Topic Essay Question #5

ESSAY #1b
ESSAY TITLE: Perception and Reality

QUESTION: Is it possible for a modern viewer’s "perceptions" to either create or alter the "reality" of a specific Paleolithic, Mesolithic or Neolithic Period cave painting or carving?

Spotted Horses and Human Hands

 PART 1

SUMMARY:  I experienced that art of any type can change a persons reality based on their perceptions of life experiences, age, and other factors of that nature.

REASON: All art comes from somewhere and all art is interpreted in different ways by different types of people with different experiences I think that this question was asked to show that any piece of art not just art from the past can change a persons reality.



PURPOSE: I believe that the purpose of the question is to ask the writer themselves internally if they have a different reality based on their perception of prehistoric art.

DIRECTION: The direction I took was based on what I personally thought about how my perception has changed my reality of art from the prehistoric times.  I would say that it has changed my reality just based off of thinking about what the reality of 25,000 BCE was compared to the reality of 2012.

 IMPRESSION: My biggest thing was looking at the art and trying to find things in my mind that remind me on the art,which has a lot to do with my perception of something changing my reality, or lack of change. Like the Star Wars fish that looked so much like the Rainbow Serpent Rock!


PART 2


The art that is found at the end of long passages and caves are the ones that connect us to the ancient world, back in 25,000 BCE. (Art History, 4th Edition, M. Stokstad/M.W. Cothren, p.1) This was a time when people were at the very beginning of human existence. When they represented their world through visual images.(http://www.all-art.org/history16.html) "Thirty thousand years ago our ancestors were not making "works of art" and there were no "artists" as we understand the term today."(Art History, 4th Edition, M. Stokstad/M.W. Cothren, p. 1) It seems that when one looks upon a wall painting that was done in such a time that it must have been a very important part of surviving.  I think that we now a days don't fully understand the importance of the wall paintings.  Some of the pictures look familiar to us, like the picture of the horses. You can see that its a horse or something that looks like a horse but the thing that throws people off are the hand prints, and the black dots. For all we know they could have been painting the horse just the way it looked in the light, and added the dots to show the stars or the rays of light.  The art itself is the key to understanding the early human culture, but sadly art historians think that we my not be able to know why they were made. (Art History, 4th Edition, M. Stokstad/M.W. Cothren, p. 1)

Rainbow Serpent Rock

Colo Claw Fish from Star Wars

Open Sea Killer from Star Wars

"In fact there may be no single meaning or use for any one image on a cave wall; cave art probably meant different things to different people who saw it, depending on their age, experience, and specific needs and desires."(Art History, 4th Edition, M. Stokstad/M.W. Cothren, p.1) That's just like how people look at art today, any art not just the art of the past, ether can or cant change a persons "reality".  It all has to do with a persons connection to the art, and what connects them to it, and how it makes them think and feel. Our minds as people like order, it does not function well with things out of the ordinary, or things that we cant put into order.

Like for example my reality of the crazy looking serpent rock is that it looks like it belongs on Star Wars.  Everyone has there own thoughts on reality, and everyone has their own perceptions on what reality is.  The reality of 25,000 BCE is a lot different than the reality of 2012, so different that I'm sure we cant even begin to imagine it. But one thing is clear, "much is still to be discovered about prehistoric art."(Art History, 4th Edition, M. Stokstad/M.W. Cothren, p.2) So the perception of a person in 2012 is going to be very different than the perception of a person from 25,000 BCE, but to say that a persons perception is going to alter the reality of a piece is still hard to say, since even the experts don't really know what it means.  But I personally think that its completely possible to find a piece of art that is going to strike you over your head and change your reality. Whether that art be from the prehistoric times or made by Andy Warhol.  Perception can always change reality, but its the viewers choice too.

Essay Question #4

ESSAY 7a 
ESSAY TITLE: Faith and Belief
QUESTION: Is Art in any way, an intrinsic part of, or a primary factor in religion or religious expression and if so, how did it specifically play a part in the development of Christianity?

PART 1:

SUMMARY: I experienced a lot about the images that were used to make it easy on people to want to be a part of Christianity.  The art ended up playing a big big role in how people looked at Christianity.

REASON: This question was asked because art and religion go hand in hand.  Every religion has art that reflects it and Christianity was possibly the most influenced with art.

PURPOSE: I believe that I was asked to answer this to show me that art and religion play a big role together and without one there might not be the other, they need each other to survive.

DIRECTION: The direction of this has me questioning what I think about Catholics using Apollo to make Jesus, the thought still blows my mind.

IMPRESSION: I never would have thought that most of the images that I looked at were almost copy cats of other images from other religions.  The thing that shocked me the most was the two sculptures of the Good Shepard, one of Apollo and one of Jesus, but they both looked the same.

PART 2:

Believing in something has been around since the dawn of time, people have always wondered about a higher power(s). Art is a huge part of religion, there is no doubt in my mind that its a primary factor. It shows the stories of what happened and lays it all out for the person believing in such a religion. Sometimes it even gets to the point where the art is what ends up backing up the writings. Nothing is taken for granted, even down to the colors that are used on clothing, and the types of materials or paints that are used to show their devotion to their God/gods. All of these things play a big part for when Christianity comes on the scene.
"Christians believe in one God that manifest in three persons- the Trinity of Creator-Father, Son, and Holy spirit..."(Art History, 4th Edition, M. Stokstad/M.W. Cothren, p.222). This is shown through the art of Catholicism as well as in the texts, because at the time when Christianity came to be, there were already other religions that were dominate, so Catholicism had to come up with a way to get supporters, and in my believe that was through images and art. Making images similar to what people were used to at the time would make them want to be involved with a new religion. Lets take Mary for an example...

This picture shows Mary in a robe that is not typical for her, usually shes wearing blue but in this case it is more of a purple-blue, and purple is the color of royalty. In this image as you can see above she is holding baby Jesus. The mother and child symbol becomes one of the most powerful and shown images of Christianity. Christianity was officially called a religion by the public in 313(Art History, 4th Edition, M. Stokstad/M.W. Cothren, p.222) They both also have an aura around their heads to show that they are divine. This image is very Eastern influenced, as you can see from the robe Mary is wearing. Even the gold background is no mistake. Everything that was done to the image was done on purpose by the artist. Even baby Jesus is doing his hand symbol that continues to show up throughout his pictures. Although this hand symbol is not original, it is actually taken from the sun god Apollo that was a Pagan god. So now Catholicism is taking images from Pagan worship and adding them to their art to make it more reliable. Also art was a huge role because not a lot of people knew how to read, so they were told stories and looked at images. Images were just as they have always been, powerful.

"For Early Christians, he became the good Shepard."(Art History, 4th Edition, M. Stokstad/M.W. Cothren, p.222) And this was true but yet again another time where the Christians used art to influence people, Apollo was also known as the Shepard. There are even two statues from different times, you wouldn't know what one was Apollo and what one was Jesus. So as you can already tell art played a big role in religion especially in the development of Christianity. "The Earliest surviving Christian art dates to the early third century and derives its styles and images from Jewish and Roman visual traditions."(Art History, 4th Edition, M. Stokstad/M.W. Cothren, p.222)

"In this process, know as syncretism, artists assimilate images from other traditions and give them new meaning. The borrowings can be unconscious or quite deliberate."(Art History, 4th Edition, M. Stokstad/M.W. Cothren, p.222) So as the religion itself became more and more popular so did the art that reflected it. For example I remember when I was young and in church that the stations on the cross were always what I looked at before my Mother had me follow along with her in the book. "For example, orant figures-worshipers with arms out-stretched in prayer-can be pagan, Jewish, or Christian, depending on the context of which they occur."(Art History, 4th Edition, M. Stokstad/M.W. Cothren, p.222) So the Christians used their art to get ahead of the competition, and become the number one religion, by making people feel comfortable. It seemed the it was also everything people wanted to hear, a God that was promising a personal salvation.(http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/melange.html) "Perhaps the best-known syncretism image is the Good Shepherd. In pagan art he was Apollo or Hermes the shepherd, or Orpheus among the animals, or a personification of philanthropy...Such images, therefore, do not have a stable meaning, but are associated with the meaning(s) that a particular viewer brings to them. They remind rather than instruct."(Art History, 4th Edition, M. Stokstad/M.W. Cothren, p.222)

Topic Question Essay #3

ESSAY #3b 
ESSAY TITLE: TRUTH & BEAUTY

Young Flavian Woman

QUESTION: Using specific art references, why did the Greeks consider "beauty" to be the same as "truth" and how different was this philosophy from that of the Romans?

PART I

SUMMARY: I found that there is a big difference between Greek art and Roman art, in a lot of ways that I never considered before.  I found it a lot of fun to try and find good examples that flowed well together.

REASON:  I think that the big reason for the question was simply for me to see the difference between Roman art and Greek art and how that is shown through their beliefs.

PURPOSE:  I believe that the purpose was to show that anything even what you believe can be strongly reflected within art.

DIRECTION:  The direction that this question has taken me in was that the Greeks and the Romans have very different beliefs that show strongly in their art.

IMPRESSION:  A big surprise to me was when I was reading about the Young Flavian Woman and how much drill work it took to make her hair look the way it did, I think that's just amazing!

PART 2

The Greeks consider beauty to be the same thing as truth, and even to the extreme that if a person is not beautiful that they are nothing more than a person that does not speak anything of truth. This to me seems to be quite a way to judge someone, but even in Greek art this shows. As apposed to the Romans that believed that they came from the Gods themselves and their art reflects this as well.

Metropolitan Kourous

Take for example the Metropolitan Kourous, that is six feet tall and dates back to 600 BCE. (Art History, 4th Edition, M. Stokstad/M.W. Cothren, p. 114) To me this is a classic example of what the Greeks considered beauty, "...he stands rigidly upright, arms at his sides, fists clenched, and one leg slightly in front of the other."(Art History, 4th Edition, M. Stokstad/M.W. Cothren, p. 114)  He seems to be a strong man as shown in his stance, and in that time period I'm sure was considered to be beautiful.  "The eyes are relatively large and wide open, and the mouth forms a conventional closed-lip expression known as the Archaic smile."(Art History, 4th Edition, M. Stokstad/M.W. Cothren, p. 114)

The Charioteer of Dephi

 "Scholars have associated Greek Classical art with three general concepts: humanism, rationalism, and idealism."(Art History, 4th Edition, M. Stokstad/M.W. Cothren, p. 119) This to me is also very interesting because it seemed that making art of normal people and not Gods was becoming more common among the Greeks(not like the Romans who made themselves in the same category as the Gods). An example of Greek art of a God is the amazing life size Charioteer, that was found at the sanctuary of Apollo at Delphi and seemed to be casted sometime in about 470 BCE.(Art History, 4th Edition, M. Stokstad/M.W. Cothren, p. 125) Wow, is all that I can seem to say about this.  The Charioteer has his head turned to the said and his gaze away from the viewer (Art History, 4th Edition, M. Stokstad/M.W. Cothren, p. 125) almost in a I'm-too-good-to-look-your-way kind of glance.  Clearly this also shows beauty and respect that the Greeks must have had to make such an amazing piece.

Nike (Victory) of Samothrace

Nike (Victory) of Samothrace

The next art piece that I picked from the Greeks to show beauty and truth is "Nike of Samothrace."(Art History, 4th Edition, M. Stokstad/M.W. Cothren, p. 155) Which is the Goddess of Victory, that is standing on top of a ship, some say that the ship she is on is the Trihemiolia Rhodian.(http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Arts/Nike.htm) She is the spitting image of beauty with the"powerful backwards thrust of her enormous wings"(Art History, 4th Edition, M. Stokstad/M.W. Cothren, p. 156) She is an image that once you see it will always be a reminder of the word victory and what it means, not the sneakers.

My personal favorite story of how Rome came to be in my opinion reflects a lot of Roman thought and also the art of the Romans. "The Romans saw themselves as descendents of heroic ancestors. Two popular legends told the story of Rome's founding. One focused on Romulus and Remus, twin sons of the God Mars and a mortal woman, who were abandoned on the banks of the Tiber River and discovered by a she-wolf, who nursed then as her own pups."(Art History, 4th Edition, M. Stokstad/M.W. Cothren, p. 168)  This explained a lot to me about Roman thought and why they thought of themselves to be related to the Gods and have a strong feeling about being the best and the most powerful.  It seemed that power was a strong influence to the Romans, they didn't think of things like truth and beauty being the same thing, they didn't really care, all they wanted to do was expand.

Augustus of Primaporta

 Roman art I believe reflects their arrogance showing people to be almost in the likeness of a God, for example Augustus of Primaporta, who has the same look to him as the Greek Charioteer of Delphi with the same gaze. "But unlike Greek sculptors who created unspecific, ans thus timeless, procession for the Parthenon, the Roman sculptors of the Ara Pacis depicted actual individuals participating in a specific event at a known time."(Art History, 4th Edition, M. Stokstad/M.W. Cothren, p. 155)

Young Flavian Woman

 Another example of Roman art is the Young Flavian Woman, who "is idealized in a manner similar to the Augustus of Primaporta."(Art History, 4th Edition, M. Stokstad/M.W. Cothren, p. 190)  She has a strong nose and jaw, deep set eyes and a long neck that is a contrast to her soft lips and skin.(Art History, 4th Edition, M. Stokstad/M.W. Cothren, p. 190) She is young and God-like in image just like the Augustus of Primaporta.

Topic Essay Question #2

ESSAY #1a
ESSAY TITLE: Them and Us

QUESTION: How artistically similar, or different, do you think prehistoric people were compared to modern man and, what singular force or need continues to drive the artistic needs and human expressions of the 21st century?


PART 1

SUMMARY: When I wrote the answer to this question I really got into how amazing the cave art was back then, I never thought that before I would find it to be just as beautiful as art from today.  For me this was a challenging question because its not like I could just go down the street and talk to the artist that made the cave paintings, I really had to think about why they would do this or rather why I would do this if I was living in this time.

REASON: I believe that you asked this question to show that the need for art has not changed over the past 100,000 years.

PURPOSE: The purpose was to see how different or not so different the people from the prehistoric times were compared to the people of today.

DIRECTION: At first I thought that all of the research was going to be boring but i was so very wrong, once I went online and started seeing how amazing the art was i was fascinated with how they made it and what made a person want to immortalize cows and lions on cave walls.

IMPRESSION: One thing that really got me was the "Lion Man" figure, it was just really interesting, and seemed to me to be made from someone that had a big imagination.

PART 2

Since the dawn of time people have been making art, even before people knew what art was.  It was a way of expression, and now for us a way of understanding, almost like a time capsule, to show how things were.  "Cave art probably meant different things to the different people who saw it, depending on their age, experience and specific needs and desires."(Art History, 4th Edition, M. Stokstad/M.W. Cothren, p. 1)

The movement of people took place100,000 to 35,000 years ago.(Art History, 4th Edition, M. Stokstad/M.W. Cothren, p. 2) There were no cars or planes to move them, and people were not exactally like you and me today.  There is however a thing that hasn't changed, the human need to make art.  "As early as 30,000 BCE small figures, or figurines, of people and animals made of bone, ivory, stone, and clay appeared in Europe and Asia."(Art History, 4th Edition, M. Stokstad/M.W. Cothren, p. 5)  this to me is a huge deal, its not even likely that the animals that people were carving or painting were just standing still making it easy for the artist, not at all.  if anything it was the opposite the artist would see the animal running by and have the urge to carve or paint it, which amazes me by the amount of detail that is given to such works.  what also amazes me is that people didn't only paint or carve from life but one piece of art shows that imagination was also being used.  The figure was of a part lion and part human male that was made from ivory off of a mammoths tusk.(Art History, 4th Edition, M. Stokstad/M.W. Cothren, p. 5)  One thought also is that people from this time saw things differently about humans and animals.  They might have thought that they can take the power of that animal into them by painting it or carving it, and that this would make them stronger.(http://www.students.sbc.edu/ogborn03/prehistoricart.htm) 

People back in the day and now make art for the fact of making something beautiful.(Art History, 4th Edition, M. Stokstad/M.W. Cothren, p. 8) As a artist of the 21st Century I can say that making art to me is a uncontrollable urge to make something.  Its not even the fact that this artwork might be world famous, although that is a big dream, its more along the lines of making something that you hope people will love as much as you do.  Its an indescribable feeling.  "...There has always been an agreement that decorated caves must have a special meaning because people returned to them time after time over many generations, in some cases over thousands of years."(Art History, 4th Edition, M. Stokstad/M.W. Cothren, p. 8)  The need to make art is amazing, its something that over time has become more and more popular, its a way to show feelings and emotions without words.  I'm sure that people in the age of making cave art were not looking for eternal glory as the artist of today. But  that one thing that they were thinking was to leave something behind to be remembered, and if people from that time continued to make art and not draw over the art that was already made must have been a sign of respect. For people to still be finding these paintings and carvings today amazes me.

Topic Essay Question #1

ESSAY #1c
COMPARE & CONTRAST – Mother Earth, Fertility, Love and More?

QUESTION: Describe the functional purpose of the Venus of Willendorf and the Venus De Milo. How is their imagery similar? How is it different? Find a third Venus example to compare and contrast these two to and describe why you selected it.

PART 1

SUMMARY:  This question helped me realize that the female form is the international symbol of fertility.  Its just that over time that symbol changed from being curvy to being thin and slender.


REASON:  I think that the main reason for answering this question was to gain insight on how the female form and fertility have always been around and play a big role in art.

PURPOSE:  The purpose was to show me how fertility and the female form was used a lot in art and hasn't changed much over the years.
DIRECTION:  It has shown me that the female form is still just as important to art today as it was back then but now being thin and not as plump is what is considered beautiful.


IMPRESSION: The biggest one for me was realizing the dates in which all of these pieces were made and how little the concept changed, that was cool.


PART 2
In the times of old, women were looked upon to be a symbol of fertility and motherhood. They often were full figured and considered to be beautiful. Which is much different than how we as a society see women today. us looking at models that look so thin that if a wind was to come by that they might just fall over. This is what I'm going to talk about, the images of the Venus of Willendorf, the Venus De Milo and also the painting The Birth of Venus, and how they all relate and or don't relate to each other.

The Venus of Willendorf is a clear image of fertility, just based off of her curves alone. The Venus of Willendorf was found in 1908 by the archeologist Josef Szombathy, she is only four and three eights inches tall and is made from a type of limestone,  it is said that she was made sometime between 24,000 and 22,000 BCE. (http://arthistoryresources.net/willendorf/willendorfdiscovery.html) When she is compared to the Venus De Milo who I have personally seen while in the Lourve in Paris there is not much that is diffrent between them. The first thing that comes to mind is that the Venus De Milo or aka Aphrodite of Melos (Art History, 4th Edition, M. Stokstad/M.W. Cothren, p. 157) has a face unlike the Venus of Willendorf. Also taking into account that the Venus De Milo is the goddess Aphrodite, who is known to be the goddess of love. "Aphrodite was found on the island of Milos by French excavators in the early nineteenth century."(Art History, 4th Edition, M. Stokstad/M.W. Cothren, p. 156) The Venus De Milo is also somewhat clothed with "the rich three-dimensionality of the drapery" (Art History, 4th Edition, M. Stokstad/M.W. Cothren, p. 157) that is around her waist. Her stance is also something to be looked at since you don't see people pose in this way all the time it gives her an erotic feeling since the drapes are falling off of her body. (Art History, 4th Edition, M. Stokstad/M.W. Cothren, p. 156)  She is also quite tall standing at 6' 8" and is made from marble.  It is believed that she was made somewhere between 150 and 100 BCE.  (Art History, 4th Edition, M. Stokstad/M.W. Cothren, p. 157)

The Venus that I picked is the painting called The Birth of Venus which was made by Sandro Botticelli in 1486.(http://suzannehill.suite101.com/meaning_in_the_birth_of_venus-a17743) The main reason that I picked her as my Venus was because my art mentor talked about how much she had to talk about it in her art history class, so I thought that I would put it in here for her.  The painting has the same elements of the Venus De Milo and also the Venus of Willendorf.  The Birth of Venus painting has the same dreamy gaze and twisted stance as the Venus De Milo(Art History, 4th Edition, M. Stokstad/M.W. Cothren, p. 157) in my opinion.  Instead of cloth to cover her she has her hair that has the same quality's.