Phoebus Apollo of Belvedere
Venus de Milo
Pallas Athena of Athens
Zeus, Ruler of the GodsAnd so they challenge me... Humble student of the arts and sciences...
Still, reason shall prevail...
July 25, 2007
Challenge of the Gods
Phoebus Apollo of Belvedere Venus de Milo Pallas Athena of Athens Zeus, Ruler of the Gods
July 22, 2007
Faces and Deception
Just came across a BBC show called "How Art Made the World" and it was essentially pointing out one big idea we have been talking about in class - the power of images and art; that art was all about power.
The point forwarded by the show today was how images used to depict and exercise power over the people. The best example is how Alexander the Great, who created an empire as far reaching as the Roman Empire. He was, apparently, the first to use the image of the Face in money as an insistence/reminder of who was the ruler at that time. A template to be followed by future leaders and cultures.
Likewise, in early paintings and mosaics made of him, Alexander was always depicted as the face of youth, bravery and nobility. The power of the image is more prominent when it is juxtaposed with the image of the Persian king he defeated, depicted with a face of cowardice, corruption and fear. Given the two faces of military rulers, the emergence of Alexander not just as the victor but as the popular is not surprising because of the idea depicted by the image.
Of course, the Face has inspired more than artistic reflection and interpretation as our friend Emmanuel Levinas has had discourse on its philosophical significance.
- - - -
The second segment of the show highlighted a different idea - on the power exercised through images and art and how we can manipulate the minds of the people through art.
And for this, reference is made to Emperor Augustus of Rome. His depiction not just as a peaceful, just and benevolent ruler but as the emperor who will unify the conservative and the liberal sides of Rome was a powerful image constructed/reinforced in his famous statue below. The statue also appeals to the idea that he was the ruler that the Gods vested power on - testament to how the idea of the religious is still intimately connected to the political.
But, as the show told us, it was a deception - the image told a lie that the Romans fell for. He was not as benevolent as he was depicted - he fell into the trap of corruption (power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely). This use of art served as a template for future political leaders who fell into same rut of solitary rule and absolute power - they all made use of images that may deceive/euphemize people. Of course, our own Marcoses come to mind with the propaganda of Bagong Lipunan (or lets go argue).
The point forwarded by the show today was how images used to depict and exercise power over the people. The best example is how Alexander the Great, who created an empire as far reaching as the Roman Empire. He was, apparently, the first to use the image of the Face in money as an insistence/reminder of who was the ruler at that time. A template to be followed by future leaders and cultures.
Likewise, in early paintings and mosaics made of him, Alexander was always depicted as the face of youth, bravery and nobility. The power of the image is more prominent when it is juxtaposed with the image of the Persian king he defeated, depicted with a face of cowardice, corruption and fear. Given the two faces of military rulers, the emergence of Alexander not just as the victor but as the popular is not surprising because of the idea depicted by the image.Of course, the Face has inspired more than artistic reflection and interpretation as our friend Emmanuel Levinas has had discourse on its philosophical significance.- - - -
The second segment of the show highlighted a different idea - on the power exercised through images and art and how we can manipulate the minds of the people through art.
And for this, reference is made to Emperor Augustus of Rome. His depiction not just as a peaceful, just and benevolent ruler but as the emperor who will unify the conservative and the liberal sides of Rome was a powerful image constructed/reinforced in his famous statue below. The statue also appeals to the idea that he was the ruler that the Gods vested power on - testament to how the idea of the religious is still intimately connected to the political.
But, as the show told us, it was a deception - the image told a lie that the Romans fell for. He was not as benevolent as he was depicted - he fell into the trap of corruption (power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely). This use of art served as a template for future political leaders who fell into same rut of solitary rule and absolute power - they all made use of images that may deceive/euphemize people. Of course, our own Marcoses come to mind with the propaganda of Bagong Lipunan (or lets go argue).
July 17, 2007
Nike
Homework: Find an example of a Greek god/goddess in contemporary global/local living.
My example is the Greek Goddess Nike, who inspired a company that made athletic shoes, apparel and sports equipment that is Nike, Inc. Wiki also tells us that this company is the largest sportswear supplier in the world.
In Greek mythology, Nike signified and personified triumph and victory. She was the daughter of Pallas (warrior) and Styx (hatred) and she and her sisters were, of course, attendants of Zeus. Styx, their father, brought them to Zeus when the latter was forming a group of allies for the coming Titan war and Zeus made Nike his personal charioteer.
The connection between the Greek goddess and the athletic shoe was forged probably not just because she symbolized victory for the Greeks (one reason why she is valuable and was usually not depicted with wings in public statues - she will not fly away and leave the city and victory will be theirs) but because of her depiction as someone untying a sandal (Nike Slancio). Of course, Nike symbolized not just victory but she was also capable of running and flying at great speeds.
Of course, I still find the signification weird - why for instance is the symbol of war victory a girl (after all, only men go to war and the god of war is, well, a god - Ares). Why associate a Greek goddess with a product that, I believe, first targeted male consumers? Is there some sort of subtle patriarchy in here?
Still, if what Wiki says is true, then maybe this symbol is one of the keys to the success of Nike, Inc. - the leading manufacturer of athletic goods.
My example is the Greek Goddess Nike, who inspired a company that made athletic shoes, apparel and sports equipment that is Nike, Inc. Wiki also tells us that this company is the largest sportswear supplier in the world.
In Greek mythology, Nike signified and personified triumph and victory. She was the daughter of Pallas (warrior) and Styx (hatred) and she and her sisters were, of course, attendants of Zeus. Styx, their father, brought them to Zeus when the latter was forming a group of allies for the coming Titan war and Zeus made Nike his personal charioteer.
The connection between the Greek goddess and the athletic shoe was forged probably not just because she symbolized victory for the Greeks (one reason why she is valuable and was usually not depicted with wings in public statues - she will not fly away and leave the city and victory will be theirs) but because of her depiction as someone untying a sandal (Nike Slancio). Of course, Nike symbolized not just victory but she was also capable of running and flying at great speeds.
Of course, I still find the signification weird - why for instance is the symbol of war victory a girl (after all, only men go to war and the god of war is, well, a god - Ares). Why associate a Greek goddess with a product that, I believe, first targeted male consumers? Is there some sort of subtle patriarchy in here?
Still, if what Wiki says is true, then maybe this symbol is one of the keys to the success of Nike, Inc. - the leading manufacturer of athletic goods.
July 11, 2007
Reading List, Penises and Venus
Currently, I have the following on my reading list to gain more insights for the class.
The Story of Art (E. Gombrich)
The Uses of Images (E. Gombrich)
Meditations on a Hobby Horse and Other Essays on the Theory of Art (E. Gombrich)
All by E. Gombrich who, according to Dr. Miroy, wrote the standard art history book (The Story of Art). I still find his writing boring so I just look at the images but, hopefully, I get to plow past his language and into really good insights. I am, of course, willing to expand this reading list.
- - - -
Halfway into our reading on Greek Iconography and also in one of Gombrich's books, I just wondered why the hell the Greeks found small penises beautiful - which is, of course, in contrast with the modern-contemporary ideal of being well-endowed. This echoes onto Roman art and Rennaissance art and all so I just decided to actually bother with the question.
I texted my friend D and he told me that it was probably because the Greeks were boy lovers and having the features of a young boy was beautiful. And it did agree with what we read in mythology - the depiction of the handsome man as someone who resembled a young boy, a symbol of youth. The small penis is, of course, more associated with boys than with older men. The large penis was regarded as comical.
He went on and referred to Priapus - a person with a comically large penis. Wikipedia, of course, is the ultimate resource for those unfamiliar with the story (like me). Here is what Wiki has to say about Priapus.
In Greek mythology, Priapus (ancient Greek: Πρίαπος) was a minor rustic fertility god of purely phallic character, protector of livestock, fruit plants, gardens and male genitalia. (Roman equivalent: Mutinus Mutunus.)
He was a son of Aphrodite by Dionysus, Hermes, or Adonis.[1]
One of the most famous images of Priapus is that from the House of the Vettii in Pompeii; it is a wall fresco in which Priapus is weighing his phallus against a bag full of money and it appears that his phallus is heavier.
Fresco of Priapus, House of the Vettii, Pompeii.
At Helicon in Boeotia, the travel-writer Pausanias pointed out a statue of Priapus that was "worth seeing".[2]
Sculptures of Priapus with large, erect genitalia were placed in gardens and fields to guarantee an abundant crop. For the Romans, his statue was used as a scarecrow and his erect penis was thought to frighten thieves. Epigrams collected in Priapeia (treated below) show Priapus using sodomy as a threat toward transgressors of the boundaries he protected like a herm:
"I warn you, my lad, you will be sodomised; you, my girl, I shall futter; for the thief who is bearded, a third punishment remains."
"... If I do seize you . . . you shall be so stretched that you will think your anus never had any wrinkles."
Of course, we can also relate this consideration of the large penis with the replacement of the primitive zoomorphism with the more recent anthropomorphism. The large penis is more animal-like and, with anthropomorphism as the dominant representation of authority and godliness, then it definitely does not fit the picture of the beautiful.
What eludes me is the fact that traces of zoomorphism still finds it way up to the modern-contemporary - an argument that could explain why we, today, now regard well-endowment as better than having boy-like penises. Then again, the larger phallus is also more apt as a fertility symbol - one explanation why the status of Priapus was placed in planting areas to assure good harvests.
Of course, homosexual intercourse forwarded by the Greeks was declared immoral at the dawn of Christian expansion and this contributes to the disappearance of boy-love.
- - - -
We discussed Botticelli's Birth of Venus yesterday. Of course, it was our first shot at a Rennaissance painting that is pretty popular (I mean, I saw it before so I guess most people saw it before). I am still just surprised at how textual/literary my approach is to art. I identified the basics - what is depicted, how are they organized, how are the elements used and all. Then, I proceeded into looking at the opposites, the binaries, the tensions. The issue of form and content. Is the painting generally a product of its time and how is this manifested? What are the allusions being made? What is the statement forwarded by the painting (the thesis, so to speak)?
Of course, these all seem like valid questions or points to be raised - its just that my scheme of attack for anything in the humanities (except philosophical texts) have been that - formalism and elements, tensions and binaries, sociohistorical analysis and structures of thought and all. I want to get past this and somehow enjoy the images as they are. And learn how to answer my teacher's question (What struck you?) without much deep thought and analysis.
P. S. The Venus here is an insistence/reiteration of the idea of womanly beauty of the period. I think that it is, like most things, a faithful product of its time.
- - - -
Phew. All of this history was inspired by an image - an icon.
The Story of Art (E. Gombrich)
The Uses of Images (E. Gombrich)
Meditations on a Hobby Horse and Other Essays on the Theory of Art (E. Gombrich)
All by E. Gombrich who, according to Dr. Miroy, wrote the standard art history book (The Story of Art). I still find his writing boring so I just look at the images but, hopefully, I get to plow past his language and into really good insights. I am, of course, willing to expand this reading list.
- - - -
Halfway into our reading on Greek Iconography and also in one of Gombrich's books, I just wondered why the hell the Greeks found small penises beautiful - which is, of course, in contrast with the modern-contemporary ideal of being well-endowed. This echoes onto Roman art and Rennaissance art and all so I just decided to actually bother with the question.
I texted my friend D and he told me that it was probably because the Greeks were boy lovers and having the features of a young boy was beautiful. And it did agree with what we read in mythology - the depiction of the handsome man as someone who resembled a young boy, a symbol of youth. The small penis is, of course, more associated with boys than with older men. The large penis was regarded as comical.
.jpg)
He went on and referred to Priapus - a person with a comically large penis. Wikipedia, of course, is the ultimate resource for those unfamiliar with the story (like me). Here is what Wiki has to say about Priapus.
In Greek mythology, Priapus (ancient Greek: Πρίαπος) was a minor rustic fertility god of purely phallic character, protector of livestock, fruit plants, gardens and male genitalia. (Roman equivalent: Mutinus Mutunus.)
He was a son of Aphrodite by Dionysus, Hermes, or Adonis.[1]
One of the most famous images of Priapus is that from the House of the Vettii in Pompeii; it is a wall fresco in which Priapus is weighing his phallus against a bag full of money and it appears that his phallus is heavier.
Fresco of Priapus, House of the Vettii, Pompeii.
At Helicon in Boeotia, the travel-writer Pausanias pointed out a statue of Priapus that was "worth seeing".[2]
Sculptures of Priapus with large, erect genitalia were placed in gardens and fields to guarantee an abundant crop. For the Romans, his statue was used as a scarecrow and his erect penis was thought to frighten thieves. Epigrams collected in Priapeia (treated below) show Priapus using sodomy as a threat toward transgressors of the boundaries he protected like a herm:
"I warn you, my lad, you will be sodomised; you, my girl, I shall futter; for the thief who is bearded, a third punishment remains."
"... If I do seize you . . . you shall be so stretched that you will think your anus never had any wrinkles."
Of course, we can also relate this consideration of the large penis with the replacement of the primitive zoomorphism with the more recent anthropomorphism. The large penis is more animal-like and, with anthropomorphism as the dominant representation of authority and godliness, then it definitely does not fit the picture of the beautiful.
What eludes me is the fact that traces of zoomorphism still finds it way up to the modern-contemporary - an argument that could explain why we, today, now regard well-endowment as better than having boy-like penises. Then again, the larger phallus is also more apt as a fertility symbol - one explanation why the status of Priapus was placed in planting areas to assure good harvests.
Of course, homosexual intercourse forwarded by the Greeks was declared immoral at the dawn of Christian expansion and this contributes to the disappearance of boy-love.
- - - -
We discussed Botticelli's Birth of Venus yesterday. Of course, it was our first shot at a Rennaissance painting that is pretty popular (I mean, I saw it before so I guess most people saw it before). I am still just surprised at how textual/literary my approach is to art. I identified the basics - what is depicted, how are they organized, how are the elements used and all. Then, I proceeded into looking at the opposites, the binaries, the tensions. The issue of form and content. Is the painting generally a product of its time and how is this manifested? What are the allusions being made? What is the statement forwarded by the painting (the thesis, so to speak)?
Of course, these all seem like valid questions or points to be raised - its just that my scheme of attack for anything in the humanities (except philosophical texts) have been that - formalism and elements, tensions and binaries, sociohistorical analysis and structures of thought and all. I want to get past this and somehow enjoy the images as they are. And learn how to answer my teacher's question (What struck you?) without much deep thought and analysis.
P. S. The Venus here is an insistence/reiteration of the idea of womanly beauty of the period. I think that it is, like most things, a faithful product of its time.
- - - -
Phew. All of this history was inspired by an image - an icon.
July 5, 2007
Prologomenon
I am Jerome Unidad, senior Physics-Materials Science and Engineering student, and this is my art blog - my version of a class requirement for my Iconography and Literature class (FA 166.4) at Ateneo de Manila University under Dr. Jovino Miroy. Trace my development in the field of intellectual hubris and art discourse that is Iconography. Watch out for ideas, photos, links, sketches, videos and what have we of what I have to say or share on art and creativity, in general.
For starters, this is what Wikipedia has to say about iconography.
For starters, this is what Wikipedia has to say about iconography.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)