the art historians lens 9/28

I justhad a few questions:


1. Why is Knossos, Crete so significant and a site of intrigument?

2. I noticed in the reading that Evan's reputation fared better than Schliemans bc he used "Stratigraphy" (using deposites in excavation) what exactly does this mean?

Week 5: Alex - Schliemann vs. Evans

To me, it would seem that Evans should be ridiculed more. Reconstructing the ancient ruins of other civilizations does not seem like it helps the science at all. In fact I could view that as more detrimental considering it can tamper with the hard evidence found at the sight. Instead, based off of the context of the article, Shliemann should not be so harshly judged. It seems as though he was just a man trying to fulfill his boyhood wonders. If evidence that he had done what he was accused of, such as mass collecting different artifacts and then placing them in a certain place, then my stance would completely change.

Week 5: Jillian: Schliemann & Evans

Like many others have already said, I really don't understand why "Evans's reputation has fared better than Schliemann's." 

The self-made Schliemann was the one who started in all. In 1871, he was the one, due to his successful business ventures, who was able to take a leap of faith and start digging at the Turkish site of Hissarlik - believing it to be Troy. Though there have been rumors that his methods were in that infamous "gray area," it sounds like, from reading the article, that none of these rumors have been entirely proven. The article also mentions that the German excavator was interested in the site of Knossos on Crete but was unable, for unstated reasons, to purchase the land.

Nonetheless, Arthur Evans was able to. (Was it because his dad was a "renowned British naturalist?") Upon obtaining the land, Evans paid special attention to the technique of stratigraphy - the supposed reason behind his positive reputation. However, he also performed a "considerable amount of reconstruction" (using concrete, not mud brick or rubble masonry like the Minoans utilized originally) causing much of what a visitor sees at Knossos to be far from authentic and potentially entirely inaccurate.

I feel that, in the end, Arthur Evans's vast "remodeling" will prove to be much more destructive than anything done by Heinrich Schliemann.

Week 6: Eric: Discussion

Somehow none of the previous blog posts correspond to blog assignment, I must be missing something. Anyways...

1) Nodelmann describes Roman art as a system of signs. These aren't signs to point out anything concrete to the viewer. But rather like signs, Roman portraiture captures its viewer's attention. A glimpse of the busts of Julius Caesar and the Republican brings attention to certain physical features, primarily those around the face. The details reveal wrinkled skin and balding hair, while the overall portrait reveals a serious espression that seems to describe the state of societal matters of the era. Roman portraiture becomes a sign that describes the happenings of the past.

2) According to Katherine Welch, Roman statues take on a very Greek appearance, using Greek characters as models, and also having been created from marble or bronze. The Roman appropriation of Greek sculpture as pointed out by Welch, is a synthesis of various Greek styles. Greek sculpture was already perfected in the eyes of the Romans, so Roman artists created with styles from several Greek periods at the discretion. An example lies in a relief sculpture from the Great Trajanic frieze. It depicts a scenery and was used as an architectural ornament.

Week 5: Schliemann and Evans

It is obvious that both these archaeologists played critical roles in the discovery and preservation of ancient sites and artifacts.  However, I also felt that they each had their share of undeserving words.  For one thing, Schliemann's criticism seems somewhat harsh, as his excavation of a precious artifact is shadowed by his alleged rudimentary techniques.  On the other hand, it is almost as if Evans' praises overwhelm the negative effects of his excavation.  Although he did in fact establish a chronology for the Minoan Era, his work in renovating the area has completely altered its character.  The mystery of the mythology and grandeur of the site's history has been severely diminished as a result of Evans' work, despite his good intentions to further the world's understanding of ancient archaeology.

Week 5: Rashi: Evans vs. Schliemann

I personally think that Evans deserved to be criticized more so than Schliemann. In the article it says that Schliemann was criticized for his excavation methods being destructive. Although his methods may have been more destructive than Evans', I think that Evans was more destructive than Schliemann was.  Something about reconstructing ancient ruins just kills it for me, because it takes away the essence of being ancient.

week 5 - Maureen - Does the end justify the means?

This article posts several questions regarding the work of two men that are have played
critical roles in art history.
Was Schliemann so driven to prove that Homer's work was based in historical fact, that
he would overlook fact? Would he fabricate items to aid in substantiating his theory?
Does the interest of the pre-Hellenic world generated by Schielmann justify his poor
scientific methods, and possible fraud, by art historians?
While Evans was more scientific with his aproach to excavating Knossos, was his
interpretation of the find the only possible solution for the restoration of Knossos? Can
one person properly evaluate a ruin and reconstruct it to its exact initial likeness?
I believe that Evans felt he was doing the right thing. He understood the importance of
scientific method in excavating the site, and would logically utilize it to reconstruct the
site. Depending on the initial conditions of the site that Evans encountered, I would
believe that there could be multiple interpretations of what was found, and that Evans'
was only one. Unless there is hard proof of the physical make up 0f a ruin, like Jaques
Carry's drawings of the Parthenon, reconstructing a site based soley on items excavated
and one person's evaluation is destined to have faults.
(look at all the examples on this blog of the different interpretations of just a single
article. then think of the differences that thousands of artifacts could conjure up)
Schielmann was a intellegent, wealthy business man at 41. The article does not indicate
how he made his money, nor what, if any scientific background he may have had. He
truely believed that Homer's work was based in fact and could be proved. He spent his
own money and time, buying land and excavating to do this very thing. But if he was
proven wrong, or did not find enough to substantiate his theory, was he the kind of man
that would say so? Based on his statement regarding the gold funerary mask at Mycenea,
I have doubts.
Both these men made contributions to art history none the less. Schielmann's splashy finds
made the average person interested in art history, as well as piqueing the intelect of the
scholars. Evans provided an "essential historical frameworkfor the Agean world" and a
site laypeople could understand, even if it is not necessarily historically accurate.
Does the end justify the means? I don't believe there is a true answer here. I believe that
Evans probably was doing what he thought was correct. I'm less certain about Schielmann.
Intentionally or not, both had an impact on art history, and are still influencing to this day,
as we discuss their roles here.

WEEK 5: NICK: SCHLIEMANN VS. EVANS

From the article, it is interesting to see the different perceptions people had regarding these two scholars given that, at an empirical standpoint, they were both in the pursuit of the same goal and had somewhat similar ways of achieving it. Evans may have had a more scholarly approach, but these attacks against Schliemann simply for being enthusiastic about his work are unwarranted. Both achieved great milestones in their fields, Schliemann with fueling interest in pre-Hellenic art and Evans with creating a chronology for the works he discovered, so it is irrational to think that one be chastised while the other praised. It is relieving to see that Schliemann was properly assessed and can be looked at with a scholarly lens. I also think it is very irresponsible to simply restore part of Knossos. By restoring part of an ancient structure, it loses the ancient allure and mystique but lacks the grandeur and elegance a complete restoration would bring.

WEEK 5: The Treaser Hunter vs The Golden Boy

I know my title may seem a bit generalized but after reading "The Art Historian's Lens" I find my self baffled at Art History's scandalous beginnings. Who would have thought?

On one hand we have Heinrich Schliemann, who, if this was a movie would play, "good cop gone bad." While Heinrich is presumed to have destructive excavation techniques throughout his life he managed to master 15 languages. Is he a genius? Well that would surely explain his motivation to go to the dark side. The side where he lies to publication organizations, and takes on this grave robber image. What truely happened over time is his growing recognition of his own potential. His potential for a wealthy future and for his name to go down in history despite its connotations.

And on the other we have Mr. Arthur Evans who is the innocent serial killer that not to many people notice. Evans unlike, Schliemann may have had better excavation techniques with his close research in the field of stratigraphy, the process of using layers that allow for time relativity of information, but he never understood his true potential. The potential that detours archaeological ethics and morals.

It was pretty interesting reading through the "ART HISTORIAN'S LENS." I wish my glasses were as cool.

Week 5: Mackenzie: Schliemann and Evans

Although both Schliemann and Evans have been criticized for the specific techniques they've used in excavation, there is no doubt that both men have made huge contributions to the fields of art history and archeology. Schliemann was called destructive for not using proper technique, and was seen as more of a treasure hunter than a true historian. Although Schliemann's motives to follow Homer's myths and find the treasure sites may have been personal, the final result is still valuable to the fields of archeology and art history. The Funerary Mask (mask of Agamemnon) that he found at a shaft in Circle A, Mycenae, has been valuable in our studies as we compare the more natural form of the mask to other royal masks in a more natural vs. ideal style. Although he alerted the press and told them he had "gazed into the face of Agamemnon" and was later proved to be incorrect, there's no denying that his find of this mask has given us good context in comparing it to other pieces of work. Evans, on the other hand was criticized for rebuilding the Palace Complex at Knossos, Crete in such a way that could be misleading to an unknowing viewer. Yet, the reconstruction he has done has helped us to understand the civilization and culture of the people of Knossos, Crete in order to compare them to other cultures. From Evan's reconstruction of the Palace Complex, we've learned that the people of Knossos, Crete thought that mountains were sacred and oriented their Palace Complex to complement the mountain. No reconstruction can be absolutely perfect, but Evans' reconstruction has really helped us to understand the history and context behind the Palace. Both men may have been criticized for their techniques, but without them, we would be missing out on a lot of information about specific pieces of artwork that we now can appreciate, thanks to them.

Week 5 : Jenny:Schliemann vs. Evans + Reading Questions

Reading Questions

1.)
Nodelaman would like to suggest that Roman portraitures are comprised signs and symbols to express the meanings behind the artwork. The sculpture of Augustus is an example that uses references to convey messages. The breastplate of Augustus is to signify the victory of the Romans when the Parithans returned the standards. His right hand is extended to address his enemies (the Parithians). The cupid that is situated beside his ankle serves to remind the viewer of Venus.

2.) The Romans adapted many of Greek’s art elements into their own. They copied original Greek statues and used them as decorations in their villas. The Great Trajianic frieze, an example of relief sculpture, resembles the frieze of the Parthenon as they both narrate events.

Schliemann Vs Evan

I do not think it was appropriate to allow Arthur Evans reconstruct the site as the final product only portrays his view of the palace, which may be inaccurate. Not only is the reconstruction misleading but it destroys the true nature of the artwork.

Week 5: Molly: Nodelman and Welch

1.) Nodelman means that Roman portraiture is a combination of unique elements that are needed to create the whole. For example, when he describes the statue of Augustus from Prima Porta he emphasis the juxtapositions of meaning found in the sculpture. Augustus’ gesture of address “possessed a well-established meaning in Roman society” (15) while his bare feet (incomplete military uniform) references “the ideal nudity of heroic statues” (16). His face is youthful to contrast with the old men of the “veristic” age and give new hope to the empire. His gaze reflects “the old-Roman virtues of rigorous self-control and implicit acceptance of the binding force of social order” (17). This sculpture became an icon because of its multiple layers of meaning and references that people viewing the sculpture would understand. It is a combination of elements meant to elicit a certain response from the viewer, which is what Nodelman means when he describes Roman art as a “system of signs” (11).

2.) Roman sculpture’s distinctiveness is in its “stylistic variety” (38). Roman sculptures borrowed from Greek sculpture and then infused elements unique to their own culture. For example, The Esquiline Venus is actually a combination of the Hellenistic Aphrodite Anadyomene with a Classical body and face (40). The statues that were created responded to the Roman market demands. Another example is statues “from the circle of the god Dionysus” that owners of Roman villas purchased to decorate their homes (40). The sculpture was respected for its part in Greek mythology while allowing viewers to relax as Dionysus is, after all, the god of wine. Another example is a revival of the Greek-style sarcophagus. But, again, what was depicted depended on the owner. Ultimately, Roman sculpture took what it thought best in Greek sculpture and adapted it to the messages it wanted to convey to the viewer (38).

Week 5: Molly: Schliemann and Evans

I thought it was interesting that Evans had a better reputation that Schliemann while Evans' technique can be viewed as just as destructive as Schliemann's. I think it was inappropriate to simply rebuild part of the Knossos palace. I do not know if he gave other historians a chance to see it before his renovation or artists a chance to sketch it in its original recovered form but I hope that he did because that might have been more helpful to understanding Minoan culture than his renovation.
I thought it was an important passage and I am glad that the book addresses this information.

Week 5: Kathryn: Schliemann vs. Evans

After reading about Heinreich Schliemann and Arthur Evans, I began to think about their impact on the archaeological world.  I feel that despite the controversy surrounding some of their excavation techniques, they made important contributions to the scientific community.  It's clear that both of these men truly loved what they were doing, and they were trying to uncover treasures of the past for the world to study and appreciate.  I wonder what Schliemann's feelings were towards Evans during their lifetimes and if he would be upset now knowing that Evan's reputation has fared better over the years than his?

Week 5: Sasha: Schliemann vs. Evans

When I read about the two excavators, Schliemann and Evans, and how many people had more respect for the latter, I could not help but wonder what the two thought of each other.

Schliemann was older than Evans, and had begun excavating Hissarlik at age 49 when Evans was only 20 years old. Perhaps Evans thought of Schliemann has a sort of hero, someone to look up to. Maybe Schliemann even inspired Evans to excavate.

Schliemann, on the other hand, was already dead by the time Evans began excavating the Palace of Minos, so who knows if Schliemann ever had much of an opinion of Evans.

Week 4: Molly: Question about Midterm

I have two questions:
How would you recommend studying for the midterm? (For example, do you recommend flashcards with the artworks?)
Is there a certain area we should focus on? (For example, is knowing the title and date of an artwork worth as much as describing it well or is the description more important? )

blogging guidelines

Though blogging is a relatively new tool used in academics, the posts should still comply with the rules of formal, academic writing.

1. Write in complete sentences with proper grammar, punctuation, and spelling (note the spell check included in the Compose palette). Do not use texting or instant messenging abbreviations or lingo.
2. Credit your sources. This can be as simple as including a word that links to a credible article on the web (refer to "To make a link" under the post "Understanding the Technical Side of Blogger").
3. Support your opinions, comments, and criticisms as you would in any formal paper (primary and secondary sources).
4. Be aware of the voice you are using (first person, third person, etc).

Posting Guidelines:

1. Follow this format for titling your post: Week of Discussion: Your Name: Title of your post
   Example: Week 3: Joe: Egyptian Mummies
2. Add labels to your posts according to the Discussion Week (located in the bottom right of the Compose screen)
   Example: Week 3 Discussion
3. You must make your posting before 12am the night BEFORE your discussion class.