much.”  Really, the gates are just pretending they might need to put up a fight, which is another way of expressing superiority.

The height of the reconstructed Ishtar Gate is nearly fifty feet, and with the Procession Way it is about one hundred feet wide. Not only does it demand your attention from afar, but it forces you to look around at it as you pass through at least those hundred feet. Also, there are two. One was not enough to show off the mastery and power it represented.

On either ends of the gates, there were brick walls glazed with blues, turquoises and gold. This would have added to the effect of water, giving the effect of serenity. Whoever was admiring the walls at the time would have felt at ease being under the guard of whoever was in control. There were striding lions with equally stiff looking strides that would have echoed the sense of order and control from the gates figures.

In conclusion, the Ishtar Gate, especially combined with its original roadway and walls, demands your attention with its color choice and vibrancy, hugeness, and depicted figures. The figures and patterns express a feeling of superiority, along with the lackadaisical flowers and crenels that are clearly more for show than function. Despite the obvious showing off of power and pretentiousness, someone walking through could also feel put at ease knowing that whoever it was that possessed the mastery over the architecture, glazing, molding also possessed a mastery over the city the gateway guarded.