Wednesday, November 30, 2011

Post #9


During this quarter, I have taken a higher interest and appreciation for the ancient architecture that can be viewed as art.  Most importantly, such works as Stonehenge, the Parthenon, and the Temple of Aphaia.  I find these pieces of work to stand out above others through the ages because of the severe complexity that has been put into raising these marvelous structures.


The Parthenon, although a popular piece that we associate with ancient Greece art and culture, stands out to me as one of the most well thought out pieces of architecture from the centuries.  Not only does it serve its aesthetic purpose, it has been composed and designed by the idea of math; there is much more to the structure than just a few pillars and columns strategically placed, it has been mathematically calculated to each exact point.  It highlights areas of precision and pays close attention to proportions throughout the entire building.


Another piece which has been considered artwork and highly controversial over the centuries is Stonehenge.  One of the greatest attracting ideas to this architecture is the fact that nobody is quite sure of how it became to be, where it came from, or what it even symbolizes; its entire existence is just a giant question.  To think that some of the stones average around from 13 to 24 feet tall and weighed up to 26 tons each makes it hard to believe that people could construct this during the 2500 B.C. era without the help of machines or devices.  There are even such theories that such figures as Merlin, who was the magician of the King Arthur legend had built it and that Stonehenge was the primary location for Celtic druid rituals.  Something that leaves me thinking about the idea of the architecture of this is the fact that the bluestone was not located anywhere close to where the actual stones are placed.  The book refers that they would have been moved over 150 miles from the west in order to arrive to their current location, which makes us wonder how that is humanly possible without the technology we have today.


Along with these two pieces, I found the Temple of Aphaia to be rather intriguing as well.  The way that the temple was structured and designed showed that there was also a fair amount of time put into figuring out how the columns would hold the roof and combining structures.  The temple also uses mathematical proportions within their columns that expressed artistic creativity by the engravings towards the top.

I realize that some of these may be a little cliché in the terms of what artwork we should be choosing to focus on since we covered so much, but the architecture just stands out so much above the rest to me that it is hard to ignore.  Such intricate and mathematical measures have been presented in creating these columns in most of these temples that it is fascinating to think somebody could replicate these detailed designs over.

Wednesday, November 9, 2011

Bust of Commodus as Hercules vs. Caracalla

  In these sculptures, both contain various attributes that can be considered as power.  Both figures were sculpted to highlight their facial structure definition, to show that they were probably wealthy and powerful judged off their looks.  On the other hand, there are very contrasting points within these pieces.  For example, Caracalla has a V-shaped forehead above the eyebrows, which gives off more of a sinister, dark feel to his personality.  Perhaps he ruled the people by being notorious and ruthless, thus winning the hearts of his followers by fear.  In the Bust of Commodus as Hercules, the statue seems more relaxed and apathetic.  The figure in the sculpture seems like he presents more of a calm, monotone presence over people, making him a selected person that people would more look up to rather than fear.  At the same time, he has a fanged animal trophy over his head and draped around his neck, showing that he is fierce and a fighter.  Not to mention, the club he holds in his hand as well shows that he is a combatant.  Caracalla is a more simple piece and only draws my attention because of how much anger is carved into this sculpture.  It is almost scary how his face is positioned and even more creepy how his eyes are looking straight up.  It appears as if he is looking up towards the Gods in spite of something.  Caracalla would appeal more to the fighting type people as he highlights as a ruthless leader of anger and blood, which Commodus as Hercules appears more as a loving warrior that would rather capture the trust of individuals.

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Greek Art - Option #2

     I personally think that the Parthenon Marbles should be relocated back to Athens.  I'm aware that this is a highly debated subject and a part of me knows that there is no right or wrong answer to solve this case.  If we were to look back into other events such as artifacts that were looted during Iraq's liberation, it was a bad decision to hold their arts/history in a museum in such a dangerous location.  However, it still belongs to their country and ancestors/people that belong to its history, whether or not it is in a safe place.  I do think that during the time, Britain was entitled to owning these marbles since Greece wasn't entitled to their freedom yet during the ruling of the Ottoman Empire.
   
     Also, I feel like the Parthenon Marbles was a very important part of Greek culture and has a highly popular image as the aesthetic architecture movement.  Being located in the British Museum entitles that it would also be safer due to the pollution eating away the marble issue that was also addressed in Athens.  At least in Britain, it will be properly preserved and displayed for centuries to come.  So the great question is, would it make more sense to keep it here in order to ensure its survival?  Probably.  But would it be disappointing if someone was set on seeing Greek art over in Greece?  Yes.  If Britain is to continue displaying this art, I think it should be presented in a more historical context since this type of work was made popular by the Greeks.  It is a piece of their history and establishes their roots.  Like I mentioned before, there is no right or wrong answer, and I've somehow caught myself in the middle of both sides.  But if I had to choose a particular case to follow, I'd have to say that Greece is entitled to own their own heritage.