Out of Lascaux

Greek Art At the Met

Apparently, the Metropolitan Museum of Art has revamped their Greco-Roman galleries. From the pictures in the New York Times article, they look pretty spectacular. Hope I get to see them at some point.

The slide show that goes with the article is very nice, too. But more importantly, it has a picture of my favorite Greek statue.

Veiled and Masked Dancer

She's only 8 inches high, and was made around the 3rd-2nd century BC. I find the drape of her veil incredibly sensuous, and even though I know it's bronze, I feel I have to touch it to make sure it isn't real silk. Just beautiful. Worth going to see the Met's new galleries for all by herself.

How Art Made the World

I was finally able to catch an episode of How Art Made the World on my PBS station. They have buried it on Sunday afternoons at 2:30, and I keep forgetting it's on, or I'm out doing things, or falling asleep (that's prime naptime on a Sunday). The episode I saw was "More Human than Human."

This really is a fascinating series. Dr.Nigel Spivey takes the viewer into new areas of art and early man. In this episode, Dr. Spivey talked about the "Herring Gull Instinct." It has been found that Herring Gull chicks will peck at a yellow stick with a red stripe because it resembles a beak. However, they will more readily peck at a stick with three red stripes over the one, even though is resembles mom's beak less. The idea is that animals are hard-wired to prefer an exaggerated form over a realistic one, especially if the right elements are exaggerated. This helps to explain the Venus of Willendorf, the pre-historic female figure with its massive breasts and buttocks and no face.

What I don't understand is what Dr. Spivey did next. He discussed ancient Egyptian art with it's iconic human form. This standardized depiction of the human body lasted 3,000 years unchanged, and Dr. Spivey did a wonderful job of describing how the Egyptians came up with it and how to look at it. But he also said that their image of the human body was NOT exaggerated, completely undercutting his argument. But the Egyptian figures ARE exaggerated. The human eye, which is the most important element of the human body for so many cultures ("the window to the soul") is seen in full view within a profile face. The shoulders, the body's "workhorse," are broad and seen full on. And the men are painted in a dark terracotta color while the women are painted as a fair-skinned yellow ochre. How can this not be considered an exaggeration?

Dr.Spivey then goes on to Greece, with an illuminating discussion of how they, too, exaggerated the human form. Those classical Greek sculptures are "perfect" because they are very subtly exaggerated: a roll of muscle on the abdomen that isn't really there; a missing coccyx bone that enhances the curve of the buttocks. In effect, the Greeks exaggerated perfection.

I imagine that the rest of the series is just as thought provoking, and if I were still buying curriculum, I would buy the DVD. I may do it anyway. That may be the only way I can actually catch the whole series. It's a great way to look at the rise of man and how art came to be.

Paintings that changed the world? - Part II

(Part I)

As I read through Paintings that Changed the World: From Lascaux to Picasso, I started to wonder if perhaps part of the problem was in translation. The original German title is Bilder, die die Welt bewegten: Von Lascaux bis Picasso, but the difference between the German and English title seems to be insignificant. The blurb on the back of the book says:

Paintings that Changed the World looks at ninety of history's greatest masterpieces to explain just what makes them great. Brief, informative essays examine each work from historic and cultural perspectives and offer intriguing observations and interesting anecdotes about the artists and their eras...

Boy, do I take issue with that statment. I really don't think the authors have given enough attention to the actual works they chose to include in this book. They spend more time discussing the event portrayed, or the artist who painted it, than they do talking about why that particular work is memorable.

Continuing with my review/revision of Paintings that Changed the World, I will skip several of the paintings they included, 1) because I don't think they are all that "earth-shaking" and 2) because I have no intention of re-writing the entire book. So, on to the the Byzantine Era.

Mosaics at San Vitale, Ravenna

The title the authors give to this entry is "From Brothel to Court: Masterpieces of art and architecture." They go on to describe Byzantium at this time, and the Emperor Justinian and his Empress Theodora, depicted here. The Emperor and Empress were definitely memorable; not only did Justinian build fine churches for the newly dominant Christian religion, he is also said to have married a prostitute.

The Byzantine historian Procopius said of her: "She bared her body front and back, inviting men to look at charms that are supposed to remain unseen, and became an expert in the techniques of exciting lust so as to hold worldly men in their thrall."

It is generally agreed that Procopius had issues, and probably exaggerated Theodora's lurid past to some extant. The authors are diligent in discussing Theodora, but nowhere do they actually mention the mosaic.

What makes this work so extraordinary is that up until this time, almost all church mosaics portrayed Christ or other sacred figures. There may have been a small figure of a donor added in a corner, but nothing like these grand processionals that flank the walls of San Vitale. Theodora and her women face Justinian and his court on the opposite wall. And if we are to believe even the tiniest hint of Procopius' vile rumours, Theodora would be the last person to be represented on the walls of a church.

The mosaics of San Vitale in themselves are breathtaking, from the image of Christ Enthroned to the Sacrifice of Abel and Melchisidec, the mosaics are unique in their richness of detail and expertise in execution. For more images, there's a Virtual tour of the main apse here, and a class slide list which covers many of the mosaics here (scroll down to the San Vitale section)

Next time: The Bayeaux Tapestry

Paintings that changed the world? - Part I

I recently purchased a book titled Paintings that Changed the World: From Lascaux to Picasso by Klaus Reichold and Bernhard Graf. It has lovely pictures, and I was curious to see which works they chose and why.

I have to say I was a bit disappointed. While I don't have very many quibbles with their choices, I don't think the authors explained why they chose the ones they did. Each painting has a page of text, but that text doesn't tell us what really makes the work so important. Here's an excerpt from the introduction:

Of course, no painting can really change the world! But who can question the influence of art? Who can deny that a painting can change the way we look at the world - or that artists have been influenced by world changes? An evolving world captured in paintings, and paintings that alter our view of the world: past and present, cause and effect.

The authors go on to say that, certain "works of art are paintings which have changed the world either by making history visible or creating history themselves." The first criteria is a bit vague, but I can agree with the second. The problem comes with the discussions of the works themselves. The authors don't really tell us how these works "changed the world." To my mind, many of their choices just didn't, and those that did were not sufficiently explained.

So, as a public service, I have decided to pick a few of the paintings they chose, and see if I can't explain why I think they made the right choice, even if they couldn't explain it themselves.

We'll begin where one should always begin this type of survey: with the caves at Lascaux.

Discovered in 1940 purely by chance, they were thought to be a hoax at first. No one thought primitive man could have produced such wonderful, realistic paintings of animals. The authors of the book say:

Unique in their vitality and remarkable in the skill with which they were executed, these pictures dramatically changed our view of art history. Until well into the nineteenth century, it was thought that art had developed gradually and in stages over time, similar to the way a child's art develops - from awkward beginnings to more polished forms.

This is certainly true, but it is only one way in which the caves at Lascaux have changed our perceptions. No one would ever have thought that 15000 years ago, our ancestors were creating any type of art. There is just so little in existance - a carved bone here, a figurine there - but nothing to tell us that there were incredibly talented artists.

One thing the authors here neglect to discuss is the artists themselves - what does it tell us about them? Scholars believe these were sacred caves - "cavemen" didn't actually live in caves if they could help it - and that the decorations may have had some magical power. This is an educated guess - for all we know, this could have just as easily been a dance hall or brothel as a sacred space. But we can tell that our ancestors were not the primitive, club-wielding creatures we assumed them to be.

And to top it all off, these paintings are stunning works of art.

Next time: the Byzantine Mosaics in San Vitale, Ravenna

Uta and Reglindis

I had thoughts of posting a longish article on Uta and Ekkehart, a 13th century sculptural pair from Naumburg Cathedral. They are part of a series of sculptures representing the donors who helpd to build the Cathedral in the early part of the century. I have always been fascinated by Uta: she has the most amazing face you will ever see in medieval art.

While surfing the web for information on her, I came across this wonderful article. Uta is quite famous. She shows up in every art survey book and intro to art history course. I used to think it was because she was so stunning, but I don't think that's all of it. While she is world famous, she holds a special status in Germany. Apparently, she was one of those works of art that was "Wagnerized;" she was appropriated by the Nazis as a symbol of Teutonic perfection.

Frau Kohl turned from the window. She explained that far from being a constant in our view of the past, before the 1920’s, Uta was completely unknown. That part of the cathedral has been used as a lumber room for centuries. Then a local artist published a book of photographs, revealing the cathedral statues. Uta and the other statues achieved overnight fame as symbols of the romantic German past. After 1933, Uta was seized on by the Nazis as the ideal of the Aryan woman. She was illustrated in every child’s history book as the German wife, who stands resolute and, above all, silent beside her warrior husband. She was the subject of romanticized plays and films, and life-size replicas of herself and her husband Ekkehart II were dragged through the streets in huge celebrations of German civilization.

I had never heard this before, but it makes sense. The unfortunate thing is that because Uta became the icon, all the other statues were overlooked, including the lovely Reglindis.

She is the cutest little woman, happy and rosy cheeked. I think her face shows even more character than Uta, but she could never stand up to the stoic, strikingly beautiful Uta. So Reglindis is largely ignored. The statues were carved long after their models were dead, so although they are certainly lifelike, they are not from life. The sculptor must have used specific women as models, beautiful women full of personality and grace, yet his men are brutish and morose. They hardly seem to be by the same sculptor (and perhaps they're not, I don't know).

I found a book review which discusses the co-opting of Uta by the Nazis, but it's in German. I could not find anything in English, though I did not do any heavy-duty research, so I can't say the information isn't out there. I just find it interesting that it's not more readily available. Could it be that this idea would corrupt our gaze? Would we think less of Uta if we knew she was, "the ideal of the Aryan woman?" I am not a music person, so I ask my more musically inclined readers if Wagner was somehow corrupted by the Nazis' use of him as an icon?

Meanwhile, if you're looking for more information on these statues, check out the above links. I can add one thing to the informtion you'll find there. These statues were originally polychromed - that is, they were brightly painted. That's another thing you don't find out in your survey class because most of the pictures are pre-WWII and are in black and white. Only the most recent pictures will show their faded glory, the red of Ekkehart's belt and the yellow/gold of Uta's crown. Appropriately enough, Reglindis still has a sumptuous bright red cloak with a yellow lining, just the kind of thing a cheery person would wear. So which one would you pick as today's icon of German womanhood? Uta or Reglindis?

Highlights: 9-28-02

If you are ever in Chicago's Hyde Park - home of the University of Chicago - you must visit the small but extremely choice museum, The Oriental Instititute. This is the home to some of the most spectacular finds in archaeology and Egyptology. Back in the 20's, their archaeologists were out there in the deserts doing the Indiana Jones thing, and bringing back terrific pieces. My favorite piece was a colossal bull's head from Persia. The picture they have of it doesn't do it justice AT ALL. It's a magnificent piece, trust me, you just have to go see it.

They also have some very nice Egyptian, Syrian, and Mesopotamian pieces. They have a replica of the Palette of Narmer (this link takes you to the actual piece). I had the opportunity to see the original in the Cairo Museum. Not a beautiful or stunning piece of artwork, but probably the most important find in Egyptology. Yes, way more important than King Tut, who was a minor Pharoah, after all. For those of you more into popular movies than Egyptology, Narmer was also the "Scorpion King". Probably not as good looking as The Rock, but I'm sure there's not much in the way of accuracy in any other part of the movie, either.