Week #5 Post 5

Agean Art

Option #1



I chose to compare Bull's Head Rhyton from the Minoan culture to The Great Lyre With Bull's Head from the ancient near eastern Arcadian culture in Ur. I believe that they are similar in many more ways than they are different, culturally and physically because of the common symbolism of the Bull displaying power.

            But first, the ways they are different are also important to look at. For example, the Great Lyre's Bull head has a very stylized beard and hair made from lapis lazuli that hangs down far past its chin. However the Bull in the Rhyton form is more realistic in its rendering, and although squiggly lines are still used to form the idea of curly hair on its head and face, it can be more accurately compared to that of a real living bull. Also instead of using fine materials such as the gold, silver, lapis lazuli and Bitumen seen in the Great Lyre, The Bull's head Rhyton only uses a common form of soap stone called Steatite, shells, rock crystal and red jasper.  

            Both Bulls are stylized, one more than the other. For example the Bull's Head Rhyton uses bright blue for its fur, and elegant golden horns that stretch upwards in an elegant swoop. The Bull's head on the Great Lyre is easier to see the cultural background and stylization with the long locks of curling hair for the beard, the large open and outlined eyes, the large ears, and the golden flesh color of the fur and horns. Both cultures used imagery of the bull for its representation of strength, power, and fertility. Also it seems as if both forms of art were used for a religious purpose, or ceremony. Although the Bull's head Rhyton is in itself entirely the bull's head, the Great Lyre seen in the previous culture features the bull's head as only a kind of decoration on the bigger piece. this piece being an insturment including a story element below the head. Because of this we can easily see the cultural birthplace as it were that each piece was born into. In the Minoan culture Rhytons were used frequently in different styles for celebration or religious ritual, and were intended to be carried instead of set on display. Where as the Great Lyre with Bull's Head was born into a culture that was obsessed with religious nuances and story telling through pictures. So both pieces easily reflect their home countries, even though they are decently far away from one another.

            I find it interesting also that both pieces had to have the wooden element of the art restored because they didnt hold up against the daily use and battery of careless hands through the ages, and possibly even because of similar climate difficulties that could have affected the deterioration rate of both items. But all in all, both pieces were held in high reverie, and were used often because of that reason, and used well. For the beauty that each piece still holds to this day is astounding.

Week #4

Ancient Egypt & How it Compares. 

Option #1

To compare the pyramids at Gizeh and the Ziggurats of the ancient near east, one must look to all aspects of each in order to do it properly. To begin with is the most obvious comparison, the juxtaposition of each structures appearance.

            First, while looking at the Ziggurat in Ur we see a rectangle like structure with 3 sets of stairs all leading to the top where there is a series of smaller rectangles leading up to the top of the structure. However it still mostly retains its rectangular like feeling. Everything on a ziggurat is easily seen and it is massively decorated on the exterior to give of richness and holiness. Also, the ancient people of Ur used the Ziggurats as a means of getting closer to the Gods who were perceived to live on holy mountains. Or places that were very high up. The people of Ur made the Ziggurats to worship as closely to the Gods as possible. The intention of the Ziggurats themselves was to get high enough to reach the Gods, so there was no need to put anything on the inside of the temple. As a forethought, Ziggurats weren't made out of large blocks of stone as the pyramids were, but a much easier element to construct with, and sturdy in its own right, mud bricks. These bricks were made one by one by hand, and then easily transported to the building place. Because they were not that big on their own they were easy to create and didn't take the massive amount of manpower and creativity to move as were the 2.5 ton stones used in the creation of the pyramids.

            Now on the other hand we have the Pyramids at Gizeh, most of their lavish decorations are on the interior tombs within the pyramids and the exterior (as it once was) was a simple white limestone with a golden tip. Where as this can be compared to the purity of the Gods of the time period, and is rather impressive in its own right, it was less a feature of timeless carving and detailing than as an overall structure. Also easily compared are the lack of staircases or any obvious means of entry into the Pyramids. They are perceived as one large structure in which only the Gods and the Ka of the deceased pharaohs could enter. Because of this, the main purpose of the pyramid could be found on the interior, not the exterior of this structure. Another obvious difference is the shape of both figures. The Ziggurat of Ur is very obviously shaped as a series of rectangles converging on top of one another, while the Pyramids are very delicately organized into a perfect rendition of one of the triangle family, a Pyramid. (a four sided 3D triangle)

            While there are many differences between these two structures, there are also some similarities shared between them. They were both perceived as holy places for very important people to visit. They were both very large structures both for their time periods, as well as in general. They both took massive amounts of time to create, and great care and attention to detail on the planning and building. They were both revered by the people of the culture in the area, and finally, they were both created in a time period that only had man made tools and labor to construct the structures.

Week #3

Art of the Ancient Near East

Assurnasirpal II Killing Lions

C. 875-860 B.C.

            In this famous Ancient Near Eastern work of art, many aspects of the time period are easily read and presented here. This image represents the power and bravery of the king and helps to make the king seem more important and otherworldly than everyone else in this image. One example would be the anarchical scale (when the most important figure of an art piece is bigger than everyone else in the picture) of the king in comparison to everyone else in the image. if you look at the two soldiers on the left, they are both the same size, even though one stands farther back than the other. however now if you look at the king on the back of the chariot, he is taller than the man behind him. Since the two soldiers are in the same picture and in a similar position as the king and chariot driver, you can just assume that the artist did it for that particular reason.

            Another aspect that is easily seen in this image is the amount of detail put into the king's clothing and the king's horses harnesses. Such fine details to spend countless hours on carving if it didn't have a specific purpose. Also a side note with the horses, usually from what I've learned about the ancient near east, the average amount of horses used to pull charioteers is two. However, in this image, to flaunt his power and ability he has three fine stallions to pull his chariot. Also as Professor Bowen stated in her lecture for ancient near eastern art, she said that Lions in that area of the world aren't as big as what we think of when we think of African lions. Therefore its odd that the lions in this image are almost as big as the horses around them, and seem to be fiercer than even the African lions. Lions were very substantial in the lives of the Assyrian people which made the image of king Assurnasirpal hunting them even more powerful. Lions were considered wild, uncivilized and bothersome in the lives of the people of that time period, thus having the image of the king killing and rising above them that much more powerful, and almost otherworldly.

            Continuing on the same topic of the lions in this low relief carving, the strength of these lions are also very detailed. They have their teeth fully shown, (both the attacking and the dying lion) long and sharp, baring and threatening the king. It's arm and shoulder muscles rippling, and even though its been shot 4 times by a series of the kings arrows, he still stands strong and angry, seemingly giving everything it has to attack the king one last time. However on the comparison the king has a calm looking expression, so calm that if you were to cover up the image of the lion it would almost seem as if he were target shooting with how calm his demeanor is. Calm in the face of adversity is also another strength the king is trying to portray, as a brave king his subjects can expect him to not cower against resisting countries or forces and instead rise up and attack with the calm means necessary to make wise decisions.

            As far as the fact that these images used to be painted bright colors to emphasize the details and really make the image pop against the stone walls, if you were to imagine the colors they used, they would probably be bright warm colors of the king and the lion, and more neutral or cool colors for the soldiers and possibly even the dying lion. I have no idea what colors were actually used, but if what I have guessed is true on the color spectrum, I would not be surprised.

            Finally and possibly most importantly, is the direction of all the people and even the animals in this image. The king is the only one brave enough to turn and face the charging lion, as the charioteer is racing forward and the soldiers are marching the lion closer and closer to the king, it basically implies that he's alone in his battle, and possibly even putting his life on the line to kill the lion. With his powerful muscles bulging he pulls back his bowstring and arrow for the final blow to the head of the lion, point blank. The hardest possible shot to get, because of how close he is to the lion, as well as the lion's desire to kill the king in one fell bite. But then again everything represented in this image is to make the king look superior to any living creature with his bravery and power. In this image alone he asserted himself by slaying two lions. Could they represent neighboring kingdoms? Or even trials he'd overcome in his lifetime?  Only the king and the artist know for sure, its a shame that they're both dust by now.