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