Week 6: Nobu Fujioka, Nodelman Reading Response

In "How to read a Roman Portrait," Nodelman mentions that the Roman veristic portraits, which are mainly portraits of men in later life, are realistic in a way that they display physical characteristics of old men in detail. The wrinkles, blemishes, and balding symbolize the honor of the man's age, as the "ladder of public office normally allowed those who followed it to attain only gradually and after many years to such eminence." The hard-bitten expressions also imply suppressed emotions coming from the emotional strains of the Roman society. Although the portraits are descriptive of facial features, it is not a celebration of the individuality, but a celebration of self-discipline, unquestioning of social bonds, and painstaking conformity.
As opposed to the statue of Augustus from Prima Porta by Polykleitos, which celebrates Augustus' military and politcal might through his breast plate and dolphin and cupid at his feet indicating is heroic victories in war, the Roman portraits are representations of the emotions of nobles oppressed by war and its aftermath. The statues of Augustus from Prima Porta emits a direct message of his power and used for propaganda of the Roman Empire. On the other hand, Roman portraits are a little harder to decipher who and what is described. Through their grim look, viewers explore their emotions and the social background that affected the subjects of the portraits.

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: 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.