last post

Throughout this quarter we have learned about and studied many different types of historical art, all the way from painting to architecture. Most of the pieces we examined I found to be interesting and fun to learn about. But the type of art I particularly enjoyed studying about was the Egyptian Pyramids. They are a work of art miraculous not only when it was built, but still to this day a piece we stand in awe of thinking about the work and design put into them. Not only that but as well the durability for a structure from such an old time period surviving in the form it did even to this day. In particular I enjoyed studying about the Great Pyramid of Giza, the oldest of the seven wonders of the ancient world. Taking some twenty years to be completed this 480 foot masterpiece made from 2.3 million limestone bricks which were made and placed by hand, the pyramid was completed around 2560 BC.

I see these Pyramids, like most pieces of art, being built in some type of religious manner. The Great Pyramid of Giza, like many others, was used as a temple and burial site for the kings and a way to offer their lives to the gods. Not only were there buried kings and pharos, but treasures as well. The Egyptians believed in giving offerings of gold and expensive items to the gods they would not only be accepted into the afterlife, but they also believed they could bring these riches with them and continue to be rich in the afterlife.

The sheer size and construction of this great pyramid is what really interested me. I think that you have to be crazy if you don’t enjoy the history and footprint this structure has had on our earth.  

week #9

Byzantine and Early Medieval art both portray estouneshing features both in color, story, and picture as a whole. Today i chose to take a look at two pieces from our text book, David The Psalmist pg. 253, and Virgin Of Vladimir pg. 252. Both of these paintings are works of art that portray something real but unlike the naturalistic style that art of its time had been following, they began to divert away somewhat and become more "distorted." I believe the reason for this is to show the viewer importance in every part of the painting and not have one sole focus. In looking at the David The Psalmist, you can see it looks as if the two human figures are right on top of the animals, giving no depth for the viewer to know where things are placed, they are just there. Going along with the problem of depth, another charecteristic of this painting that is unnatural is the proportion of the animals to people. The scale is completely off in order to portray the picture as a whole even if the charecters are closer or farther in reality. Looking at the top right portion of the painting you see what looks like a woman peeping out from behind a pillar, if this woman was to be proportional she would be a giant. But instead the artist paints her to the same size as the other humans in the painting. These things all come together creating a style which is based off of but not exact to naturalism in art. Now taking a look at the Virgin Of Vladimir we also see a close depiction of naturalism but again with a twist. This painting also has a big charecteristic of of unproportion. At first glance the biggest thing that stands out is the size of the head of the adult (giant) compared to that of the child (minature). Not only does this through off the realistic resemblence of the human figure but it draws the viewer into that portion of the painting. Looking closely at the faces you can see the artist did not neglect the childs face when it comes to detail just because it is smaller, but instead he keeps the detail par with that of the adult. Moving on from just the faces when we look into the rest of the painting you can see that natural placement and posture has gone out the window. The position of the child is very unnatural in how she sits and also the position of the neck, both parts of the body obscure the painting enough alone to bring this painting away from the erra of naturalism. As you can see for yourself, even at a moments glance at both of these paintings the Byzantine began greatly to draw away from naturalism and come up with a style of there own.

week 8

For this week I chose to talk about option #2 and compare the art produced by Early Christians and that of the Romans. These two artistic styles appear to be very similar and share few differences do to the time period of which they are created and also the growth of human civilization between the two time periods. In particular I chose to look at the Cubiculum of Leonis, Catacomb of Commodilla from the Early Christian art, (pg 224), and the Church of the Holy Cross from the Romans (pg 557). At first glance these two works of art look very different, but taking a closer look there are many similarities. The first similarity that stands out the most is the geometric design of the ceilings, both perfectly balanced and geometrical. Although one is constructed out of paintings and the other architecturally built, both give the same balance and cemetery to the viewer’s eye. Not only are the ceilings of both art pieces similar, but the walls as well, each complimenting its adjacent wall to create the same cemetery as the ceilings. I believe that the major reason for these similarities comes from the fact that the Roman lifestyle developed from that of the church and holds similar values, therefore the style of the art stayed similar in many aspects do to the belief that you don’t change the bible so why would other things change. In other words, why try and fix something that is not broken, it worked then and it will work now. But although these two time periods share many similarities they also have some differences. The biggest difference to the eye is the color. Early Christians used lots of bright vibrant colors in order to make things stand out and be seen, while the Romans developed somewhat of a gothic style in the church. This change by the Romans may have come because of violence and wars between the time periods creating a darker atmosphere and a fear in God. Another difference in these two periods when talking about art is the size. In early Christianity the churches were smaller and compact with short ceilings and narrow passage ways. Later the Romans decided to take the opposite direction and make things BIG. Cathedral ceilings were extremely tall in order to be easily visible from any spot in the cities; this created plenty of inside room and gave more of a spacious feeling while still inflicting the fear from the darkness of the style. In the end I believe that the reason for the similarities in the two come from historical significance and relation of church to church in the same religion.

week #5

For this week’s assignment I decided to choose option one in picking a piece of art from the Mycenaean culture called the Gold Death Mask. This mask was found in 1874 by a man named Heinrich Schliemann who completed a complete excavation of the Greek sites. While completing his excavation of the Ancient Mycenaean ruins a dead man was found under a Gold Death Mask. Schliemann claimed from this sight he had seen the face of Armageddon.

The Gold Death Mask dated back to 1550 BCE is an amazing piece of art that shows the ability to mend and change the shape of solid materials. Made out of solid gold the ten inch mask remarkably shows how technology didn’t stand in the way of making something so precise and evenly distributed at such an ancient time period. A man’s face appears beaten out with a hammer in this piece of gold. The face doesn’t resemble the shape of a face we see in the present time. The roundness is more of a circle then an oval as most people’s today are. This brings to question on what people of the past may have looked like. Although the shape is not there, there are other implements showing the same features as present humans such as the placement and size of eyes, nose, mouth, ears, and facial hair.

When looking at the differences between this piece of art from Mycenaean culture against that of Early Medieval European art, specifically the Jewelry of Queen Arnegunde, we see little similarities. The Queens Jewelry is also made of gold and ranging in the same size, but because of the time period the Jewelry was made the technology allowed for a more perfect size ratio and quality of work. The newer technology did tremendous things for the Europeans in creating works of art that were more intricate and fancy.

From all of this we can see that it really is time that matters in most art when talking about sculptures because of the technology advances. But in the same matter the differences in the works of art are what make them magnificent and why we are discussing them. Each piece of art is spectacular in its own way and usually reflects on the maker.

week 4

Over the history of the earth, many artistic artifacts have outlasted the test of time and still stand today showing us the talent and lifestyle of humans in different time periods. Two pieces that were both monumental and have historically remained some of the greatest art creations of all time are the pyramids at Gizeh and the ziggurats of the ancient Near East. Both buildings, if you will, display enormous size, mathematical geometry, and impeccable engineering.  

Being the oldest of the seven wonders of the ancient world says it all just in the title for the pyramids at Gizeh. Created by the Egyptians around 2560 BC, the pyramid took about 20 years to be completed while the latest Mesopotamian ziggurats date from the 6th century BC. While both these structures are built in a specific way and for a purpose, religious and sacred burial, they are more than just a structure to appease the Egyptian gods or a temple to worship in, but they are pieces of art greater than that of any other structures of their time.

The pyramid of Gizeh is one of the longest lasting buildings made on this earth. At a staggering 480.6 feet, the 2.3 million limestone blocks used for the structure in all weighs close to 6 million tones. The slaves forced to build the structure worked day and night for 20 years to complete this masterpiece. The Ziggurats on the other hand were made from bricks using two different techniques; one was the process that produced the internal layer for the structure, sun baked bricks, the other used for the outside layer, fired bricks. Although being build in a similar pyramid shape as the Gizeh, the material used the Ziggurats have not maintained as well the shape and structure as it may have if it were build out of limestone such as the pyramids.

These two structures were built for the practice of similar yet different reasons. The pyramid of Gizeh was created as a temple for the fourth dynasty Egyptian pharaoh, Khufu. With many rooms and tunnels leading throughout this pyramid the main room and also reason for this pyramid was a burial site for Khufu, in which many treasures such as rooms full of gold and jewels were stowed away as an offering to the gods to allow Khufu into what the Egyptians called the afterlife. On the other hand the Ziggurats were also building for a religious purpose, but one different than that of the Gizeh. The Ziggurat similarly shared the pyramid shape with the exception of layers creating platforms of which people could stand on. The priests used these platforms to hide upon when flood waters would come rushing at the temple and flooding them. At the top of the Ziggurats was placed a shrine, none of which have survived, but the shrine was used as the center of worship therefore it was placed at the top center of the structure.

Both of these structures were built with the intention of religious efforts. One reason why they may have been built in the same basic pyramid shape could be there way of getting closer to god or their gods, or it could at the same time be just a coincidence. We will never know. But we do know the beauty in the structures that were build and can see them ourselves today.  

picture for week 3

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/40.156

week 3

In the ancient Mesopotamian age many gods were worshiped, both spiritual as well as physical gods. In the early Dynastic period Sumerian style of art was obtained and used in many sculptures as seen in the figure of the Standing Male Worshiper, 2750-2600 BC. The obscured proportion and basic but at the same time complex detail brings out certain portions of the figure to capture the eye of the viewer.

Considered two of the most powerful gods of Mesopotamian during the third millennium BC, raging storm, and wild bull, were both seen as top of the gods as you can tell by the names. A reason why the sculpture is so wide eyed and in aw is because of the power given off by those gods, the aw of the people is one of the strongest attributes of this Standing Male Worshiper as well as many other.

                When looking at this piece of work many things come to mind right off the back even before learning about the culture or time period of the piece. The composition of the sculpture shows a very week man in his body language and the humbleness of his stance, standing in awe of what he is seeing or worshiping. Being sculpted in the round gives this sculpture a little bit more of a story; it can be placed on any surface big enough to support him giving the potential to be surrounded by other figures to create that story. The use of limestone to create this figure is very common because of the area it was created in, a land surrounded by limestone. Color in the sculpture is very limited because of the medium used; limestone is very mono-colored, other then what seems to be black paint on the face of the male statue. One distinction that changes color to the eye of the viewer is the facial hair on the man because of the shadows created in all the ridges and lines. This portion of the figure is what is most capturing to the eye of the viewer because of the complex detail. With the figure being only about 11 inches in height and still having that amount of detail is pretty amazing to see it not only gives more color to the figure but also adds texture, rather than having just this smooth limestone figure. When taking a second look at the sculpture you can see how proportionally this figure looks a little funny. This was a common artistic style of the time period and among the Sumerian style of art. The arms looking somewhat flat for a 3 dimensional figure troughs off that proportion, as well as the length of the torso and upper body which is shortened and thin, leaving the lower body feeling elongated and abnormally large. One part of the figures proportion that does seem to work is the hugeness of the eyes. This is made to show what the figure is doing, worshiping and in awe of what he is seeing. So the hugeness of the eyes is necessary to have.

week #2

At first glance when looking at the “Venus of Willendorf,” I questioned myself as to why we are researching and talking about this sculpture. Reading on in the article I realized why it is important and a good learning spot to start for the history of art. Being around 26 thousand years old and having a sculpture so well defined and small looks pretty amazing. Not only that, but as well the controversial subjects it brings up and topics of historical humans and what type of people they may have been. Sexuality seems to be the largest area of conversation with this figure, thinking about whether the sculpture of this woman is meant as an idol, a sign of fertility, or a sculpture of someone who once lived and the artist used as a model in making this work of art.

            The fact that we know so little about this figure is the exact reason why we talk about it. The author is unknown, the time period has somewhat been determined but was changed many times after further scientific research. In debating this figure every subject can be brought up, do to how little we know about not only the figure, but also how little we know about the people from this time and age in the world. Because of the plumpness of the figure, it brings to question, is this what people in that time period looked like? Was there something special about the way this figure was made because of the thinking that most hunter gatherers were skinny do to their diet, or is there something that through time was lost in the knowledge of these primitive humans and they all looked similar to this figure in the place of the world it was created? All these questions and thoughts will most likely never be answered, unless, we had a time machine to go back and observe these early humans. To be honest and real with ourselves, it is not going to happen.

            The name of this figure “Venus,” seems to be out of place to us in the modern age because of the Greek goddess Venus who is known for her sexual love and beauty. But looking back into times before that we see that the name Venus was also given to other ivory sculptures of whom were missing limbs and also were figures of nude woman. This word to the modern human seems wrong for the figure of Willendorf because of our concept of beauty and attractive sexuality. Figures of the same nature more presently are presented as thin and athletic, not the “obese” look we get from the primitive figure, thus bringing the question of how these primitive beings may have viewed beauty. The author of this article sees the beauty of this sculpture as a fertile beauty and beauty of its time, as the Venus of the Greek and Roman era was their style of beauty, so is this the beauty of its time period. Today our view of beauty is most always viewed as sexually and loving beauty, a healthy person with good skin, little to no fat, proportional, clean, rich, and also in the way a person carries themselves and their presence. From what we can see, the beauty of our time and the primitive ages has a vast difference.

week #1

hello, my name is kyle miller, this is my 3rd year at central washington univ. i am a fine arts major, and minoring in military science and army rotc. i love living in ellensburg with my dog and 3 roommates. i dont really know what else to wright on here so if you wanna know anything just ask!