week 6 Tyler: the art historians lense

Though the importance of their methods cannot be devalued, the true focus should be on the preservation of art. Schliemann can be called a treasure hunter, and the world can question the integrity of his findings, but the focus should be on the fact that the world now has the opportunity to enjoy this art for generations to come. However, the techniques used by the British naturalist Arthur Evans should act as a model for the restoration of art because he was able to maintain the integrity of the surrounding environment, as well as provide the world with some amazing art.

week 6: Jennifer L.: Lens of Art Historian

I don't quite understand why Schilman was frowned upon and Evans was knighted. In my opinion, Evans restoring the old palace was MUCH more detrimental than how Schilman embellished his findings. Schilman brought more attention to the artifacts, even though it was exaggerated it brought light upon the art world. Evans took something sacred and made it new, lessening its historical importance.

Week 6, Monica Stern, "The Art Historian's Lens"

Regardless of the differences between Schliemann and Evans, including their respect for the sites and the history, I believe they both did great things for archeology and art history. Just the fact that at a young age Schliemann believed Homer's story of Troy could be real history and that he was dedicated enough to deal with the Turkish government to excavate at Hissarlik is moving enough. However, his accounted style of excavation is not scholarly and disrespectful. Excavation and archeology should be done to find out more about history and to preserve what has happened thousands of years ago, not destructive and propagandised. Evans, on the other hand, was very successful with the excavation at Knossos while maintaining some integrity to the land and the history. His use of stratigraphy is an intelligent way of chronology. This technique is so amazing in the way one can use it to find out the placement of walls and the general structure of an immensely old building. Although many people and art historians doubt his preservation and restoration of the Palace Complex, I believe that his close attention to detail and his use of stratigraphy could give him more reliability to rebuild it than say people like Schliemann. However, I do agree with the statement that it is a bit misleading to those tourists who do not know the history of his restoration or the societal bias that could have come into his architecture.

Week 6: To Reconstruct or Not to Reconstruct: That is the Archeological question: Liz harmon

Was Schliemann just an ego driven grave robber that excavated the treasures of Hissarlik to become known to the world and lavish his wife with the ancient jewelry of the Mycenae? Was Evans a man who became so mesmerized and astounded in the incredible ruins he found at Knossos that he couldn’t stop at merely restoring what he found and had to reconstruct? Or were they simply two men who did what they could given their circumstances in the era they were living. Today, there is much debate that with the inception of the digital world, there is no longer any need to reconstruct ancient ruins as Evans did on Crete. Even as far back as 2001, at the seventh annual Virtual Systems and MultiMedia Conference, experts were discussing this issue of how to use multimedia and virtual reality for conservation. The upside of using the tools of the digital age for archeological conservatism is that still images, virtual reality reconstructions, and other mass quantities of information about any given historical site around the world can be accessed by anyone one who can afford a cup of coffee at an Internet café. People of all economic levels can see far off lands from thousands of years past . The draw back is people may never have the experiential learning that one gets when they enter the corridor of the Lourve, the exhaustion of when they reach that top step of the Eiffel Tower, or standing in the same location where spectators watched gladiatorial contests at the Great Colosseum in Rome. Perhaps reconstruction of the great ancient ruins will draw more people to these sites enforcing the importance of standing in the presence of history, of greatness, of art in its purest form. Or it could cause spectators to gasp in disgust as great ruins are turned into amusement type Forest Lawn Museum.

The Art Historian's Lens

I've always recognized the connections between the stories that art tell, and the cultures who produced them. However, i have never before recognized the possible connection between fictitious stories and history, using art as evidence t bridge the two. The possibility of a connection with stories makes art history much more interesting for me. 

In reference to the specifics that this reading is talking about, i see justification in the criticism of excavation tech Schliemann's niques. However, critics have to remember that his excavations were performed without out modern knowlege. We should also apreciate the fact that, without his interest and determination, we wouldn't have any of the artifacts at all.

Week 6: Sharon Kim: Two Excavators

After reading the article and also studying the site of Knossos Crete in class, I believe that what the two excavators did was fine, but they could have executed their desires in different manners. Mostly, I think that each explorer should have reconstructed an entirely new and separate construction of that ancient site somewhere else. It is commendable that both men desired to learn about the ancient sites and reconstruct as best as they could. Evans even paid "close attention to stratigraphy" in order to build the site as close to what is looked like before (Jansen). But if they left the sites as they were and build a completely new model somewhere else, not only would the public be able to see what the sites looked like in ancient times, but ordinary people could go see the actual ancient sites from centuries ago. This way would be most beneficial for the majority of people. I can see how this topic of discussion can be controversial and I look forward to knowing how future scholars will voice their opinion on this debate.

Week 6-Sarkis: Nodelman response

Well this is my first official post, but i guess better late than never. I don't see any responses to the Nodelman and Welch reading, but I got the question in my email so here are my thoughts. I must say thought that I have not had time to read the Welch so I will try to respond on the Nodelman reading only. Nodelmans idea that Roman portraiture, and Roman art in general can be described as a system of signs is an accurate assesment, however I can't say i agree with everything in the article. what he means is that Roman portraiture was mainly done, in the time it was done, was essentially celebrating civic duty and distinction. These portraits were in fact, one of the first examples of statues directed towards the spectators alone. For example, the wrinkles on the faces of some of the statues show spectators of the age and long standing civic duty of the portraits, and this is seen in the example of the "unknown republican." The "look" and gaze on these portraits are symbolic of their importance and standing as civic officials, and all this the spectators at the time would have understood. In this respect, portraits at the time were made with an understanding that the viewer would have known and understood these symbolic gestures of the face, eyes, stare, gaze, and all other techniques employed. Also, I have read, (I don't remember where but would be happy to edit this post and cite my source) elsewhere that many roman sculptures' heads were created not according to body image. Essentially, an older mans head and face was placed on a young, muscular body. Again symbolic of the civic importance of the figure, showing his strength and power in the body, and an old and wise leader in the face. I however do not agree with one thing that Nodelman says, when he describes roman portraits reveal a "...an insisten pattern of recurrence of particular physical and characterological traits that all these ... portraits look very much alike." I would say that they do look very much alike, but this may be due to the artitstic style of the time, not necessarily the style of the artists but possibly it could be because of the way the "officials" wanted to be portraiyed, or wanted the commissioned portraits to be portrayed.

Melissa Purner: Response to Schliemann and Evans

Like many other people in our class I was somewhat appalled by the fact that Evans took it upon himself to reconstruct his finds at Knossos on the island of Crete.  While he may have been regarded as more "professional" by the archeology community, I find the fact that he tampered with an ancient site to have tainted it to some degree.  For those who visit the location from now on will only being seeing somewhat of the original beauty and wonder of the site, the rest has been tampered with by modern hands.

While Schliemann may have been considered less of a professional I have much more respect for him due to the fact that he left the site he excavated just how it was.  The Turkish site of Hissarlik was excavated purely due to Schliemann's romantic idea of what he might find.  However, through his excavation he was able to draw much publicity to the science of archeology.  

Week 6- Nicole Martin "Two Excavators, Legend, and Archeology"

Despite Evan's more professional way of excavating Knossos on the island of Crete, it frustrates me to learn that he performed a considerable amount of reconstruction on the site.  In my opinion, this causes the site to loose some of it's intrigue and wonder.  If I were to go visit the site myself and learn that it had been tainted by tools of the twentieth century, my fascination would quickly diminish.  In my opinion, a large part of the beauty in these architectural feats is the fact that they were completed without the aid of modern day technology.  I would prefer an ancient ruin to a modern reconstruction any day.  

Although Schliemann's reasons for excavating the Turkish site of Hissarlik may have been more egocentric than for the benefit of the general public, I find myself less frustrated with the way he went about excavating the site.  He may have been trying to rile up the media, but by doing this he sparked interest in those who otherwise would have been unaware of the excavation.   

Week 4: Nobu Fujioka: Response to "Two Excavators, Legend, and Archeology"

Although Arthur Evans' reputation among scholars is better than Schliemann's due to his more genuine approach towards excavation, I disagree with his intention to reconstruct the Palace Complex at Knossos on its original site. He could have reconstructed it on a different site instead. I think the reconstruction takes away the beauty of the mystery of the Palace Complex. The site would have lacked the colorful columns and detailed wall paintings if it was not reconstructed, but would have intrigued visitors and other excavators to challenge their imagination about what it actually looked like in Ancient Crete.
Schliemann's pursual of glory can be criticized as a self-centered approach to excavation. However, he seems to have been more interested in "objects" rather than architecture. Excavation was an extention of his childhood dreams-to hunt for treasure that may or may not exsist. Thus, I feel that Evan's and Schliemann's intentions were very different to begin with, Evans fascinated with the analysis of his excavations and Shliemann attatched to the romance of excavation itself. In another perspective, Evans took a step further than Schliemann by physically showing his analysis and predictions made from his excavations.

Week 4: Kunal Bambawale: Response to "Two Excavators, Legend, and Archeology"

Although the current perceptions of Heinrich Schliemann and Arthur Evans are perhaps not as glowing as they once were, they both undoubtedly contributed greatly to the field of archeology. 

While Schliemann was definitely somewhat of a sensationalist - claiming to a newspaper that he had "gazed on the face of Agamemnon", his findings were critical to unmasking the history behind Homer's legendary works and igniting interest in the field of architecture in general. Indeed, it is overcritical of us to lay judgment about Schliemann without acknowledging how little formal training archaeologists underwent during his time - as well as the fact that Schliemann used his personal fortune to pursue something that clearly fascinated him. His work brought the field of archaeology into the public eye, and for that, he should be commended. That being said, his amateurism arguably did more damage than good ( archaeologist Kenneth W. Harl claims that Schliemann did more damage to Troy than the Greeks ever did).

The same goes for Sir Arthur Evan - for while his work made an entire culture accessible to the masses, the Palace of Knossos in Crete is perhaps now simply the "Evans version" of Minoan culture. This raises the question of what the purpose of archaeology really is - to bring an appreciation of history and ancient cultures to all, or to simply allow groups of experts to argue with each other over whose opinion is most valid?

Week Four: Response to Heinrich Schliemann and Arthur Evans

If I was an archaeologist in an earlier era, before international laws about digs, and I discovered a rare and important site that was in the area of my expertise and life-long study, I would feel very possessive about it.  I would want total control over the dig.  I would feel it was mine and I would reveal my discoveries to the world only when I was ready.  I would hope to find my own archeology "Holy Grail" such as the ancient Palace of Crete.

Even though these two men's actions are controversial, I believe what they did was perfectly understandable.

Week 4: Malia Paresa: Response to Two Excavators, Legend, and Archeology

After reading this article, I felt that although some feel that Arthur Evans' efforts to restore the site of Knossos crossed the line separating restoring ancient ruins and completely reconstructing a figure, his intentions in restoring it were for the better. Compared to Schliemann's purposes for excavating ancient artifacts, which seemed to focus on treasures and fame, Evans wanted to reconstruct the palace to be accessible for people who were not familiar with it. He put in extensive work in an attempt to make the palace walls and columns where he imagined they would be. I understand that his efforts may have created a palace that was completely different from the one that existed long ago, but I feel that his restoration provided many opportunities for others not familiar with the palace to see a similar version.

Week 4 - Sir Arthur Evans and Heinrich Schliemann by Sareen Bedoyan

After reading the passage “ Two Excavators, Legend and Archeology”, I was interested by the information presented about both Sir Arthur Evans and Heinrich Schliemann. Both men had the same vision however the were seen differently in the public eye. Schliemann was considered “little more than a treasure hunter” whereas Sir Arthur Evans was praise for his use eye for stratigraphy. I find it very interesting that Schliemann’s work was taken for grated and was even referred to as treasure found by a pirate. I feel that both excavators did a really good job in contributing to the discovery of different types of ancient art. I feel that because Sir Arthur Evans was the one involved with Knossos on Crete, we earned a better name for himself. I also think it’s interesting to know that most of what a visitor sees at Knossos. In my opinion, Schliemann was less destructive. He was simply discovering ancient art whereas Sir Arthur Evans rebuilt Knossos the way he thought would appeal to laypeople.

Week 4: Mariel Camiling: Evans and Schliemann Reading

After reading the article about the 2 excavators, Heinrich Schliemann and Arthur Evans, it surprised me how the public had different opinions of them. It seemed to me that both archaeologists had the same intentions in discovering ancient art. The article made it seem as if Schliemann was a very destructive individual whose only goal in life was to find treasure no matter what, like a pirate. However, the author talked about Evans in a more respectful nature citing how he used "stratigraphy" while excavating the palace. I believe that both individuals should be critiqued equally because what Evans did seems more destructive. He rebuilt the Palace Complex how he saw it in his mind, so we do not know how the original palace looked originally. Since we do not know how the original palace looks, our view of art from the Ancient Crete-Minoan period is affected. Now no one will know how the original palace looked, but people will see a pretty reconstruction of a beautiful palace. Overall, I believe that both archaeologists should be seen equally.

Week 4: Braden Currier: Arthur Evans and Heinrich Schliemann reading

As I read this brief description of these two guys and their contributions to the academic and historical communities I thought to myself that it is unfortunate that these archeologists were allowed to do whatever they wanted with the land and the objects found on it. I believe that history should not be allowed to be tampered with by a person only because they have the ability to "purchase the land." It is hard to believe that Schliemann was allowed to use "destructive" techniques while excavating, potentially destroying some artifacts in his attempt to retrieve others. Also, with regard to Evans, I am not sure that massive restorations of ancient buildings should be allowed. I think that minor alterations that better protect and safeguard the structure of the building should be permitted but unnecessary reconstruction I don't believe should be okay. I have been to a lot of ancient sights where historical buildings have not been restored and I have been to ones like the Acropolis in Greece, where it seems like there is always being work done on it. From these experiences I can say that it is much more miraculous to see the original work, even if it is rundown, because you can sit there stunned and not wonder or ask yourself what aspects of what you are seeing are original and which ones where done with the assistance of modern technology. That's what I think.

Week 4: Jennifer L.:Clark-The Nude

After reading The Nude: A Study in Ideal Form, I had to ask, why write 23 pages about nude male statues? It seems sometimes these authors take basic beauty and turn it into a huge long explanation for why it is like this or like that. Is there a point where you just think "this is really beautiful, it is smooth, it is a perfect body in a perfect pose" instead of creating a study out of something? As humans it seems we have to continually prove we know everything about a subject, or a piece of art for that matter. I guess it just kind of makes the whole point of looking at something pretty or shocking or beautiful dissolve. We forget about there presence alone and try to figure what they are all about. These statues were made in a time where our modern ideals did not exist, so there HAS to be some sort of mystery to these pieces!

Week 4: Jen Rohrs: reading about Arthur Evans

After reading about Arthur Evans and Heinrich Schliemann I think that Evans deserves a much harsher critique from the art historian community for his modifications to the artifacts. While Schliemann is criticized for misrepresenting the grandeur of his achievements, he still kept the artifacts intact in their original state so that the conclusions can be drawn about the society from which they came and adapted as current ideas develop.  However, in the case of Evans his changes to the Palace of Knossos now lead us to draw conclusions about civilizations in ancient Crete from buildings and renovations done during a later time.  Since one of our main starting points in this class when talking about art is the form and materials used, these newer additions can skew our perception.  As new technologies and ideas come around it is difficult to know what facts are being concluded from the original architecture and artwork and what is from the techniques of a newer age.  Even when restoring paintings, such as frescos, the colors and lines that are part of the restored pieces may bare some modern techniques that, over time and numerous restorations, may obstruct the original detailing of the piece.  I do understand that without these types of restoration that many of these original details will be lost by time and the elements, but I also feel that it might be better to speculate on what may have been lost than to draw incorrect conclusions from modern renovations.  Like with one attempt at restoring the Sphinx, when the concrete actually caused the original statue to deteriorate, many restorations can be harmful.  I think that all restorations should be tested and deemed absolutely necessary before they are carried out instead of used as a way to make these sites more of an attraction to tourists.

Week 4: Liz Harmon

Being behind in schoolwork, always, I just picked up Vincent Scully’s article entitled The Sacred Mountain in Mesopotamia to read on Saturday. I sat down, coffee in hand and feet up, and plowed in. There are comparisons of skyscrapers, pyramids, ziggurats to mountains, I am confused but maybe he has a point. Gilgamesh? Naram-Sin? Concept of ma’at? Perhaps I am just tired so I stop and put the article down. I drink a little more coffee, wash my face and walk around a little before settling down again with the paper. Scully now talks about the Mesopotamian plan being urban, having a “center-city” and I understand a little. Then I come to a grinding halt when the word comes up, “Tetrahedronal” ….I am so tired, what does this mean? I stop again, look up the word and can’t find it as is so I go to (what I think is) the root tetrahedron. It’s a geometry term and if my high school geometry class wasn’t over 23 years ago I may have know this, but it just made me feel extremely ignorant. So I put this article down and after about half an hour of sitting around feeling sorry for myself I read Malek’s article Egyptian Art, and found myself whipping through it really quickly. My ego is restored so I pick up Scully’s article and try again. I manage to get through the rest of The Sacred Mountain in Mesopotamia with a modicum of understanding even though he ends with some kind of bizarre story of a Pueblo bull dancer to a throne room at Phaistos that I don’t really understand. Still I push forward. I got through thinking that how bad could his article The Greek Temple be? He starts again with Giglamesh but I now know what this is because I had to look up and read about this king of Uruk of Babylonia for Scully’s last article but I am soon really, really lost and give up. I start thinking, who is this author and why does he have to be so confusing? Granted I am not a typical student and have to struggle through at half time while working full but I don’t think I am a total illiterate idiot but reading this article I feel like just that.

Vincent Scully; Enrolled at Yale at 16, foremost architectural historian, longtime Yale professor who gives standing room only lectures. Well with credentials like that the articles must be brilliant, completely factual, a noble piece of writing. Am I as I feared, just an illiterate idiot? Or maybe just an overworked, sleep-deprived human being struggling to do the best she can. At 10:30pm on a Sunday evening I just can’t decide which. I read a little bit more about Vincent Scully and less of his writing and quickly find this more educational and personally inspirational as his ideas and theory’s make much more sense to me when explained by others. I think I will just try and take comfort in that for the moment.

Week 4: Nobu Fujioka: Question

When I was reviewing for the midterm, I couldn't find the Lion Relief from Assyria in our text book. I have notes on the art work but I forgot what it looked like. Does anyone know where I can find an image of it?

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.