Extra Credit Post

Return to a Fascinating Face

I decided to find out more information about the Roman Emperor Caracalla of the fascinating intense stare.  I looked on the artstor site through the library (http://library.artstor.org.exp.lib.cwu.edu/library/) and found several images of him in sculpture and on coins.  With his furrowed brow and habitual scowl he is recognizable in every medium I saw, which surprised me a little.  I think that Roman verism is the reason his image transfers so well- we see the same features without too much artistic license being taken.  He doesn’t look like just any emperor- he looks like Caracalla.  The other sculptures I studied are in the Louvre and in the Staatliche Museen zu Berlin and they look enough alike to be the same work shown from different angles. They may even be copies of each other.  Caracalla’s hair is slightly longer in these statues and curly and his beard is more evident than in the picture in our book, his head is turned somewhat to the side and he wears the cloak that was the source of his name fastened at his shoulder by a round clasp.  It may be the way the bust depicted in our book was lit that made Caracalla appear older or maybe the style of verism really exaggerated the lines in his face.  With the slightly longer, curly hairstyle in the other busts I saw he does seem a little younger (more like the Greek ideal) but no softer.   His face on coins is usually in profile but still shows the furrowed brow, short, curly hair and strong jaw of the sculptures.  Unlike in this country, the ruler in power was the one to be pictured on the coins during his reign, much like in Great Britain today.   Coins were also made to commemorate military victories, coronations and other events that were important to the state.

This emperor’s birth-name was Lucius Septimius Bassianus, born in 188 the son of the Emperor Septimius Severus.  He was the darling of the Roman army and his soldiers gave him the nickname “Caracalla” after the Gallic-style cloak he wore.  A caul is a covering even in the English Language and in Latin calleo means to have a thick skin or in other words to be callous.  In 198 his father crowned him co-emperor and he was re-named Marcus Aurelius Antoninus after the conqueror he sought to emulate.  He was said to “possess the savagery of Caligula and the paranoia of Nero”.  I can’t imagine that he would be fun to be around.  His father did actually did conquer in Parthia (Iran and Iraq) a decade and a half earlier and Caracalla was on his way into the Fertile Crescent area to do battle there when he was executed by a Praetorian Prefect, Macrinus, who feared that his master was becoming too powerful.  At this time the army tended to decide who would lead the empire by killing their old leader and replacing him with another one of their choosing, especially when the current ruler seemed to be becoming too mentally unstable.   Since he was murdered in 217 he was only 29 years old at the time of his death, which is not the age of an old man.  He had been living as a soldier from the time he was big enough to lift a sword though, and this shows in his face.*

*The information about Caracalla in this paragraph is from an article in Expedition, or more formally, Darbyshire,  Gareth, Harl, Kenneth W., and Goldman, Andrew L.  “To the Victory of Caracalla: New Roman Altars at Gordion.” Expedition 51-2 (2009) 31-38.

Art Mystery: Some Things I Learned About in This Class

Post Nine:   Week Eleven

In this class I particularly liked to find out about styles and techniques of art that I didn’t know much about before I took this course.  The first type of art that was new to me was Near Eastern art, which if I had seen before I would have assumed was Egyptian.  Works like Assurnasirpal Killing Lions seem to be Egyptian until one knows what Near Eastern elements to look for.  This work was certainly influenced by Egyptian art but shows less stylization and more naturalism than similar works from Egypt.  The Egyptian (3,000-332 BCE) and the Near Eastern (3,500-334 BCE) civilizations arose separately and existed for centuries as separate entities yet they must have influenced each other’s art and attitudes.  Hierarchy of scale is usually more apparent in Egyptian art and Egyptian artists obeyed conventions such as the gridded proportions of the figures on the stele of the sculptor Userwer that the Near Eastern kingdoms didn’t always use.  They had their own conventions, of course since many figures seem very stout and short compared to Egyptian figures as in Assurbanipal and his Queen in the Garden.  Near Eastern artists didn’t follow the same set of conventions throughout their civilization like the Egyptians did.  Egypt is more isolated by the Sahara Desert on one side and the Ocean on the other.  The Near East is in a better geographic location to be influenced by other peoples from the north, west and east; this may explain why their art is more variable.

I also liked learning about Roman verism.  To go from the idealized youth of Greece to veneration of the somewhat haggard lines of age and experience in Rome appealed to me quite a lot.  Whether a society values youth or experience is really just a fashion of the time.  During the time of the American Revolutionary War (1776) the fashionable were wearing white powdered wigs to imitate their elders who had naturally gray hair.  Fashion at the court of a royal was whatever the monarch dictated and people often imitated the ruler at whatever their apparent age.  Even during the late Roman Empire we could compare the busts of Commodus and Caracalla and see the youth and beauty verses age and experience as approaches to propaganda.  I think when one is younger it seems obvious that youth, energy and beauty is better as a way to be portrayed.  Then as one gets older one can appreciate experience and relate to those who are shown to be elders.  It seems to me that the Greek Civilization represented youth and the Roman Empire used Greece as a starting point, matured as a civilization and then eventually aged and died; a natural process, no doubt, that was shown in the progression of styles used by artists.

I was also interested in the origin and conventions of the Byzantine style.  Actually, all Early Medieval art was a bit of a mystery to me.  It seems most sources I’ve seen are so busy explaining about how creative art died with the fall of Rome that they neglect the entire era.  It’s true that most of the art is not secular but to ignore this era is to ignore all of the inspiration attendant with the first flowering of Christianity.  The elongation of figures continued from Byzantium to the Early Medieval era as part of the artistic conventions of iconic art; becoming less stiff and more graceful as time went on.  We can compare the Mosaics of Emperor  Justinian and Empress Theodore (With Attendants) from 547 (page 240) with the more fluid and emotional  Crucifixion Mosaic from the Church of the Dormition, Daphni, Greece from the 11^th century (page 250).   Both these works are highly stylized but the Crucifixion shows much more emotion, a trend that continued on through the Medieval Romanesque and Gothic styles.  I wanted to compare two mosaics here because as materials used to decorate churches changed from tiles to sculpture to paint to stained glass the emotions portrayed also changed.  The flexibility of paint and, in illuminated manuscripts, line invited close examination and personal contemplation such as the Chi Iota Page of the Book of Kells or the Worcester Chronicle page of Those Who Work; Those Who Fight; Those Who Pray.  Frescoes and paintings can tell their stories in nearly any interior space and mosaics, stone or other sculpture and stained glass seem better suited for larger or more public indoor or outdoor works.

I had also always wondered about how the paint on the glass in a stained glass window lasted for hundreds of years.  Here I found out (on page 497) that the metallic paint was actually heated and fused to the glass so it would last as long as the glass itself.  I also liked some of the pictures that were provided to illustrate how Gothic architecture could allow for such large areas of glass that the interior of these cathedrals looked like the inside of a kaleidoscope such as in the Upper Chapel of the Sainte Chapelle in Paris. 

Post #8: Departures from Nature

Week Nine Post:  Byzantine and Early Medieval Art

Stylization

The three angels shown in The Old Testament Trinity (Three Angels Visiting Abraham) on page 258 are stylized using some Byzantine conventions.  This late Byzantine work by the monk Andrey Rublov was painted between 1410 and 1425 in Russia, which was the last bastion of the Byzantine style.  It is somewhat narrative in that it tells the Old Testament story of the visitation of Abraham and Sarah by three divine beings but it is also iconic as it can be interpreted as a New Testament representation of the Holy Trinity.   I call it somewhat narrative because Abraham and Sarah aren’t shown in this painting at all; only their house and the tree of Mamre suggest a connection to the Old Testament story.  Abraham and Sarah have been left out of the picture to limit the subject matter (a Byzantine convention) to the trinity of angels and their New Testament story.   These angels have the elongated bodies, arms and legs.  They each have the flat circular halo to denote them as divine beings and small gold wings that don’t seem large enough to bear their weight; wings are there only to indicate that they are angels.  Their identical faces show them to be one being in three bodies and they have the long, narrow noses small mouths and large eyes common in the Byzantine style.  They are wearing robes which seem to fall in heavy folds, concealing the body, except for prominent features like knees.  These figures are seated in a naturalistic manner around the table; they are not arranged in a line like in the earlier Byzantine style.  It seems that the stylized elongation of the figures indicates the pull and reach for heaven as if a holy person or being can stretch up and then just keep rising forever.

     I think that some of the most stylized art forms that we read about were the Hiberno-Saxon works (a style which I had always previously called Celtic).  The 7^th century Hinged Clasp from the Sutton Hoo Burial Ship on page 428 seems to be a relatively simple piece in comparison with some of the others from a similar style and era, yet the floral and animal themes pictured are almost unrecognizable as such because of the extreme stylization.  The rectangles of millefiori (thousand flowers) are of colorful red and blue glass inlay and are a geometrical floral type that resembles nothing in nature.  The enameled snakes that border the millefiori are knotted and twisted into forms that make it difficult to tell where they begin and end; even the serpent’s heads are beaked, almost bird-like.  The boars on the arched parts of the clasp don’t look like pigs as we might draw them.  They overlap and yet both heads and both tail ends are visible, with the heads toward the center of the piece, facing outward and the rears on the outside, facing inward- if that makes sense.  The pigs' back bones make up the arched portion of the piece and overlap in such a way as to create a continuous curve with no notch in the center.  The boars have everything a pig has from snout to curly tail and yet I had to read the description and look very closely before I could see them. 

     The Chi Rho Iota Page from the Book of Kells from the 8th or 9^th century on page 422 shows even more decoration and much stylization of the main subjects, which in this case are the letters.  Only the black outlines keep the letters’ forms from being completely lost in swirling knots and geometric shapes.  Human faces appear in improbable places and the animal forms that appear as part of the design are stylized until they are barely recognizable.  In this genre bodies are also often elongated but then they are manipulated, knotted and twisted into unnatural conformations.    In these designs, the closer one examines the details, the more details appear into a smaller and smaller infinity and the knots seem to draw one into inward contemplation instead of reaching outward to heaven.   Some human figures look like the images on playing cards and the figures of the cats and mice are realistically depicted in comparison to any other identifiable creature and seem a departure from the usual stylization.

Week #8 Commodus and Caracalla

Post #7 Roman and Early Christian Art

The beautiful marble sculpture of Commodus as Hercules depicts him as the reincarnation of Hercules.  He is dressed in the skin of the Nemean lion and holds his club and the golden apples from the Garden of the Hesperides.  He also is playing up his resemblance to his father Marcus Aurelius who was a great leader but who must have allowed his fondness for his son to override his reason when it came time to name his successor.  The message of propaganda for this sculpture is that this ruler is descended from a god and the son of a king; therefore he has a right to rule.  Commodus looks to the glorious past to affirm his right to rule like a conservative politician who is trying to bring back the good old days.  Much of the audience intended for this work may have been in favor of bringing back good times, which included the luxury of decadence.  The intended propaganda of the work misses the mark because of its contradictions.  He’s bearded though youthful.  He has a strong body type but is very pretty. He holds a club but looks half asleep.   It’s as if this bust is telling us that he is a leader who likes to get his hair done and pose for portraits.

Caracalla, on the other hand, has an exaggerated, intolerant look.  His facial expression is intense and frowning.  From his severe military haircut, which fits easily under a war helmet, to the frown lines and furrows in his brow he shows a strength that rests solely within his own self.  The propagandistic implications of this work are simple and straightforward with no contradictions.  He will protect and defend what is his and brooks no interference from anyone.  After all, he has killed his own brother because of his ambition to rule alone.  He is not trying to be liked for anything except his toughness and will command respect because of his accomplishments.

Both of these sculptures hearken back to the forms of Greece and Rome’s past.  Commodus’s bust reflects the Greek stylistic ideals of youth and beauty.  The unknown artist was certainly skillful and may have even been Greek since Greeks were regarded as the best artists (and teachers) throughout the entire time of the Roman Empire.  Caracalla’s portrait looks more like the sculptures of the patrician class around the first century BCE or first century CE when aged realism showed wisdom.  The less is more approach seems more Roman in style though the artist wasn’t necessarily less skilled.  The artist could have been more able to express everything he needed to without elaboration.   I think that the sculpture of Commodus is much nicer to look at, he’s a handsome guy and the lion skin headdress flows around his face and frames it very nicely.  The plainer head of Caracalla is disturbing in its intensity and yet it’s only a pair of eyes framed by a face.  Commodus’ expression is lazy and relaxed, Caracalla’s is direct.  Commodus holds a club in one hand and apples in the other in what could be a punishment and reward theme but doesn’t really seem interested in the labor of administering either.   Caracalla appears prepared for action and will enforce his will by military force if necessary.   I suppose some contemporary who saw the bust of Commodus might have thought, “You’re very pretty but what are you going to do for Rome?”  Caracalla proved himself a wise and effective ruler and the right fit for his time.  The sculpture of Commodus does not reflect the real concerns arising from the fall of the great empire and so is not effective propaganda.   The head of Caracalla is effectively using his image to show a person who is not going to let the empire slide into oblivion.

Post #6 The Parthenon Marbles

Week #7 Greek and Etruscan Art

Lord Elgin transplanted the Parthenon Marbles during a time when only the aesthetics of Greek sculpture was being considered.  These artworks were thought of as beautiful and desirable and used in public and private buildings as decoration.  Once they were found they could be bought and sold with no consideration of cultural or historical context and it was all quite legal.  Greek sculpture was admired and valued by all of Europe but Britain was particularly powerful.  With their Empire near its height, the British may have felt that they were entitled to keep and hold the antiquities of the world.  Britain could conserve and preserve them but these art works also served as propaganda to point out how powerful Britain was and how many valuable art works were at their disposal from the areas they controlled or influenced.   I think they justified their practice of acquisition by putting many of the more famous pieces in museums for all the public to see but the historical context of the work was still destroyed.  Just seeing these sculptures was considered enough in the past but the opportunity to educate the public about the history and culture of Greece was lost.  I think the culture of the original country should be respected.  It’s pretty bizarre to think that a Greek person has to travel to England to see the sculptures that once decorated the Parthenon in his or her own country.  It’s also interesting that the ancient Greeks who made this art probably didn’t value the sculptures on the outside of the temple as much as they did the cult statue that was once inside.  These exterior decorations are all that we have left to squabble over, so we do.

The display in the museum brings the forms and images down to eye level.  As viewers we can see the eloquence of the figures and understand some of the stories being illustrated.  The anatomy is very evident as the figures are shown as unpainted, natural stone (a modern convention).  It is convenient for art students studying sculptural techniques and anatomical expressiveness to have the works near the floor and visible.  The works are already out of place and context in Britain so the manner in which they are displayed suits the surroundings.   We could call a museum taking historical and cultural factors under consideration a more modern aesthetic which has not yet been accepted by the British.  Their display could include these marbles or copies of them painted and hung up near a ceiling level that is approximately the height of the original Parthenon frieze.  These works would then be seen in a manner closer to what was originally intended.  This would be historical context as a new aesthetic.

The argument by the British that the sculptures would be destroyed by polluted outdoor conditions in Athens, Greece was invalidated by the construction, in Greece, of a new museum to house them near the Parthenon.  I think Britain is holding onto these art works as symbols of their past glory and power.  It’s got to be difficult to acknowledge that they are no longer the Empire that they once were by giving up the valuable things that symbolize the past.  The new propaganda would not be in the objects kept by Britain but in how they are willing to create good will by restoring these things to their original owners.   The marbles will be displayed in this new Greek museum and getting them back to their homeland and reuniting the history, culture and the original context will be steps in the right direction.  The return of the Parthenon Marbles could benefit both countries.