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.