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.