Faith and Belief in Art

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 actually really enjoyed the research for this essay. It's all pretty loose and less specifically factual than my last essay, which was nice in comparison. Not to say it isn't the truth I've written! Just that there are less dates and people involved in the discussion. I had some trouble with the actual essay though. I wrote most of it at school last week but when I saved it on my flash drive it got corrupted, so instead of just finishing it up on Friday morning and uploading it before I had to work at 10, I had to re-write the whole thing. Luckily I still had my research sources or I would have been a lot worse off. Perhaps that's why the research was the best part for me?

Reason
This question was asked so that I would explore the meaning behind art-- not just the contextual understandings of any piece of work,  but the real drive behind art as a tool.

Purpose
I think this question was asking me to really think about art as a tool, but more than that, how it can shape a religion or religious practice.

Direction
For this essay, the direction I took was mostly on devotional imagery and it's place in the practice of Christianity. I also looked at the adoption of symbols from other traditions, like how Christmas is really placed on a pagan holiday, which made it more acceptable for the early Christians to celebrate.

Impressions
I'm left after writing this essay thinking a lot about the rosary and sand mandalas. Also, illuminated manuscripts, which I didn't mention in the essay proper. It was all rather interesting to look into. As someone who isn't religious (I identify as agnostic atheist, but only if asked) it was a different sort of experience thinking about how religious images can move people. But then I thought about my recent tattoos, and I remembered why I got them--part as remembrance of the me at this moment, yes, but a lot of the reason was my devotion to the games from which the symbols came from. That, in it's own was, sort of relates to how anyone could wear a cross pendant day in & out, albeit in a more permanent way. Anyhow, enjoy!


PART 2

Art existed in various forms well before religion as we know it today came to be. Whether it was simply representational of what early peoples saw in their day to day life, or some sort of response to questions on higher involvement or the meaning of life, art has always served a purpose. Of course, aesthetic or emotional release are also purposes that art can be created for. While we can appreciate art regardless of whatever reason it was created for, I believe that the advancement of religion, specifically Christianity, can not be looked at without acknowledging the importance of art in it's development.

Christianity in particular owes much to art. As a more recent religion (if you can say that about 2k years) we can trace the physical evidence with much less issue. It also helps that art gained more validity as time went on. I think Christianity and art meet up at the perfect time in both their developmental paths. For one thing, it's important to note that Christianity was not accepted as a major religion for quite some time. It wasn't until the year 313, when Constantine I issued the Edict of Milan, that Christians could worship freely.

The new religious tolerance does not exactly mean acceptance or world domination yet! But more key is the evolving of Christian art in secret or alongside the pagan and Jewish traditions. “Symbols have always played an integral role in Christian art. Some were devised just for Christianity, but most were borrowed from pagan and Jewish traditions and adopted for Christian use.” (Text, pg 238) Anything worth following is generally going to have a symbol to go alongside it, to stand for every message that would take too long to write out (or, for the earlier times, for less literacy in common-folk). More than that, though, symbols are powerful tools-- take the Swastika of the Nazis, or the hammer and sickle of the Communist party.  Or, for a less tyrannical example, any flag or logo out there, like the Red Cross' eponymous symbol. For Christians, it would be the dove, the lamb, the fish, and monograms among other things, but most importantly was of course the cross. The Evangelists have their own associated animals too. For example, Mark was often seen as a winged lion. I think I spot him in the upper left hand corner of the below image of Orpheus, in fact.

Source
Orpheus from Aegina
marble statuette
unknown artist
4th century

But for a group that wasn't tolerated? Seems pretty ballsy to straight up draw a lamb with the Chi  Rho, a halo, and the alpha and omega symbols all in front of a cross and hope to get away with it. That's not exactly what they were doing, though. They instead cleverly used context to their advantage.

 “Christians began to use the visual arts to instruct worshipers as well as glorify God. Almost no examples of specifically Christian art exist before the early third century, and even then it drew it's styles and imagery from Jewish and classical traditions. In this process, known as syncretism, artists assimilate images from other traditions and give them new meanings. The borrowings can be unconscious or quite deliberate. For example, orant figures—worshipers with arms outsretched—can be pagan, Jewish, or Christian, depending on the context in which they occur. Perhaps the most important of these syncretic images is the Good Shepard. In pagan art, he was Apollo, or Hermes the shepherd, or Orpheus among the animals. He became the Good Shepherd of the Psalms and Gospels to the Jews and Christians.” (Text, pg 239)

In another pertinent example, the Sarcophagus of the Church of Santa Maria Antiqua in Rome shows an image that any viewer, regardless of creed, could accept:

“The subject of the sculpture would be appropriate for either a pagan or Christian family […] Nothing represented here could offend pagan sensibilities. But to the informed Christian, the orant is the Christian soul, the seated man is the teaching Christ, followed by Christ the Good Shepherd and a scene of baptism. The sleeping youth is Jonah, resting after his ordeal, and the monster is the classical form of a dog-headed serpent.” (Text, pg 241)

Source
Sarcophagus of Santa Maria Antiqua
marble(?)
unknown artist
c. 270

It was in this way, using adopted symbols and syncretic imagery, that the early Christians could use art to their advantage. But at this point, one must wonder, what is the big deal for art? Why is it so important that they needed to have it, to sneakily display iconography in an almost cultist (modern connotation, mind) sort of way? Art is many things to different peoples, but to the Christians, it was devotion at it's best.

"Not surprisingly, Christianity has extended its influence to many works of Western art. Artists use their artworks to express their own faith or to describe Biblical events and views on Christianity. Often, their works are designed to have a special effect on the viewer. Some works of art are devotionals, designed to make the viewer think deeply about faith and beliefs. Other works are intended to teach the viewer. Some works are dramatic and emotional, used to make the viewer feel a sense of love, fear, or respect for Christianity. And some artworks are used in Christian rituals." (http://www.artsmia.org/world-religions/christianity/)

Personally, when it comes to art, I enjoy a good story mixed with some nice aesthetics. Though I am not Christian or religious in any twist of the meaning, I'll admit that the 'stories' found in the Bible, or in any religion's holy book(s), are fascinating to say the least. Like above stated, art could be used to tell these stories, or to express a personal faith. It could be used to teach or evoke emotion or thought. The most vital in terms of art's role in advancing the religion is the use as a devotional tool.

Devotional images are defined as the “isolation of a holy image from a narrative context in order to promote spiritual contemplation and prayer.”(http://arthistory.about.com/od/glossary_d/a/d-devotional-image.htm) Basically, they serve to give rise to religious thought. Icons of Jesus or Mary, or any of the saints, have inspired millions of devotees. Take any person you've seen with a cross necklace, and that's a fine example. I think, partially due to the timing and prior development of the arts, that Christian art works incredibly well at it's intended goal. Like we've repeatedly discussed in class, iconoclasms occur because these images are so evocative for either devotion, as was intended by early Christians, or the rage that fuels one to destroy art, surely not intentional.

Although he was writing more to note how art has lost it's integral part in our culture in more recent years,  I feel that Dewitt Parker hits the significance of devotion in this quote: "In subtle ways, the influence of art, while remaining indirect, may affect practical action in a more concrete fashion. For silently, unobtrusively, when constantly attended to, a work of art will transform the background of values out of which action springs. The beliefs and sentiments expressed will be accepted not for the moment only, aesthetically and playfully, but for always and practically; they will become a part of our nature. The effect is not merely to enlarge the scope of our sympathies by making us responsive, as all art does, to every human aspiration, but rather to strengthen into resolves those aspirations that meet in us an answering need. This influence is especially potent during the early years of life, before the framework of valuations has become fixed. What young man nursed on Shelley's poetry has not become a lover of freedom and an active force against all oppression? But even in maturer years art may work in this way. One cannot live constantly with the “Hermes” of Praxiteles without something of its serenity entering into one's soul to purge passion of violence, or with Goethe's poetry without its wisdom making one wise to live. The effect is not to cause any particular act, but so to mold the mind that every act performed is different because of this influence.

Source
Sand Mandala
colored sand
Namgyal monks
(recent, no date given)

When I think of the power of art I inevitably think of the sand mandala. "The Sand Mandala is a Tibetan Buddhist tradition involving the creation and destruction of mandalas made from colored sand. A sand mandala is ritualistically destroyed once it has been completed and its accompanying ceremonies and viewing are finished to symbolize the Buddhist doctrinal belief in the transitory nature of material life." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sand_mandala) It seems strange, to create such a beautiful work and then allow it to be taken apart after the hours put into it. In actuality, this is just another example about how art develops alongside a religion. The mandala, as a form of religious art, serves it's purpose to remind Buddhists of their belief in the impermanence of life and the world-- and it does that by showing through example. Yet it is not so unlike the icons of Jesus or the varied biblical scenes that then contemporary or current worshipers hold dear. It is used to cause spiritual thought. For a not specifically art-related example, the rosary of the Roman Catholic or Marian faiths are just about the most exemplary form of devotional object. Although there are numerous methods to using the rosary in prayer, especially depending on the denomination, they hold true as a great example of devotion.

It's not to say that without art, Christianity would not exist today. But I do think Christianity as we know it would not be here in the same form. One of the most notable things about Christianity in the study of art history is the sheer prevalence of Christian imagery throughout the times. No matter the period, I'm sure you can find some Christian iconography or even simply the multitude of biblical scenes portrayed by thousands of artists over time. Just as Christianity pervades art, so does art penetrate the Christian experience.

Domes

QUESTION: Describe the technology of dome building in chronological order of the Roman Pantheon, the Hagia Sophia and Brunelleschi’s dome on the church of Santa Maria de la Fiore. How did the time period, geographic location and available technology affect these masterpieces of architecture? Describe what other factors they all have in common.

PART 1

Summary
There was a lot of research that needed to be done for this essay. I found that videos were the best resource, as they used graphics to explain architectural concepts I didn't really understand initially.

Reason
I remember covering Brunelleschi's dome in my previous Art History course. Sometimes, artists in the 2D tradition forget how magnificent a statement architecture can make. I believe this question was asked to get me more involved in how architecture was a tool of the times just as much as sculpture and painting could be.

Purpose
I believe this question wanted me to focus on how technology and geography could effect construction of as difficult a structure as the dome, using these three examples.

Direction
Like I said above, I'd learned about Brunelleschi's dome before, which was why I wanted to answer this question. I remember being intrigued by his solution, but learning more about these other domes really helped me understand how troublesome domes really are. The research involved in this essay has supplemented my appreciation for architecture, to put it mildly.

Impressions
I was interested to learn that the oculus actually helps support the structure! I thought it would rather do the opposite, but it's quite literally the same in function to a keystone, which I found interesting.

PART 2

Most political buildings today have this big architectural similarity: domes. Domed roofs appear in places of power and importance, making a statement about the inhabitants as well as the society around it. Nowadays, they impress an elegance as well as being imposing. Take the Rhode Island Statehouse in Providence for a nearby example. It's lofty, beautiful, and intimidating all at once. Construction for the Statehouse was finished in 1904, but this building's design inspiration, as with many other political buildings, can be found long ago in these prominent domed ceilings: The Pantheon in Rome, the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul, and Brunelleschi;s dome on the Church of Santa Maria de la Fiore in Florence.

The Pantheon, in my opinion, is the clearest origin story for the popularity of the dome. We look to Roman culture as the birthplace for much of the western mentality and style, though I consider them as more of a surrogate mother to Grecian culture personally. But one thing the Romans had in spades was ingenuity and innovation. The use of concrete as a major construction tool is a perfect example of their technological savvy.

"The Romans were pragmatic, and their practicality extended from recognizing and exploiting undeveloped potential in construction methods and physical materials to organizing large-scale building works. Their exploitation of the arch and vault is typical of their adapt-and-improve approach. Their innovative use of concrete, beginning in the first century BCE, was a technological breakthrough of the greatest importance. In contrast to stone--which was expensive and difficult to quarry and transport-- the components of concrete were cheap, relatively light, and easily transported. Building stone structures required highly skilled masons, but a large, semi-skilled workforce directed by a few experienced supervisors could construct brick faced concrete buildings...Concrete's one weakness was that it absorbed moisture, so builders covered exposed surfaces with a veneer, or facing, of finer materials, such as marble..." (Text, pg 182-83)

Emperor Hadrian was responsible for the Pantheon. He was greatly influenced by Greek culture and so named it (pan= all, theon= gods in Greek). It is understood as a embodiment of the heavens and of the roman ideal of the cosmos. It was constructed out of varying grades of concrete and external marble veneer. The interior, as shown in the image gallery below, shows that the Pantheon's dome is a hemisphere with an oculus (circular opening) at it's highest point, with a large rectangular entryway attached. Square coffers (inlets) circle in rings the inside of the dome, stopping with a wide space before the oculus. The walls are painted, and there are inlets with statues along the walls. It makes for an incredible sight, but above that, it's a technological feat of great importance. Much of the design comes directly out of the need for physical support.

Domes are not in any way easy to make, but it's even harder to keep them stable. The dome was preceded by the arch, something we all associate with Rome because of the aqueducts. When rotated in a circle, you get the dome's form. The aqueducts arches were made stable with the use of a keystone, without which they would surely collapse. That in itself was a breakthrough. The dome had many more issues. Initially they were implemented in everyday structures like the bathhouse, but in much smaller scale. In the Pantheon's case, the large size gives the open space the dome was valued for, but shows us the numerous problems. For one thing, the downwards push of gravity versus the upwards push of the masonry on the curve usually provides strength through compression. It's the reason the oculus is possible at the top. However, the material used was incredibly heavy, and the downwards push of gravity causes a stretching called tension, which would expand the base and cause cracks. To prevent this from happening, the designers implemented steprings, which from the outside look like a ring of stairs around the dome. These, coupled with the thick walls of the Pantheon, are what allow the wonder of the dome to remain even today. The designers also had to find a way to lighten the weight of the dome, and their solution was the square coffers inside the Pantheon. They literally serve to subtract the amount of concrete as well as adding an artistic interest to the building. The density of concrete near the top also was intentionally lower so as to optimize the weight. (http://www.teachersdomain.org/resource/phy03.sci.phys.mfw.bbdome/ [video]) It is the Roman's understanding of their material and of architectural rules that outlive them in the form of the Pantheon. It is probably the most famous of any domed building in the western world, deservedly, and served to inspire many other architects, including Thomas Jefferson and his Monticello and even Brunelleschi, who studied the Pantheon in his efforts to solve the problem of the dome of the Florence cathedral.

The Hagia Sophia in Istanbul is presented a similar challenge to it's architects. Hagia Sophia-- meaning “holy wisdom”-- is as much a symbol of power as place. It's one of the largest domes even today, 56 meters high and 31 across. “It replaced a fourth-century church destroyed when crowds, spurred on by Justinian's foes, set the old church on fire. The empress Theodora, a brilliant, politically shrewd woman, is said to have goaded Justinian to resist the rioters by saying "Purple makes a fine shroud"--meaning that she would rather die an empress (purple was the royal color) than flee for her life. Taking up her words as a battle cry, imperial forces crushed the rebels and restored order in 532. To design a church that embodied imperial power and Christian glory, Justinian chose two scholar-theoreticians, Anthemius of Tralles and Isidorus of Miletus... They developed a daring and magnificent design." (text, pg 255)

First things first, it's pretty challenging to build a dome in an area notorious for earthquakes (then, Constantinople). Therefore, the structure would need to be as stable as possible. Imagine if this symbol of Justinian's power collapsed when the ground shook? That would surely be a shame to the entire imperial world! So, this church has to be large and imposing, but cant have any indication of instability. The architects had a big problem to solve. The placement of the dome, for one thing. It was to be suspended above four pillars, arranged in a square. The pillars were connected by arches, and the dome was to sit on top of them. However, the dome would only be supported upon the topmost curve of the arches, and that is not sufficient, as without more support it would crack and collapse inwards. Unlike the Pantheon, this Eastern Roman building utilized stone ashlar masonry and bricks, and thus is incredibly heavy. Anthemius and Isidorus implemented pendentives, and it is their use of these curved forms that is considered the crowning achievement of the pendentive today. It was the first time they had been used as support for a dome. They successfully serve to channel the weight of the dome into the piers which channel it into the ground, and look good while doing it. Yet as with the Pantheon, the horizontal thrust and tension that the dome's shape creates remains a problem. In the Pantheon, the steprings serve to counteract the issue. Anthemius and Isidorus come up with a different solution. Coupled with Justinian's desire for a tremendous dome, they devise a design that extends the dome further down the nave without compromising structural integrity. They do this by adding semi-dome (half-dome) to each end. This reinforces the arches as well as extending the open roof, and at the end of the semi-domes they add additional smaller semi-domes to further this positive effect. Like buttressing for arches, the weight and thrust have to travel down each additional semi-dome and gets dispersed along the way (http://natgeotv.com/ca/ancient-megastructures/videos/hagia-sofia-dome-secrets [video]). It was an ingenuous solution that is highly praised : "The new Hagia Sofia was not constructed by the miraculous intervention of angels, as was rumored, but by the mortal builders in only five years (532-37). The architects, engineers, and masons who built it benefited from the accumulated experience of a long tradition of great architecture. Procopius of Caesarea, who chronicled Justinian's reign, claimed poetically that Hagia Sophia's gigantic dome seemed to hang suspended on a "golden chain from heaven." Legend has it that Justinian himself, aware that architecture can be a potent symbol of earthly power, compared his accomplishment with that of the legendary builder of the first temple in Jerusalem, saying "Soloman, I have outdone you."" (text, pg 255)

Unlike the Pantheon and the Hagia Sophia, Brunelleschi's dome of the church of Santa Maria de la Fiore in Florence was not supposed to be perfectly spherical in shape. That is to say, if you looked at a cut out of the Pantheon or of the central dome in the Hagia Sophia, the dome itself would serve as the top portion of a large-scale circle. Brunelleschi's dome, designed to follow original plans from over forty years prior to his involvement, was a taller, stretched octagonal shape. “When the cathedral was begun in 1296, Arnolfo di Cambio, the original architect, built a scale model to illustrate his design, which included a huge dome on an octagonal drum. The design was audacious, in that no one at that time had any idea how to build such a structure without it collapsing under its own weight. Nonetheless, the patrons of the cathedral clung to that bold vision, and when the nave was completed in 1380, they would wait for 40 more years with a huge hole in the ceiling of their cathedral until an architectural genius arrived on the scene with a solution.” (http://upword.blogspot.com/2011/05/climbing-brunelleschis-dome.html)

That genius was Fillipo Brunelleschi. “When interest in completing the cathedral revived around 1407, the technical solution was proposed by a young sculptor-turned-architect, Filippo Brunelleschi... Brunelleschi (1377-1446), whose father had been involved in the original plans for the cathedral dome in 1367, achieved was many considered impossible: he solved the problem of the dome." (text volume II, 4^th edition, pg 595) And there were many problems. Unlike the other two, this dome's shape didn't include positive aspect of uniformity-- a classic dome's shape allowed diffusion of weight as well as that issue of thrust, but for which there were documented solutions. Brunelleschi had to find another way. He resolved the issue in a creative and unparalleled way: two domes. Brunelleschi designed an inner dome which would be more spherical and uniform and thus weight bearing, and the outer dome with it's atypical proportions would rest on the inner dome as a support. This was an incredible idea, and even today visitors can marvel at his solution by climbing the steps between the two domes. Yet the process of building had issues as well. The cathedral was already 170 feet tall when he began, and 150 feet wide. How can you build a huge dome on top of that? There was no way that scaffolding could be used on something that large. Brunelleschi in turn devised numerous tricks in brickwork laying, transport of materials, and a scaffold-free system to construct his famous architectural wonder. (http://upword.blogspot.com/2011/05/climbing-brunelleschis-dome.html) It remains a stand-out example of the renaissance mindset and forwards-thinking.

Each of these domes had technical problems to overcome, and ingenious architects. The designs were lofty and almost unachievable if not for the clever use of available technology and understanding the creators of these marvelous structures had. Spanning close to 1500 years, these three domes remain incredible symbols of the eras they originated in, as well as architecture in the whole.

GALLERY

 

PANTHEON

source
The Pantheon
mainly concrete, marble veneer, etc.
Unknown/rebuilt by Hadrian
126 CE

source

source
Pantheon Dome
video
WGBH/ Teacher's Domain
accessed November 2012

source

HAGIA SOPHIA

source
Hagia Sophia
ashlar and brick
Isidorus of Miletus & Anthemius of Tralles
532 BCE

source
Hagia Sophia: Dome Secrets
video
National Geographic Channel
accessed November 2012

 BRUNELLESCHI'S DUOMO

source
Dome of the Church of Santa Maria de la Fiore
stone masonry
Fillipo Brunelleschi
completed 1436 CE

source
Climbing Brunelleschi's Dome
photo
Tom Chatt
May 2011

source
Unequaled Courage + Genius
blog
George Lafferty
May--August 2011

Truth and Beauty

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 1

Summary
At first after choosing this question, I really didn't know where to go with it. I was interested, certainly, but it seemed so much more general than my previous questions. I suppose it was all challenges until I got my book out and picked my quotes. Once I knew what needed to be said, everything flowed.

Reason
For one thing, this is a question that we spent a lot of class discussing. Truth and perception is vital to the study of art history. Some things must be seen with the lens of the time period, rosy or crystal clear. As a student in this course its important to remember that my version of truth or even just my aesthetic isn't the only solution to the visual problem.

Purpose
I believe the purpose behind this question was to really delineate the confusing space that is Greco-Roman art. We see them as practically the same thing throughout early education, for sure. This question forced me to look at their differences, and in the process gave me a real insight on the mindset of the ages.

Direction
I think I changed opinions during this essay a few times. As an artist myself, I cant deny idealizing forms in some sense repeatedly through my work. Yet, I kind of found it silly at one point when stewing over Greek idealism. On the other hand, is reality really what I want to show people in art, where I have total freedom over the (intended) impression?

Impressions
I think the quote at the end of the essay was a big, pivotal realization for me. After thinking so much on what truth now, I felt like I was in high school again and back in my philosophy club, where there was never an answer to anything. Not really the best idea for someone with anxiety in the first place! It was freeing for me to remember that regardless of the truth that ascends above and beyond all that I can see and hold, the perceptions that people like you and me, and even the Romans and Greeks, continually make and reform are what really matter in our day to day lives.

PART 2

If you've taken even one philosophy course, you're sure to have heard that "truth is subjective." Each person to ever live has a truth that is specific to him or herself. We cannot truly put ourselves into someone else's perspective or see the world from their truth, nor can we assume to speak for any collective vision. This essay attempts to speak for a long-dead peoples' version of truth, so although it is a bit contradictory to say in an academic paper, please bear in mind that this is no more than an informed opinion on opinions. That said, what did the Greeks mean by "beauty is truth" and how does this relate to the Roman idea that "truth is reality" in an artistic context?

Pablo Picasso once stated, "We all know that art is not truth. Art is a lie that makes us realize truth that is given us to understand. The artist must know the manner whereby to convince others of the truthfulness of his lies." (lecture notes) Like Picasso, Greek artists from the Archaic period into the Classical period and beyond attempted, quite successfully, to convince their patrons of the truth they executed. But, is this truth the factual version of the subject matter portrayed? They were fantastic artisans, to be sure-- my favorite works are usually their sculptures (even if they're mostly copies). The beautiful pieces they created and their artistic skill never ceases to amaze, and regardless of if the versions we study are casts or not, the level of detail and realism can be incredible. One particularly stunning work is the Medici Venus.

Source
Medici Venus
Marble sculpture
Made by an unknown artist of the Praxitelean tradition
1st century BC

Our text states, "Clearly, the artist had the skill to represent a woman as she actually appeared, but instead he chose to generalize her form and adhere to the classical canon of proportions. In so doing, the sculptor created a universal image, an ideal rather than a specific woman. The Medici Venus represents a goddess, but artists also represented living people as idealized figures, creating symbolic portraits rather than accurate likenesses." (text, xxxvi)

So, if they could show the actual form, why idealize? Like our text author Marilyn Stokstad writes, they were certainly capable. What makes the idealization better than reality? How can we call that truth? In some ways, showing the beauty of the possible rather than finding the beauty in the actual is rather romantic. It offers a slight disconnect and removes some accessibility from the art--  whomever is being depicted now becomes a character rather than a (likely) flawed human being. They can now represent more than just themselves. This is, of course, wonderful in cases of gods & goddess subjects. The story is enhanced in these cases, and fit that ascendent life in their perfection. In portraiture, it seems a bit confusing to me. If you want to make your mark on the world, wouldn't you want the factual truth to face the ages?

Plato's opinion was a big NO. Stokstad writes “Plato looked beyond nature for a definition of art. In his view, even the most naturalistic painting or sculpture was only an approximation of an eternal ideal world in which no variations or flaws were present. Rather than focus on a copy of the particular details that one saw in any particular object, Plato focused on an unchangeable ideal-- for artists, this would be the representation of a subject that exhibited perfect symmetry and proportion. [...] To achieve Plato's ideal images and represent things "as they ought to be" rather than as they are, classical sculpture and painting established ideals that have inspired western art since." (text, xxxiv)

Beauty, to the Greeks, was the truth. Beyond what we can see in front of us, there is the ideal that could stand the test of time and deliver the truest perfection. To the Greeks and Plato specifically, that which we see is just as much a representation as the art we create. In the words of Aristotle, “the aim of art is to represent not the outward appearance of things, but their inward significance.” Artwork like the Medici Venus showed a universal mold. Regardless of whatever the posing model may have looked like, the Venus' outward beauty and idealization is the ultimate female figure personified.

The “perfect” figure we see most of all comes from around 450 BCE.  “Just as Greek architects defined and followed a set of standards for ideal temple design, the sculptors of the classical period selected those human attributes they considered the most desirable, such as regular facial features smooth skin, and particular body proportions, and combined them into a single ideal of physical perfection. The best known theorist of the classical period was the sculptor Polykleitos of Argos.” (text, 128) He wrote and even sculpted an example of what he declared as The Canon, a perfected measure of human proportions. (text, 129)

Source
The Doryphoros
Lost bronze original, marble copy
Polykleitos
Approx. 450-400 BCE

Yet as I stated above, there is no single version of truth and it's all highly subjective. Polykleitos may have his version of truth, but it didn't stop the Romans from developing their own truth. Unlike the Greeks, Roman truth is known to be seen as or in reality. While it's the Romans themselves who delivered the Grecian ideals into the modern age with their extensive copies of Greek originals and preservation and appreciation of art in general, the work they either created or commissioned followed a newly unique perspective.

"Sculptors of the Republican period sought to create believable images based on careful observation of their surroundings. The desire to render accurate and faithful portraits of individuals may be derived from Roman ancestor veneration and the practice of making death masks of deceased relatives. Roman patrons in the Republican period clearly admired realistic portraits..." (text, 180)

It is indeed the portraiture in this case that most fully shows this trend. Unlike the Greek art, where portraits of official figures was hardly more than a loose representation of what the politician or patron looked like, in Roman art we can see the person as they were, as if to come alive. Similarly skilled, the portraits of state, which were more intended for PR than anything else, give us these long dead men and woman, flaws and all. “In the Republic, the most highly valued traits included a devotion to public service and military prowess, and so Republican citizens sought to project these ideals through their representation in portraiture. Public officials commissioned portrait busts that reflected every wrinkle and imperfection of the skin, and heroic, full-length statues often composed of generic bodies onto which realistic, called "veristic", portrait heads were attached.” (http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/ropo2/hd_ropo2.htm#top)

Source
Portrait Bust of a Man
Marble
Artist Unknown
1st century BC

One great example of this is the above portrait. Another is below: we see Lucius Caecilius Jucundus  literally warts and all.

Source
Lucius Caecilius Jucundus
Bronze
Artist Unknown
Found in Pompeii, date of origin unknown

Although these two societies were intrinsically related in their cultures and sometimes impossible to extricate in their artworks, they managed to perceive the world quite differently all things considered. Personally, I disagree with them both: beauty is in the eye of the beholder, reality is what you make of it, and truth? Well...Truth is subjective. Epictetus once said, “What concerns me is not the way things are, but rather the way people think things are.” and in the end of the day, it's Epictetus and I who are seeing eye to eye.

Essay #5c

ESSAY #5c

Shield Plaque (Scythian Deer)
Gold; cast, chased. 31.7x19 cm
Scythian culture. Circa 600 BC
Hermitage Museum Site

 
COMPARE & CONTRAST: Time Travel

QUESTION: Find examples and describe the similarities and connections between Scythian, Celtic and Viking iconography. Can you name one other example between three other distinct cultures, time periods and geographic locations? Describe what other discoveries you made in your research.

PART ONE

Summary: I started this essay with a bit of confusion. I mean, I knew I wanted to work on this topic, but I'd actually never heard of the Scythian peoples before. Once I got into researching things went pretty smoothly, but I did find the word "iconography" difficult... I want to be specific, and that's what I think that word is asking for, but it's pretty impossible at a student level to delve into the whole artistic history of three cultures in such a short time and develop a firm grasp on their iconography. Thank god for Wikipedia, as usual!

Reason: I think this question was asked because the idea that artistic style can cross huge time & space distances pops up so often in art history. Regardless if the distances are even huge, it's important to understand that there really isn't an originator when it comes to art, just as with Greek-to-Roman artworks.

Purpose: The purpose of this question was to determine how culture affects artwork, and how art is not some stationary thing that only those in one place have access to. If it wasn't for the migration prevalent in these cultures, who knows if they would have come to these styles? By traveling and sharing/trading/invading cultures mix.

Direction: Well, I certainly learned a lot. But I don't know that my opinions changed. The research was interesting but repetitive, which makes sense in context I suppose. I found more use out of the book this time for sure, and I think I'm more comfortable with the formatting.

Impressions: The Khmer-feet moment was a definite Aha! moment. And I think when I realized that the question didn't just ask to discuss the similarities but also why/how they were that way was a sort of light bulb going off for me.

PART TWO
Scythian, Celtic, and Viking cultures have incredibly similar iconography for peoples spanning around 600 BC to the 11th century AD, and areas as far-spread as what we now call Canada to Kazakhstan. These three cultures form a group that art historians classify as Migration Period art. Scythians were nomads mainly on land, while the Vikings/Norse were seafaring, and both were warlike and true migrators. On the other side, though the Celtic art we're looking at is actually from Celtic Christian monasteries and breaks from the general ideal of migration, the artworks--particularly the illuminated manuscripts--definitely pull from a variety of styles and fit well in that sense.

Does life style breed art style? This isn't the question we're truly trying to answer here, but I do think it's a valid point to understand before fully delving in. "Although these kingdoms were never homogeneous, they shared certain common cultural features. They settled in their new lands and become farmers and fishermen. Archaeological evidence shows no tradition of monumental artwork, such as architecture or large sculpture in permanent materials, but a preference instead for "mobile" art for personal display, usually also with a practical function, such as weapons, horse harnesses, tools, and jewelry which fastened clothes. The surviving art of the Germanic peoples is almost entirely personal adornment, portable, and before conversion to Christianity was buried with its owner. Much art in organic materials has no doubt not survived." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration_Period_art) This makes sense of the form the art holds but I have to wonder at the visual similarities. Predominantly in what we call 'animal style,' the artworks (shown in the gallery section) share an intricacy and embellishment that cannot be denied as beautiful.

Animal style is described in our book thusly; "By 5th century CE, the so-called animal style dominated the arts, displaying an impressive array of serpents, four-legged beasts, and squat human figures, as can be seen in their metalwork. [...] Certain underlying principles govern works with animal style design: the compositions are generally symmetrical, and artists depict animals in their entirety either in profile or from above. Ribs and spinal columns are exposed as if they had been x-rayed; hip and shoulder joints are pear shaped; tongues and jaws extend and curl, and legs end in large claws." (text, 3rd ed, pg 445)

I believe that the Drakslinga art seen in the gallery section is a great example of animal style. For starters, unlike the current western ideal of a dragon, eastern dragons have always been serpentine. Níðhöggr is a personal favorite. These in particular can be identified by the legs that no snake would have. They are also in profile, with a basically symmetrical design. Furthermore, talking about tongues extending and curling, if you follow the line from each beast's tongue, you'll notice that these are what turn into the intricate knots in this image.

The Drakslinga image is from the Celts. Unlike the manuscript style, known as 'insular style' we see in the monastery artwork, this employs ideal animal style that shares its roots elsewhere. "Scandinavian artists had exhibited a fondness for abstract patterning from early prehistoric times. During the first millennium BCE, trade, warfare, and migration had brought a variety of jewelry, coins, textiles, and other portable objects into northern Europe. The artists incorporated the solar disks and stylized animals on these objects into their already rich artistic vocabulary." (text, 3rd ed, pg 445) In fact, I believe the stylized Drakslinga have a lot in common with another style of art that falls under animal style...

The Vikings had a series of animal style art periods, ranging from the 'Oseberg style' in the 800's to the 'Urnes style' in the 11th-12th century. The Urnes style is so named after the Urnes Stave Church in Urnes, Norway. The church, though mostly rebuilt, maintains even today a gorgeous doorway from the 11th century which is called the Urnes Portal.

"The [Urnes] style is characterized by slim and stylized animals that are interwoven into tight patterns. The animals heads are seen in profile, they have slender almond-shaped eyes and there are upwardly curled appendages on the noses and the necks." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urnes_style)This is absolutely epitomized by the Urnes Portal... These animals fit an illusionistic reality, with the winding snakes and that thin lion, but certainly have grace as given by their masterful carving and what I'd almost call a woven design aspect. What I find particularly interesting is how this Urnes style so strongly relates to the Celtic Drakslinga image. The same sort of almond eyes, profile positioning, and general symmetry are seen in both these examples.

Another interesting thing to note: it was believed that the Viking raids on Celtic monasteries halted much cultural growth. Unlike the Scythians, who were much further east and interacted more with the Greeks, the Celtic and the Norse certainly were tied. The art reflects this. As mentioned above, much of the art we have of the Celtic people comes from the Christian tradition.

"The fusion of Celtic, Romanized British, Germanic, and Norse cultures generated a new culture and style of art, known as Hiberno-Saxon" (text, 3rd ed, pg 446) Wikipedia takes us a step further; "Most Insular art originates from the Irish monasticism of Celtic Christianity, or metalwork for the secular elite, and the period begins around 600 AD with the combining of 'Celtic' styles and Anglo-Saxon (English) styles. [...] Surviving examples of Insular art are mainly illuminated manuscripts, metalwork and carvings in stone, especially stone crosses. Surfaces are highly decorated with intricate patterning, with no attempt to give an impression of depth, volume or recession. [...] The finest period of the style was brought to an end by the disruption to monastic centres and aristocratic life of the Viking raids which began in earnest in the late 8th century. These are presumed to have interrupted work on the Book of Kells, and no later Gospel books are as heavily or finely illuminated as the masterpieces of the 8th century."(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiberno-Saxon_art)

From the Book of Kells comes many stunning pages. The image seen in the gallery section is the Chi Rho Iota page. One could honestly spend a good hour looking at this image and not see every detail. Fascinatingly embellished with beautiful line-work, it's almost impossible to imagine how much time this took to create. Our text discusses just that: "[The page] seems at first glance a tangle of colors and lines. But for those who "look more keenly," there is so much more--human and animal forms--in the dense thicket of spiral and interlace patterns derived from metalwork. The Kells style is especially brilliant in [this] monogram page. The artists reaffirm their Celtic heritage with the spirals and trumpet shapes that they combine with Germanic animal interlaces to embellish the monogram of Christ. [...] The illuminators outlined each letter, and then they sub-divided the letters into panels filled with interlaced animals and snakes, as well as extraordinary spiral and knot motifs. The spaces between the letters form an equally complex ornamental field, dominated by spirals." (text, 3rd ed, pg 448)Though Stokstad uses the word "interlaced" far too frequently, she is clearly as amazed as I am with the image. It is this image, I feel, that well ties Scythian art to the other migration period art styles.

Scythian art is very much influenced by the Scythian relationship with the Greeks. As they developed a trade relationship, both took from each other's artistic style. The most notable influence insofar as I can tell is that rather than flat, illusionistic reality generally seen in animal style artworks, the Scythians' works show a remarkable dimension while twisting reality to fit their desire for ornamentation. Take for example the Scythian deer shown at the top of this page. It's form, definitely not entirely deer, has a real shape and presence that differs greatly from the other artworks shown here. "Scythian jewelery features various animals including stags, cats, birds, horses, bears, wolves and mythical beasts. The gold figures of stags in a semi-recumbent position are particularly impressive approximately 30.5 cm (12 in) long. These were often the central ornaments for shields carried by fighters." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythian_art) On the other hand, what I found most relatable was the embellishment they gave their art. What I find ideal to represent this is the Scythian Pectoral image shown below. While the animals truly resemble same-period Greek form, the swirling ornamentation is absolutely characteristic of Migration Period art. The floral elements and incredible detail certainly remind me not only of the manuscript art discussed above but also the Urnes Portal and Drakslinga in a great way.

Scythian art is generally seen as the inspiration behind much polychrome work (gold figurines and objects inlaid with precious stones) for other Migration Period cultures. "The Scythians worked in a wide variety of materials such as gold, wood, leather, bone, bronze, iron, silver and electrum. As nomads, the Scythians worked in decorative materials for use on their horses, tents and wagons and many of the pieces are small so as to be portable. Earlier pieces reflected animal style traditions. [...] The use of the animal form went further than just ornament, these seemingly imbuing the owner of the item with similar prowess & powers of the animal which was depicted." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythian_art)

It's amazing, the similarity in these three cultures' art. If I didn't know better, I might have assumed that they fit together on one culture's time line. There are many other triads like this one, in fact! For example, while researching I found that the Khmer, Egyptian, and Mayan stone carving traditions were remarkably alike. Many Egyptian images like the one in the gallery show almost copies rather than distinct individuals. As always with Egyptian art, the feet and hands are notably not anatomically correct. This was a big "Aha!" moment for me in relation to the Khmer image in the gallery. This image is of Devatas (minor female deities)dancing, and thank goodness you can see their feet--they are each copies of the same foot throughout! Their bodies are also pretty much entirely the same. Mayan art, I feel, is incredibly like Egyptian art, as it also tends to read like a graphic novel, with all the text and manuscript/story aspect. When looking at the facial features in Mayan and Khmer artwork, I thought they were familiar to each other in the stylization. In any case, it's unbelievable: these cultures could hardly be further from each other and yet have such connectable artwork.

Spanning the years and the world, art is truly a unifying part of our lives. Regardless of where and when, art manages to cross borders and seas without moving at all. Perhaps this is just another facet of art that we have to accept: art can tell a story, art can inspire and inform, evoke emotion as well as action, and leap through time and space. I'm not ruling out time travel definitively!

Gallery:

Drakslinga (Dragon's Tail)
From a Celtic manuscript
8th century
Wiki Commons Link

Chi Rho Iota
Page from the Book of Kells
Inks and pigments on vellum
Probably made at Iona, Scotland
Late 8th - early 9th century
Found in our text, 3rd Edition, pg 440

Urnes Portal
Urnes Stave Church, Norway
11th Century
Wood carving (?)
Wiki Commons Link

Pectoral (collar piece necklace)
Mid-4th century
Gold, enamel
From Tovsta Mohyla, Ukraine
Brama, Ukranian Gateway Site

Model with a King, Lion, and Ear
Saqqara, Egypt (Place of Discovery)
Limestone sculpture
ca. 746-335 BC
The Walters Museum

Devatas (minor female deities)
Bas-relief sculpture at Angkor Wat
Temple constructed in early 12th century
Siem Reap, Cambodia
Picture from Travel Blog

Stone Wall Plaque
Temple of the Sun, Palenque, Mexico
692 A.D.
Reproduction website

Rough/Initial draft of Essay #6c

Note: I have every intention on finishing this ASAP, however, I don't want to have nothing to show for all the work I've been putting into this essay come midnight... therefore I'm uploading and linking this incomplete essay. What remains to be done is fleshing out who Devi is, what her similarities and differences are from Gaia and Mary, fixing citations, fixing wording and adding another 2 quotes from the book (which I have picked), and concluding the essay properly. I will post the finished essay and link it separately.


ESSAY #6c

COMPARE & CONTRAST – Oh, Mamma!

QUESTION: Describe the similarities of and connections between the cults of Earth goddess Gaia, the Virgin Mary and Devi, the Hindi Mother goddess. Select representative artwork depicting each one and describe the similarities in the imagery.

Part 1

Summary- I learned in the process of researching this essay a mass of history, not all art related. I found it all fascinating thus my biggest issue was compiling research and determining what should be kept for the essay itself.

Reason- I think this question is important to art history, particularly the periods this course covers. This question is here so I can have better understanding when it comes to the contrast between Earth Mothers and Sky Fathers.

Purpose- I believe this question was asked to give me a greater understanding of the Earth Mother or Mother Goddess trends in ancient civilizations, and to expand my knowledge on how these trends appeared in art.

Direction- I don't think my views changed on answering this question, although I think that's mostly out of a prior ignorance. I suppose my views on Mary are deeper, but I had near to no understanding of Gaia or Devi, and now I do.

Impressions- Mostly I'll remember the stress! But I guess if I had to say something I wont forget, it's the vocab; Theotokos and chthonic in particular.

Part 2

Women in religion and mythology tend to be held as paragons of fertility and virtue. Across cultures and continents, women—or rather, mothers—are seen as an integral part of creation. This is nothing surprising, really. After all, womankind physically ushers in the new generation. Often called Mother Goddesses, there are figurines dating back to the Upper Paleolithic period possibly venerating them as idols, though we can’t truly determine their intent. In more recent examples, women are positioned as primordial or elemental deities giving birth in some form to the Earth itself or giving meaning to man… but does motherhood or creation even mean the same thing to different cultures? In this essay, I’ll discuss the differences and similarities between three figures of the Mother Goddess: the Grecian Earth Goddess Gaia, the Christian Virgin Mary, and Devi, the Hindi Mother Goddess, as well as their various manifestations and cults.

First off, it’s important to explain what the word cult means here. A cult is essentially a religious group or creed. Although it is often associated with satanic rituals and fanaticism in the modern realm, it is basically a society or order that follows some sort of doctrine or idol. It’s also pertinent to explain that manifestations are usually simply facets of the base goddess. They’re more common in polytheistic religions and often are given separate names and/or identifying details, generally because they represent a particular aspect of the goddess, who is generally a vague, overwhelming figure.

I find the Earth Mother Gaia (from the Greek word γαῖα, translated to Gaia or Gaea) the most clear of these examples. In Greek mythology, Gaia was the literal personification of the earth. She is known as the mother of all, and it is from her that all the gods (she is often thought to have brought forth her consorts in some sort of ancient asexual reproduction) descended. We’re talking the Cyclopes, Titans, all the way down. Therefore all children of the gods are also a result of her existence, to the more familiar ones such as Zeus or obscure such as Nereus. (http://mythagora.com/bios/gaia.html)

Figure 1-a

THE BIRTH OF ERIKHTHONIOS,  ca 440 BC

Without Gaia, Grecian mythology as we know it would not exist, so the fact that she is significant is clear. What’s more important to our initial question is how she was displayed in arts and worshiped. Gaia was often shown with fruits or cornucopia imagery, and as the earth was her symbol, she is often shown rising out of it, unable to part with her element. For example, we know the woman in figure 1-a above to be Gaia as she is half buried in the ground plane. Of course, the modern understanding of our earth being round and blue was not available at this time, so the dichotomy between modern worship and ancient iconography is really clear. Figure 1-b is a perfect example of how modern worshipers have taken the “Earth Mother” ideal and reconstructed it. (http://gogreece.about.com/od/greekmythology/a/mythgaiagaea.htm)

Figure 1-b

Millennial Gaia Statue, Oberon Zell, modern

“Gaia herself caused life to spring forth from the earth, and is also the name given to the magical energy that makes certain locations sacred. The Oracle at Delphi was believed to be the most powerful prophetic site on earth, and was considered the center of the world, due to Gaia's energy.“ (http://paganwiccan.about.com/od/greekdeities/p/GaiaProfile.htm) It is believed that before the site became the locale of the Pythian Games (as Apollo slew Gaia’s child, the dragon Python at this location) it was home to a cult of Gaia worship. Gaia was repeatedly regarded as a prophetic goddess as well as the best witness to oaths. She also had some significance for the spirits of the dead, as those visiting graves would often pour libations and invoke her, and many invoked her name to avenge murder, as bloodshed pollutes her. Furthermore, Greek mythology is heavily drenched in bloody war, and Gaia is not different; such as in figure 1-c, Gaia is often shown urging on her children into battle.

 Figure 1-c

Aristophanes, pottery

Much of Gaia’s cult worship came inseparably from worship of Demeter, who is another Mother Earth figure. She's possibly a manifestation of a sort, although Grecian mythology tends to stick with origin stories that are closer akin to childbirth, unlike the Hindu manifestations we’ll discuss later that are easier described as birth by bursting forth. In any case, as she was a Chthonic goddess (meaning in, under, or beneath the earth) a standard method of worship was ritual sacrifice, generally of black animals, and placed into the earth. Gaia is often called upon as “dark Ge” or “Ge-meter”, ‘meter’ being the Greek work for mother. (http://www.theoi.com/Protogenos/Gaia3.html)

The Virgin Mary is an alternate view of motherhood, to be sure. Whereas Gaia was always amidst a struggle of some sort with her consorts or her children, Mary birthed only one child, Jesus, and her significance centers around this. Certainly, the struggles she had as mother to the messiah were rough, but they were generally internal and give credence to her as a motivational or inspirational figure. Indeed, the birth was also an odd sort (immaculate conception isn't exactly standard) but I'd consider her motherhood to be the most recognizable and closest to our actual experience.

Figure 2-a

Icon of the enthroned Virgin and Child with saints George, Theodore and angels, 6th century, Saint Catherine's Monastery, Mount Sinai.

By many accounts, her life on Earth was that of a mortal, whereas the other Goddesses mentioned are divine from the get-go. Of course, not all see Mary as mortal; the Catholic Church, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches, Anglican Communion, and Lutheran churches believe Mary to be the Theotokos (Greek, Θεοτόκος), which translates to “one who gives birth to God”. She is titled as such because her son Jesus is both divine and man. Some people believe that she is herself born free of original sin, that she remained a virgin all her life (even during and after giving birth!), and some believe that she was taken physically into heaven, possibly still alive during her ascension. She's known by some as Queen of Heaven, and as a mediator. Our book states “As Theotokos, Mary was viewed as the powerful, ever forgiving intercessor, appealing to her divine son for mercy on behalf of repentant worshipers. She was also called the seat of wisdom, and many images of the virgin and child, like this one [referencing Virgin And Child With Saints And Angels, figure 2-a, show her holding Jesus on her lap in a way that suggests she represents the throne of Solomon. ” (text, 266) She is absolutely good and pure, which figure 2-b represents well, with the lamb image, and even in the titling. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Mary)

Figure 2-b

L'Innocence, William-Adolphe Bouguereau, 1893

Mary as Mother or any other mainstream view of her has nothing to do with the earth, unlike Gaia, but she is venerated. From the “Hail Mary” to fasting, alms in her honor, the rosary, the scapular, festivals in her name, prayer, and visiting church, Mary worship fits better into the modern lifestyle than the animal sacrifice cultists of Gaia performed. (http://www.catholictradition.org/Mary/mary23.htm) Although I personally see Gaia and Mary worship or iconography as very different, they do share some similarities. For example, Gaia is often shown with a child in her arms, and Mary is rarely shown without Jesus. Gaia cannot part with her element, Earth, and though Mary never looks half-raised from the ground as Gaia does, she is also in a way inseparable from her divinity, shown primarily in the popular halo or glow behind her head, which shows her holiness. A great example of the halo is figure 2-a, where it is a distinct circle, meant for saints. On the other hand, Gaia is passionate and dominating (see figure 1-c) whereas Mary is gentle and compassionate (see figure 2-b). In this sense, Gaia has more in common with Devi, the Hindu Mother Goddess, as far as iconography goes.

"... Devi, a designation covering many deities who embody the feminine. In general, Devi represents the power of Shakti, a divine energy understood as feminine. Shakti is needed to overcome the demons of our afflictions, such as ignorance and pride. Among the most widely worshipped goddesses are Lakshmi, goddess of wealth and beauty, and Durga, the warrior goddess… Durga is the essence of the conquering powers of the gods." (text, 332)