Aegean Art - Comparative

         The Cyclades people of the Bronze Age in the Aegean Era, like many other cultures around that time, had a particular style about their works. The “Figure of a Woman” statuette from approximately 2500 BCE very much resembles the “Venus of Willendorf from the Paleolithic Era about 20,000 years earlier. These figures each hold a distinct style from the periods in which they were carved.

         The Cycladic figure is carved out of marble, which is not surprising, due to their ample supply of it. This contrasts with the limestone Venus. The figure stands 24 ¾” tall, but like the Willendorf figure, standing 4 3/8^th,” it does not stand on its own. If they do not stand, then perhaps they were meant to be carried. This could mean that the people of these cultures did large amounts of traveling or maybe the statues were used for rituals of some sort. The marble stone makes for a smooth texture on the Cycladic figure, whereas the limestone looks to have been worn a bit more, and leaves a rougher texture. Both figures are obviously of women, and it is likely that women also carved them.

         The artists of each figure left their pieces faceless, so they do not appear to represent anyone in particular. The only features that appear are a nose on the Cycladic woman and what looks to be braided hair or a knitted hat on the Venus. The body of the Willendorf statue is thought to represent fertility through an emphasis on the female reproductive parts and the belly. Even though the Cycladic figure is not represented in such a way, they have the same symmetrical pose with small arms carved folding across the torso. Also, there is evidence of an original painted design on the Cycladic woman, including multiple eyes on the head. This is thought to be another way of depicting fertility or pregnancy, so they could have had the same function in each culture.

The Palette of Narmer & Egyptian Conventions

         The artistic conventions utilized by the Ancient Egyptians were extremely unique in regards to representing the form of humans, animals, or objects during their era. The human form is depicted in a composite view in typical Ancient Egyptian style art, generally with a profile of the face with a front view of the eye, both shoulders and a frontal view of the torso, and both legs in profile view as well. They were very specific with the arrangements of their works and used a grid known as “Canon of Proportions” to craft with mathematical precision and get the same form and style every time. If a human figure were to stand approximately 18 units high on the grid, the knees would start at the 6^th unit, and the shoulders would be at the height of the 16^th row and about 6 units wide. The Canon of Proportions allows the same style to be reflected over in this way with the same ratios. The Egyptians based their work off of this grid for nearly three millennia.

         The Palette of Narmer is a prime example of the repetition of style in the art of Ancient Egypt. The piece stands 25 inches tall and is made of green schist, with the main focus of the front being King Narmer preparing to execute what is labeled by a hieroglyph as an enemy of comparable size. The slab has registers dividing the depictions of other scenes with many smaller figures, including Narmer’s sandal bearer to his left, other enemies running in fear and defeat underneath, and the falcon god Horus bringing Narmer a decapitated head attached to some papyrus (a symbol of Lower Egypt), indicating that Narmer was clearly the ruler of the area. The backside introduces a scene where enemies lie decapitated with their heads between their legs, awaiting inspection by the royal procession, including Narmer wearing the Red Crown of Lower Egypt. Below this is a circular indentation between the elongated and intertwined necks of lions in which makeup might have been prepared. Finally, at the bottom is a bull (representing the power of the king) striking down another enemy. The majority of the figures on the tablet were created in the stylized Egyptian method, using the Canon of Proportions mentioned before.
         The Egyptians were creative, even though their art was made mostly to serve a function. I believe the worst art on the planet still had to have some sort of creativity that inspired it to come into being. Their creativeness is supported by the fact that they invented a system to work by, and the elements of art reach a fine equilibrium in their pictorial reliefs, statues, and paintings. Their composite forms are more descriptive and still recognizable, whereas they might not be—if depicted how they would actually appear to the eye.

I do not think that the Egyptians were much concerned with their degree of creativity. It did not seem as important to them as the messages they were conveying with their art. However, creativity can be found in it everywhere. Even if it lacked ingenuity, it would still be valued today for how long it has survived and for the study of its purpose.

Reconstruction Drawing of Babylon

The Reconstruction Drawing of Babylon in the 6th Century BCE has much to offer in terms of presenting various formal elements of art. The great Ishtar Gate is centered in the frame, with what appears to be soldiers marching through it toward the Processional Way vanishing lengthwise behind it. The Palace of Nebuchadnezzar II and its Hanging Gardens are in the background to the right and the Marduk Ziggurat behind that. Since it is an aerial view of dominant structures, this piece has a sense of power to it. However, being able to relate to the individuals so small at the foot of one of these structures also gives a feeling of insignificance.

Much of the composition has already been spoken about, but it is fair to say that it is well balanced. The Ishtar Gate is undoubtedly the focal point of the entire work, being a drastically different color and placed in the center next to another building colored white (another color unseen elsewhere in the piece). The green shrubbery to the right reaches equilibrium with the white building and the other greenery on the left. This makes the drawing orderly with a centered and grounded visual weight.

A particular style of preciseness can also be detected throughout due to the geometric shapes and straight lines. I think that this gives the buildings the sharp edges they need and keeps the entire framework structurally sound.
         The lines, as mentioned before, are very active in the drawing. As I look at the composition, my eyes are lead from the towers in the foreground, about midway back to the intersecting wall for a pause at the focal point (Ishtar Gate), beyond to the very engaging Processional Way all the way to the vanishing point, brought from the horizon line to the Marduk Ziggurat and Hanging Gardens, and finally down a connection of shadows on the buildings where the cycle starts again. The lines holster the kinetic energy that makes the whole piece visually dynamic.

As for the colors, the palette chosen embraces a peaceful feeling. To me, the combination of very light yellowish/tan creates warmness and the right amount of blues and greens gives it the cool kick it needs. These colors remind me of the ones you would see in a tropical oasis, thus leaving me in a cozy and satisfied mood.

Another point to bring up is that this drawing takes place on a small scale. It packs a lot of business in the content, but the context is representing real life objects that we know to be larger than depicted, especially when referring to the people walking under the gate. If the proportions are correct in relation to each other (and I believe they are), then these buildings are quite sizeable. This especially gives the Marduk Ziggurat a looming sensation from a distance, since it is extremely in-depth.

After analyzing this drawing in reference to many of these aspects essential to art, I react with a pleasant sense of awe at its harmonious colors, the powerful but feigned size of the buildings, and the smoothness of its visual intricacy.

Venus of Willendorf

The "Venus of Willendorf" statuette was an archeological finding near Willendorf, Austria in 1908 by Josef Szombathy. The specimen was carved out of Oolitic Limestone and is approximately 11cm in length. A recent study dated it back to 24,000-22,000 BCE, making it the earliest recorded representation of a human figure. It is a peculiar piece because we know so little about it. Given the form of and context in which it was created, it could have represented a multitude of ideas.

The emphasis on the female parts in particular suggests that it was an icon for erotica, fertility, or even maternity. As opposed to the status quo of today, anyone who was heavyset in the Paleolithic Era was considered healthy and affluent. That being said, the Venus could potentially be modeled after some sort of queen or deity. Given the lack of a face, feet, and proportion, it is unlikely that the piece was carved to signify an existing person at the time, unless it was to symbolize a special female individual with a lifestyle of leisure. The study of this as well as other Paleolithic Venus statues raises other wonderments of the time, such as what religious and mythological views were shared, what the people ate, and how sexual behaviors might have been practiced differently.

There are layers of reasons why this figure was named “Venus,” which can be problematic when discerning its actual purpose. First, there is an ironic tone to the name, since Venus is the Classical goddess of beauty, love, and sexuality in Western culture where our standards of beauty might be different, which contrasts with the obese and less feminine form of most Venus statues from the Paleolithic Era. However, the name could also be linked to the fertility aspect and the naturally beautiful form of women through accentuating sexually related parts. Yet another reason could be that the figure is actually meant to represent a prominent goddess, much like the Earth Mother/Mother Goddess of Greek Mythology. If this is true, it might also suggest that the roles of females were significantly more important in society in Paleolithic times than nowadays. Societies may even have consisted of matriarchies, promoting the notion of fertility more so. All of these points, in some way, connote the idea of a “Venus,” tying the name and the piece together in its objectivity in a variety of ways.

Christopher L. C. E. Witcombe, the author of the article “Venus Of Willendorf,” gives the impression of having an aesthetic view toward the female body. I follow his view, and I believe the “Venus” of Willendorf is beautiful in its mystifying symbolism and the way that it is art. However, when compared to the standards of beauty in modern western culture, it loses attraction on the grounds of its form. It should also be taken into account that the human body is an amazing biological machine and is beautiful in the way that it is unique unlike anything else in the universe.

About Me

Hi friends. My name is Evan. I consider myself a pretty lax person, but I am always for having a good time. I'm outgoing and like to be with friends and I enjoy making people laugh. Since taking a couple philosophy classes, I try to keep an open mind and observe all angles in any given situation when I can, much like analyzing a 3-dimensional piece of art. It's just a way to better understand why things are the way they are or why someone made them that way.

I am currently a student at Central Washington University studying toward a Graphic Design Major. Plain old pencil and paper used to be my weapons of choice, but since spreading myself in other areas and classes at school, I have taken a liking to working with other media such as charcoal, brush and ink, clay, and metals. Art and music have always been hobbies of mine, which hopefully I can pursue to achieve a satisfying career.

I believe that self-expression is the most powerful trait a person can employ. Our character is based off of our beliefs, opinions, emotions, etc. If nobody expressed themselves, what would this planet be like? This world needs more art.

And less politics.