Week 5: Woman or Goddess with Snakes and Ruler of Gudea

                    The two pieces of art, Votive Statue of Gudea, page 37 in the book and Woman or Goddess with Snakes on page 88 in the book. Both of these figures are important and a position of high power, considering one was a ruler and the other a possible goddess and are both wearing some kind or crown or hat. Yet they look completely different. There physical form is very different, as is their style of clothing. The Ruler of Gudea has a much more simplistic feel, a quiet confidence, and the key to life. On the other hand the woman or goddess had many details, and colors, and is holding snakes which for many cultures are considered evil, and a sign of death.

                     The Ruler of Gudea seems very simply composed compared to the woman/goddess with the snakes. He has a realistic look, soft edges, strong composure and the detailed writing on his robe he does not have the busy detailed look the woman has because of the lack of color. The Ruler of Gudea has some smooth places, such as the top of the robe, his arms, and face resulting in a more simplistic look. The Ruler of Gudea with his stern and relaxed form, while holding the cup of overflowing water also has a look of confidence. The woman/goddess has many more curves, and limbs, and spaces surrounding her body. Her arms are out from her body making more space. The woman has a long dress with folds of beautiful color in her skirt and her body is painted, along with intricate designs everywhere on her clothing. Her waist is very small; I feel it is slightly unrealistic. The woman or goddess with all her decoration , detail, color and the posture of holding two snakes up in either hand makes her look confidant in herself, or perhaps in what she stands for. But she is also holding two snakes. As soon as I see the two snakes I think of deception, evil, and death. When I see the ruler I see water overflowing with fish swimming, well, I think of life, healthiness, and power. I am pretty sure there are very few civilizations that viewed snakes as a positive thing…especially when being held up in a position of, “I am going to stab something with these snakes.” (That’s what is come across to me anyway)  So the women/goddess gives me the feeling of deception. I keep thinking of it as, a beautiful woman with a deadly ‘pet’. Then there is the ruler. I see life in the kind face of the ruler. He has overflowing amount of water, and fish. He carries and provides both food and water. The woman or goddess, has sharper straighter lines, while the ruler has softer appearance. I feel the ruler was obvious a good person, who helped his people. But I would really like to know exactly who this woman was, and what her purpose was.

Week 4: Egyptian Art

Egyptian art has a very distinctive style, especially when it comes to depicting and portraying people. They had an interesting standard they used when depicting people, both men and women. When Egyptians interpreted people, they had many different outlets to describe who those people were. They also had a specific way to measure and draw out their art. All these different aspects combined make the Egyptians very creative in their art.

They used size, realistic imaging, position, and symbols to show who a person was. First off, the Egyptians used size in their art. The bigger the person was in an image, picture or carving, the more important they were. For example, in the Tomb of Ti, the fifth Dynasty government official, therefore very high in rank was made much bigger than his men on the “Watching a Hippopotamus Hunt” painting (pg. 61 in the art history book). This is showing that this government official was more important than his men. They also used realistic imaging; a pattern is seen in Egyptian art. People of high importance are done less realistically then the people of lower importance in a government based scale at their time. An example of this pattern is seen with a statue of a ruler and a statue of a common Butcher. The Khafre (pg. 59 in the art history book) is a statue of crowned king, therefore very important. His is tall, at a sitting range his is 5’6 1/8’’ and his build is lifelike, yet perfected. He does not seem to have blemishes, making him look very much god-like. Because the royalty and people with high political power were all big, and god-like, it gives the impression that they were blessed by the gods and the gods were on their side. One the other hand, the common person was typically made much smaller. The sculpture “Butcher” (pg. 60 in the art history book) is a common person. He is 14 5/8’’ and he is made in a very realistic form, not at all “god-like”. His muscles are not defined to the point of unnatural, and he has blemishes him the skin.

The canon of proportions that they Egyptians used, I personally think is completely fine, and can be considered creative, as well as mathematical, and organized. Although it may make some of their artwork seem formal, and too organized, I feel it is really just a style the Egyptians had and thought was pleasing to the eye. I also think creativity was valued in ancient Egypt because they had created their own artistic identity. But I am thinking maybe going outside of that realm was not looked brightly upon in those times because there is such a predictable style to ancient Egyptian art and not much art or history telling that doesn’t fit into the typical ancient Egypt art.

In order for ancient art to be valued today, I don’t think it necessarily has to be a “manifestation of creativity” mostly because we seem to be interested not only in the artistic elements of work, such as composition, color, and materials. But also we are intrigued by the meaning and the history of the art. People all throughout history have been creative in their own stylistic ways of art and symbolism to show what happened in those times, and what was important to the people. I do not think art in the past really has to be a huge display of creativity today to be valued. The expectations of creativity are constantly changing, it would be unfair to hold the people of ancient times to our exceptions of creativity today, even though I think most of the art work is just as creative.

Week 3: Votive Statue of Gudea- Formal Analysis

This is a detailed sculpture of the ruler Gudea. This sculpture was found in Girus, which is modern day Iraq. This statue of the ruler is only 2 ½ feet tall, but the ruler still gives off a very confident, strong, and peaceful appearance. This statue has an overall very balanced appearance, but my eyes are drawn first to the hands which are holding a cup with water overflowing to the sides of the with fish swimming in it, the water then draws my eyes down to his robe and back to the head.

I look first at the hands because of the large amount movement that comes from the vessel he is holding. The water is streaming out in a curvy motion that captures the eye. There is also small fish swimming up to the vessel. The water starts at about the center of the chest and continues to the feet. The water brings the eyes down to the robe. The robe was smooth and provided a surface which was covered in very detailed inscriptions. They are carved shallowly into the robe, and cover the entire bottom part of the robe. Then I look at the head of the figure. The head of this figure has very large protruding eyes on a wide face rounded face. The eyes show look like he is concentrating or looking carefully at something, but his eyebrows show no uptight motions or frowns making his expression is relaxed, yet serious. All his facial features are give off the impression that is undisturbed, also showing no sign of fear or insecurity. There is a hat on the figure that is detailed and it is said it is supposed to look like fleece, it has the pattern that fleece can have, but to me, it almost looks like a crown.

The rule of Gudea looks very confidant, strong and peaceful. His posture is upright, and has a calm yet strong composure. His muscles are well defined, but are not stressed because there are no bulging veins, no action stance, and no sign of tension. His muscle in his arm that is in view shows he has strength and gives the feeling of power because it is well-defined muscle. Only that one arm is showing, the other is covered by his robe and has the water flowing over it. 

This sculpture is a figure that is pleasing to just look at the front, and does not give a huge desire to go around the statue. It is a frontal view that is satisfying to the eye. His body position is fairly even on both sides not making me want to walk around him and he is also looking straight ahead. The statue also has a very block like appearance, not many open spaces. There or no open spaces between any of his arms or legs, it’s all connected, just making the view from the front a sufficient viewpoint. Although if you do keep your eyes on the water, it starts to trail around his robe, so it may make some people want to follow the water.

The lighting in this statue makes it slightly more dramatic and easier to see the details. The light creates shadow that enhances the statues depth. The feet draw some attention because of the lighting, the coloring gets incredibly dark, and it looks like a small cave that is formed around his feet. Just the tips of the ruler’s toes are extending out of the darkness. But because it is so dark by the feet it does draw the eyes to the feet once you have seen the hands and the water, the robe and face. The hat also utilizes the lighting. It collects a dark shadow that almost brings a dark circle around that enhances the face which makes the face of the ruler more apparent, because it is lighter than the shadow around the face.

Overall, the ruler of Gudea's physical stance and composition is what makes him look confident, strong, and peaceful. And the lighting that is used makes the statue more appealing and allows us to see more clearly the details of the sculpture.   

Week 2: Venus of Willendorf

I absolutely loved Venus of Willendorf. The detail and realistic look is amazing. She is a figure who we do not know much about, but is one of the oldest examples of prehistoric art discovered, therefore, making it important to study. Venus if Willendorf, being both female and nude, automatically puts her in a key position for art. But it there are so many unknowns about Venus of Willendorf, that it is almost frustrating to study, yet it is also one reason it is so fascinating. It really gets people to think about all the possibilities that this little figure could mean. And think about all the possibilities of what beauty was to the people at time she was carved. 

Her name having Venus in it was something unexpected because of the extreme sexual appeal that typically goes with the name Venus. Learning it was derived from a mockery tone, it makes more sense. But also it is also undeserved mockery. She doesn’t fit our typical Venus Goddess, but she is beautiful none the less. Venus of Willendorf is nothing like the original Venus Goddess of sexual love and beauty in the physical appearance. The Goddess is modest, trying to cover her pubic area and breasts and making it more civilization friendly by coving her body, unlike Venus of Willendorf who has it all out there, who has a much less physically attractive appearance, and shows no signs of covering her body. It makes her look strong, unafraid, and confident with who she is. The Goddess is so petite, and seems uncertain of herself. Hiding her body just gives the message of being uncomfortable, and tentative.  

This piece of art is beautiful and it is acceptable to have her name as Venus. Who knows what beauty was to this certain group of people, or perhaps to this individual artist. But with the lifelike and artistic beauty, the Venus Goddess and Venus of Willendorf are very similar. They are both very well done representations of real life women. But it is also good her name to sometimes be replaced with Woman of Willendorf because it takes the pre-existing expectations of Venus that we have as an society are taken away and they are not projected onto her. Thus, allowing an unbiased opinion to be made of her. 

Venus of Willendorf is such a lifelike representation of an obese woman. And the fact that she had such flat arms, no feet or face very interesting. Also the significance in the hair; what exactly it is though. Was it just a cultural thing or possibly a sexual appeal. But who this woman was all together is very intriguing. The writer of the article made some interesting and possible suggestions. It seems like a perfect size for a child’s toy, but they detail seems to be too important. The possibility of a fertility idol seems probable because of the detail and care that went into her sexual organisms, including the detail that went into her hair. It makes me very curious as to whom she is, and what group of people created her.

Overall, respect is called for this little carved woman, and it is a beautiful piece of art. And the name Venus of Willendorf fits her just fine.

Week 1 : Introduction

Hello!
   I am Crystal, a student at CWU. I am currently in a junior standing, going for a studio art major. I love art, but specifically photography. There is nothing better than capturing the beauty, the hardships, the celebrations, simple and complex moments of life. 

    I also love to travel. I feel like throwing a few things in a bag, and going across the world is exceedingly exciting, educational and enjoyable. I have been to Philippines, Tanzania, India, Mexico, Nicaragua, and Taiwan. Hopefully will see more of the world someday! Being submerged in other cultures fascinates me.

    And lastly, I really enjoy working out. Anything from running, swimming, and weights to just playing football with friends. It's all fun to me.

Well, looking forward to this class! I hear it's a killer, so hit me up if anyone wants to study.