Our Last Post

The art period that I enjoyed the most over the quarter has to be the Early Medieval art. The reason I was drawn to this period was because of all the references to the catholic religion. I love all the work that came out of the period that we went over in class. In every piece there is always a deeper meaning and I really liked that about the art work. I had to think about the references to every piece and what the artist was really trying to represent in their work. I also really like how there was so much detail in we works we studied in class from the Early Medieval Era.    

One piece that I loved in the Early Medieval art is the Doors of Bishop Bernward. When looking at the doors I find it so interesting because there is so much going on in each registrar. I love how one side is the New Testament and on the other side is the Old Testament and when looking at both beside each other it has a connecting themes.  To me this piece is almost like a puzzle each piece goes together for some reason and you the viewer have to figure it out. Nothing in each registrar is meaningless, everything from the plants to the way someone looks all has something to do with the whole meaning behind the piece.

Another piece I really liked in this era is the Crucifixion with Angels and Mourning Figures, Lindau Gospel. Not only is the cover so beautiful but it is so detailed. I cannot even imagine how expensive that gospel is. It is made with gold, pearls, sapphires, garnets, and emeralds. I like how Christ is looking at the viewer as in the way to say he has conquered sin. The people below him are mourning his death but the angels above him are happy. The shape of the cross feels a little off from what we know today what the cross looked like, but none the less this piece is so beautiful.

Lastly a piece that I enjoyed in the period was the Gero Crucifix. It is a life-size wooden carving of the crucifix. It is so beautiful to me because it is so simple. The body of Christ is highly detailed but the choice of color and design over all is very simple comparative to the other works I have spoken about. The fact that this Crucifix is life-size makes it so power to me because you are able to look at Christ in so much more detail then if it were small. The expression on Jesus’ face is sad for me to look at but it holds a lot of meaning for me too.  It is showing the life here was sad but now he has saved us from our sin. I love the detail in the cloth that is covering him. The way it looks so textured and how it looks like it is moving. Overall this piece to me was very powerful. Lastly I wanted to say that I have really enjoyed looking at all this works of art this quarter and being about to talk about it. It was a lot of fun for me Thank you.

The Doors of Bishop Bernward

This week I have chosen to talk about the Doors of Bishop Bernward. The two panels horizontal to each other that I will be talking about is the seventh one down, the Offerings by Cain (grain) and Abel (lamb) and the Nativity, you can find a great picture in our book on page 449.  I have a very religious background so for me I love looking at these doors and coming up with my own interpretation for them. In the two panels there are a lot of similarity to each other, I find it very interesting how the artist came up with this idea to pair these images from the Old Testament to the New Testament. All of the panels seem to match with each other almost perfectly.

There are a ton of similarity between the Offerings scene and the Nativity scene. First off the fact that both scenes have to do with children, the Offerings scene is Eve’s Children and the Nativity is with Mary’s Child. Next in the title Offerings by Cain and Abel, Abel was Offerings the Lamb to God, and the in Nativity God is giving us the Lamb of God. When looking at the Nativity and in what I know about what happened, Offerings were given to Christ from the three wise men when he was born like gold, frankincense, and myrrh. When looking back at the Offerings by Cain as it says in the title Grain being Cain and Lamb being Abel they were Offerings to God to show his faith and love. Another interesting parallel I found is that Abel’s lamb was the first sacrifice to take away sin, and Jesus was the sacrificed to save us from sin. It is interesting to see the unique similarities just in what the story was about and the title of both panels.

Now let us talk about the compositions of the Offerings by Cain and Abel versus the Nativity panel. I am going to start with the Offerings by Cain and Abel first, when taking a good look at the panel and knowing the background God is reaching his hand down to take the offerings from Abel but not from Cain. The plants that are growing in the background on Abel’s side are going and become new and fruitful but on Cain side they are tangled and are not growing as strong and beautiful as Abel’s, which is telling the reader that God was not in favor with what Cain had brought him. Abel sacrificed a lamb for his sins and Cain brought fruit and grains and God was not happy with Cain’s choice.  In this panel there is not a lot going on composition wise it is very open and clean. But when looking at the Nativity scene there is almost too much going on that I can’t really tell what is going on, there is just a ton of reliefs pushed into this panel. The low reliefs in the background are of buildings, which is different from what we learned Christ was born in which was a stable. Jesus is on the top right hand side in his bed but not as a baby as a grown man. It is really hard for me to tell but I think Mary is lying in the bed while Joseph watches over her. In the composition of these two panels are very different the Nativity scene is so much more busy then the Offerings scene. It is interesting because I find it so easy to read the Offerings scene but when looking at the Nativity scene from what I know about the birth of Christ I can’t really tell what is going on in this panel. In all these themes in both panels are very similar but the composition of both panels are very different.

Option# 2

The Sarcophagus of Junius Bassus from Early Christianity art versus Augustus of Primporta from Roman art. Both have different uses but are very similar in style. It is a bit of a stretch between the two pieces but there is similar skill level and propaganda in both.  Augustus is formed in the round as for the sarcophagus is mainly made up of relief sculptures. But in the breast plate of Augustus is a high relief, which is has interesting propaganda reflected in the story. The similarities and differences of Augustus and Sarcophagus of Junius are very interesting to dig deeper and figure out when looking at the pieces side by side.

Let start by pointing out what pages both pieces are in the book, Augustus of Primaporta is on page 175 in the ancient art book, as for the Sarcophagus of Junius Bassus is on page 230 in the Medieval book if you would like to follow along. Starting with Augustus of Primporta was made for Julius Caesar’s nephew Augustus it was made out of bronze and produced in the round. When looking at the Augustus statue it is very detailed. The way the cloth looks that Augustus is holding is very natural true to life. Augustus is in a composite pose and has an oratory gesture. His haircut is said to look like his uncles Julius Caesar showing a reference to power. There are few reliefs in this piece to reference a god, one in being with the cupid by his feet and the dolphin signifying Vensus and the fact that he is not wearing any shoes. Not wearing shoes is what the Gods were believed to do as a symbol of strength.  Also on his breastplate there are the Gods supporting him in his successes in war. This is similar to the Sarcophagus to how the style is so strong and beautiful and both use propaganda.

Now to the Sarcophagus of Junius Bassus was for a Roman official Junius Bassus, the sarcophagus is a high relief of the Old and New Testament. This piece is very interesting because it shows the New Testament on the top register and on the bottom is the Old Testament.  The reliefs look very similar to the sculpture of Augustus in style. They both have very beautiful reliefs that are very detailed. The fact that this testament of Christ’s life is imprinted on the sarcophagus shows a sign of power or propaganda. The third relief on the top register is a big similarity to the Roman art piece of Augustus because Jesus is shown stepping on a God. Showing power over believing in more then one god. Though Augustus believed in more then one God, the sarcophagus is showing power over others using a belief in a higher power.  

Option Number One

Winckelmann I feel had an effect on our view on Greek art today but not a huge one. The whole idea of good taste being simple and pure is huge to this day, but comparing it to the Greek statues that are painted is way off. I understand the views of simple as the sculpture are very clean and white. When looking at many of the statues in the book like the West Pediment of the Temple of Aphaia it is very clean and pure in a way but there is no realism to the piece. The facial expressions in the face are smiling and if someone were fighting they would be determined looking and maybe even angry. But when looking at a closer look like in the Archer we find that it would have been painted. The recreation of the Archer shows a lot of detail and the use of bright colors making Winckelmann idea way off.

I think maybe without Winckelmann idea of simple and pure that art work may have been different. Today white place in art is looked at as very beautiful and simple and elegant. But who really knows if that whole idea that we view today is from him. Maybe that is just one person’s idea of beauty. There are many works of art today that aren’t simple and clean like for example Vincent Van Gogh’s work the paint is very thick and there is practically no white space in his work. Every piece he did was beautiful and pure but complicated at the same time. I feel a yes and no to Winckelmann idea making modern art produced in a simple and in little color, because it is really up to the artist to believe in what they think is beautiful. I understand the view of clean and pure as being good taste but I don’t like it. I don’t like being told what is beautiful just because someone else thinks it is. What is the point of art if you aren’t able to express yourself?

The Greek painted statues are very interesting because this is what Winckelmann think is simple and pure but they used a lot of color and beautiful designs on them. When looking at the Archer the pattern that was reconstructed on the body of the man was so enteric that it is hard to see what this idea of simple and pure is coming from. The Peplos Kore is another example of the colors and patterns being everything but simple. She is full of color and though you would not be able to see that in less you saw the reconstruction.

The views on Greek art have changed from being simple and pure and using little to no color since the recreation of the Archer.  In the recreation of the Archer we can really see the beautiful and bright colors they used and maybe even the design that they actually had on the statues themselves. Looking at the Peplos Kore one can see some remains of the paint in her hair. When going online and seeing the recreation of her it is amazing how different and not simple she looks. She has a lot of bright and beautiful patterns on her. The use of beautiful color makes her not simple and gives her a sense of realism. It gives the statue more of a personality then just plain white. The reconstructions really help us see how interesting and difficult looking patterns looked like, to help us look further into what the Greek people really looked like. 

Ti Watching A Hippo VS. Bull Leaping

I am doing option number one and I will be comparing the Egyptian Ti Watching A Hippopotamus Hunt from the Fifth Dynasty with the Minoan Bull Leaping from the late Minoan Period. I will be comparing the style of the two pieces, the medium in which they are made, and the subject matter and also geographically how close both cultures were to each other. These two pieces have very interesting similarities and differences being from two different continents. You can really see how they look like the Egyptians influenced the Minoans. It is interesting how distance does not affect how the Minoans may have been influenced, seeing’s that at the time trading was big with the Minoans.

First lets talk about the style of the two pieces. When looking at the Ti Watching A Hippopotamus Hunt and the Bull Leaping, they both show a story of a male working against a beast of some kind. It shows strength between a man and beast. There are a lot of textures between both pictures. With the Egyptian piece you can see the texture in the limestone medium that they chose to carve into. There are patterns and animals on the patterns making the texture of the piece pop out more. With the Bull Leaping there are patterns around the outside but within the bull figure the lines that are what I assume is hair give another form of texture.  The figures in both pieces seem flat. A quote from our Art History book from Marilyn Stokstad and Michael W. Cothren that tells a better understanding of what I am trying to say, “They (Minoans) preferred profile or full-faced views, and they turned natural forms into decorative patterns through stylization”.  The Egyptians and Minoans both used a profile view in the human and animal figures. Both piece in this profile sense seem like they are in the same era, which is interesting when looking at where both countries were.

The Ti Watching A Hippopotamus Hunt was in the tomb of Ti in Saqqara Egypt from the Fifth Dynasty. As for the Bull Leaping fresco is from the Palace Complex of Crete Greece.  The only thing separating the two different states is the Mediterranean Sea. Knowing that the Minoans traded a lot by sea one could see how the Egyptians could easily influence the Minoans in this fresco.

Both piece have a painted value to each. They Egyptians actually cut into the limestone and then painted over it with dark reds and yellows. As for the Minoans they painted right onto the wall but again using dark colors and almost gold’s. One cause really see in the texture and color and also in the figures themselves the Egyptians highly influenced the Minoans. In both pieces they use very rich color and textures to illustrate the story they want to tell. They both have a strong male controlling a beast of sorts.

Ziggurat of Ur VS. The Pyramids of Giza

I chose to go with option one doing a comparative analysis on the Ziggurat of Ur vs. Pyramids at Giza. I have chosen to put both the pictures up so everyone could see exactly what I am talking about. My comparisons are going to be similarities of differences between the size to the two buildings, the medium in which they are made, the function on them and a little about the style and design of the structures.

My first comparison is about the size difference between the Ziggurat of Ur and The Pyramids at Giza. Looking at the size in both pictures it is hard to tell if one is bigger than the other. Ziggurat of Ur is estimated of around 150 feet. The Pyramids is around 450 feet. The size difference is pretty huge between the two. But the structures of the two look alike. The Ziggurat and the Pyramids both have the triangle shape. Though the Ziggurat is made of rectangles it stacks on top each other to make a triangle shape. With the size of them both being so big and in a triangle shape makes the connection that they both were reaching for something bigger then themselves, like a God or the Heavens. Also the size gives both the buildings a imitation factor. The Ziggurat looks so imitating in the fact that you can see that there are heavily gated passage ways to get into the building’s roof.

The medium of the Pyramid at Giza is made up of stone, and as for the Ziggurat it is made up of mud brick. When looking at the buildings they look like they are made out of the same stone. It is interesting that the way they both look resembles each other. They fact that they are both triangle shape and made with the same medium almost makes it look like it was made by the same person but at a different time. The fact that they are both have the same hard looking stone also tells me they were trying hard to make the buildings unbreakable. Make them strong so that no one could destroy them. They are both solid buildings which is another similarity they have, furthering onto the whole strength of the buildings.

The two different structures were used in different ways but in a small way are still similar to each other. The Ziggurat of Ur was used for a religious ritual to please the Gods and give thanks to them by giving them food and gifts. They wanted to be as close as they could to the heavens so it was easy for the Gods to come down. As for the Pyramids at Giza it was used as a religious belief that we have an afterlife with our ka. Inside this solid pyramid are tunnels to different places in the pyramid, some were to just trick thieves and others had the tomb of where king’s body lies. Inside these tombs would lye riches and things that the afterlife would need. Both structures were used to put riches in and they were believed to be used for something bigger than the life they knew then. The only difference is what they the people believed it was used for and the places they held their rituals. The Ziggurat rituals were on top of the temple and the Pyramids have their rituals inside the structure. 

Lamassus

My formal analysis is on the Lamassus or as it is named in the book Guardian Figures at the Gate A of the Citadel of Sargon II during its Excavation. It is a great example of Ancient Near East modern Kharsabad art. It is 13’ 10” tall, towering over who ever stands under it. The Lamassus is a huge cement lion or bull with wings and a man’s face. When looking at this massive structure it is hard not to feel intimidated and that they are very powerful beings. The Lamassus stands so tall and strong in this high relief that is very intimidated to look at, one could say they feel very powerless it their precise.

The first thing I would like to talk about is the obvious scale of this structure making whomever looking at it feel powerless. When walking up to the gate and seeing the Lamassus, and humans averaging around the height of 5 to 6’ we would only come up to the top of this beings legs. If it were alive it could easy just squish us. From every angle of this relief the legs are very long and strong. From the side view it could be taken as the Lamassus is running or coming towards you. Again looking at the side view we see these huge almost stretched out wings and for me showing another sign of running or charging. For me this would scare me if it were coming at me, having power over me and intimidation.

The medium of this relief also is another representation of strength and power. To what I can tell from the pictures of the Lamassus it looks like it is made out of a stone or brick like medium. Being made out of most liking stone, as a relief it shows a very powerful being. It is a hard and strong medium, meaning that even if you wanted to you couldn’t destroy it with your own two hands. I want to also point out that the whole stone is not carved into it has a sense of white space in the piece. When looking at the Lamassus in the frontal view the statue on the left and right sides is just blank stone. That for me shows strength too, reason being the figure is coming out of this stone, it not only has the strength of the Lamassus but also of this huge bolder. To put into better terms if the guardians fail to keep the enemy out this huge wall will not.

The style of the Lamassus I feel is representational style. With the huge lion like creature coming out of the stone makes it feel like it is very alive. The way the high relief is so strongly coming out of the stone and the creature’s life like features makes it feel scary. Also at the head of the Lamassus is a human face, showing the mix between power and strength in humans and beast. The very defined way everything is coming out of the stone and how detailed it is very life like. Something I found very interesting about the style is how the feet of the creature are hooves making it feel like it could jump right out of the stone.

When looking at the Lamassus it is easy to see how this huge guardian can be very intimating. It stands strong with its defined high relief body. It is a very powerful structure and was probably used to keep enemies away. It shows strength in the legs and body or the whole relief. Every feature of this piece is a representation of strength and power. 

Venus of Willendorf

At first look at the Venus of Willendorf it is a hard think this is beautiful. Knowing in society today something like this figure is not appealing to the masses. But I feel this little figure describes beauty in so many ways. I learned a little about her in my first art history class. Looking at her a second time I am finding different things about this figure I didn't know before. I know she was said to be carried around kinda like a lucky charm for women to have good fertility. I found it interesting the different details on the figure had so many reason to why it might have been made that way. For example the Venus not having any feet, it could be that it was so she wouldn't walk away or that women don't need to have feet to be fertile. Going into the actual blog questions now, the reason we should talk about the Venus even though we know so little about her is because we are able to look into the past and see what they have done. Maybe she is what they era thought was beautiful, maybe she was what the women actually looked like. Though we don't know a lot about the Venus doesn't mean we can't get ideas or try to figure out ourselves what she was for. For me I think that if we look at this figure and become open minded to why she was created the way she was that she would become something amazing. I look at her and I want to figure her out. She shows the first signs of human curiosity about ourselves. The word Venus I think was used because it has a sexuality to the figure, a very open sexuality. The reason the term Venus is so problematic is because Venus was never thought of as very sexual, everything about this figure is just out there in the open and for a lot people that was not what the Venus was about. Venus was tasteful in sexuality and in love. As for the Venus of Willendorf everything about her from her chest to her bum are enlarged. Venus of Willendorf was nothing like the perfect Venus in all the works of art from the Renaissance era. In the article The Venus of Willendorf that is online, I feel the beauty of the figure comes from the understanding that she looks more fat then pregnant. The figure meaning that she was a lucky woman who didn't have the many tasks of hunting and gathering. If people carried her around for good luck that meant in some way they wanted to be like her. The figure was beautiful to them and a sign of hope of a good life of leisure. In today's society the wanted look is some Photoshop woman on a magazine. I feel that if the article is true about the woman wanting to look like this fatter woman, that our views today have changed quiet a bit. It is sad to think that no one thinks the way they did back then. In today's world bigger is not better, beauty is looking like you are half dead. Beauty should instead be full of life. 

Introduction

Hi my name is Laura Offe, I am a Graphic Design major. This is my senior year of college but I still have two years left till I graduate. I love art, I mostly love making art. I draw and do photography and most recently my new passion is graphic design. I got my associates in Fine Arts in Sheridan Wyoming, and then I transferred here to get my Bachelors in Graphic Design. So needless to say I have already taken art history classes but Central does not except them. So I am very glad there is an online class for me to take, reason being I can't stand being in another three hour lecture class about art. Don't get me wrong I love art and I love looking at art and talking about it, but I don't want another lecture class. That being said one of the main things I wish I could have remembered and retained from my art history classes is the names of the artists the paintings that I really enjoyed. We also learned lots about different cathedrals and it was really interesting for me. I loved looking at the cathedrals and saying one day I would love to see that in person and be able to tell people the story behind them. My old art history teacher gave us a lot of background to the art which I really enjoyed. I am really hope the class will be like that in some ways because it would make thing interesting for me. Over all I am pretty excited for this class, I am excited to see some amazing pieces of art again and get a second opinion. It is also a nice change to be able to blog about what we think and feel, instead of having a seven page paper at the end of the quarter. So thank you for that! :)

~Laura Offe