...and the Danes strike again

Thanks to my new book; The Best Art You've Never Seen by Julian Spalding, I have learned about all sorts of interesting art pieces that have been stashed away for centuries for a plethora of reasons. One that caught my eye today was the Trundholm Sun Chariot. Like the Dancing Satyr of Mazara and Bronze Zeus (or maybe Poseidon), it was found hidden by nature. It was discovered in 1902 in a peat bog somewhere in Denmark. Them and their bogs...littered with all sort of artifacts, and lots of bodies apparently. The piece is made of bronze and gilded with gold.
This piece is theorized to teach initiates how the sun was pulled across the sky since they seem to believe it wasn't made purely for ornament or decoration (I think it easily could have been). According to Norse mythology Sol is the goddess of the sun. She would ride through the sky on her chariot pulled by her horses Arvak and Alsvid. Quite similar to the Greek Helios.
Interesting thing, only one side of the sun if gilded with the gold, the other side is plain. Which seems to indicate the darkness that would descend upon the world with the absence on the sun.
This entire concept is quite poetic and beautiful, as most of the mythological explanation for things. This probably was some sort of educational piece or even part of an altar piece, but you have to wonder how it ended u in that bog in the first place. According to this book it was intentionally broken into pieces and place carefully within the bog. Was this meant for preservation or destruction? Many anthropologists believe these bogs were often used as sacrificial sites. The nordic people seemed to believe these bogs had preserving properties (which is sort of correct) and this was probably an offering to Sol.

So many more interesting pieces in this book to discuss, be prepared for some education.

The Minotaur

In all of the myths I have read, all of them sad in their own right, none has quite bothered me more than that of the minotaur. I think what strikes me so is that the minotaur...well, he isn't a monster, by any means. It's true, like the common misconceptions about Frankenstein's monster, that the minotaur was misunderstood by the majority of the literary and artistic community. George Fredrick Watts got it right, however (right).
He was, in fact, a hybrid between a human and animal. This human was Pasiphae, wife of King Minos of Crete. The animal was a bull sent by Neptune. The exact details of their union are...as creepy and wrong as you would expect. She didn't have some fetish for these creatures, it was a "spell", for the lack of a better term. When Minos did not follow through with his promise of sacrificing a fine beast to Neptune he cursed Pasiphae in retaliation.
Pasiphae, now stricken with a lust for the bull Neptune sent, had Daedalus (father of Icarus, who's disobedience cost him his life) build her a wooden cow in which she could place herself. This little trick was successful as it mated with her and she soon became pregnant with an abomination of nature. She gave birth to a half-bull and half-human hybrid they named Minotaur, which means "Minos bull". They then shut him away in a labyrinth which was also constructed and designed by Daedalus.
Every year he was fed seven young men and young women as a tribute to the king. One year a prince named Theseus was selected and he killed the bull, with the help of Aridane, Minos's daughter.

What is so disheartening about this is his imprisonment and treatment. He was simply a hybrid, and as awful and monstrous as he seemed, he had to have more going on. In the painting done by Watts we get the sense of sadness and longing. He wants freedom and acceptance. This image and idea of a wanting and misunderstood creature has resonated with artists world over. His figure has been remastered and represented by artists well into the modern era, even Picasso took a swing at it. It has even been adapted into an opera by Harrison Britwistle and David Harsent, it opened in the fall of 2008 in London.
Maybe he did become evil in his own way, but perhaps his environment made him that way. Like Frankenstein's monster he was a product of his unusual entrance into the world and upbringing. There is an Etruscian view that offers us an alternative perspective, we see his mother balancing the infant minotaur on her knee, lovingly holding him in her arms. We make him the antagonist but we forget he had a mother and was part human himself. It isn't up to us to decided which part that was.
Maybe I'm too sensitive about it, but I think alternate views are important and I tend to have a bleeding heart for these misunderstood figures that dawn the pages of our art and history books.

Echo and Narcissus

There have been times in my life wherein I have been so beside myself with grief I could do nothing more but wander. When I was 18 or so I remember pacing the aisles at a bookstore. I wasn't looking for anything in particular, just...staring. But in my aimless pacing a print caught my eye. In my utter heartbreak I stumbled upon Echo and Narcissus by John William Waterhouse. Perhaps because her pain seemed to mirror mine, I'm not sure. But I picked it up and bought a book about them that day. I took it home and didn't put the book down, for what seemed like, days. The image of Echo and her myth left me mesmerized, entranced, completely enthralled. I sketched her countless times. But her story, is was captured me so completely.
The story of Echo is a sad one, but not unlike the ones we would expect from greek mythology. If you are opening a mythology book expecting anything but despair you will be disappointed, though Penelope from the Odyssey will at least help you regain some hope.
Zeus, well, he is known for his philandering and...other personality attributes and in the story of Echo this certainly becomes a factor. While Zeus was off gallivanting, Echo would prattle on and on to distract Hera. Echo, who really seemed to love the sound of her voice, did this without a second thought. This will result in her demise. Hera finds out about this trickery, as she usually does, and decides to punish Echo by taking away her voice and only allowing her foolishly repeat the words of another. Hence our the name for the echoing phenomenon. Now this punishment, is surprisingly tame compared to some of the others Hera has doled out, and for much less.
So Echo is off, wandering voiceless when she sees Narcissus. Narcissus, as prophesied by Teiresias, was to live into old age as long as he "never knew himself." He was out hunting stags when she spotted him, and she decided to follow him. She was quite stealthy about it until he finally heard her. He called out but all she could do was repeat his words. When she tried to embrace him he turned her away. She continued to watch him, however. One day he saw his reflection in a pool and became so entranced by his form he couldn't look away. Echo just watched on as he wasted away staring at his own reflection. Echo, all the while, was heartbroken and wasted away herself, until only her voice remained. 
Heart wrenching in all sorts of ways. Here I was; in love with a boy so distant from me in so many ways, he's further away now than he ever was (as he should be I imagine) and I find this. It gave me some sort of...validation. The validation I never received  from him.
There is something cathartic about mythology for me, and I think the same could apply to many others.

Medea

Medea was a figure of myth long before Tyler Perry stole the name for a series of extremely low brow comedies. In fact, I found myself quite annoyed when I went to google to find images for a mythology paper. The first few pages were nothing by images form Tyler Perry movies. Aggravating...
But I digress.

Medea was a play written by Euripides. The story is ever so interesting. In my mythology class I was assigned the play and had to give a presentation.I'm not the best public speaker, but I was fairly effective. Anyway, Medea is most commonly referred to as she exists within that specific play by her name, but she does appear in several other stories. Her major characteristics are that she was a sorceress and lover of Jason (the guy with the golden fleece).
She was the daughter of King Aeetes, granddaughter of Helios (the sun god), and niece of Circe (who was depicted in Odyssey for turning Odysseus's crew into pigs, she is also the mother of the minotaur). As you see she has a colorful lineage.
So Jason appears on her island to capture the golden fleece. Medea falls hopelessly in love with him and agrees to help him on his quests.
Medea creates a potion for Jason that prevents him from being injured by the fire-breathing bulls and then casts an enchantment over the dragon guarding the golden fleece so Jason can get by undetected. Basically...he cheated. When he completes the missions he agrees to take Medea away with him and marry her. As they are leaving the island Medea kills her brother, Apsyrtus, and scatters his body in pieces behind them. This slowed their pursuers down as it is dishonorable to leave the body in such a state.
Once in Jason's home of Iolcus Medea used her trickery to help him reclaim his throne from his uncle Pelias. Using magic tricks she convinced Pelias's daughters to kill him which opened up the place for Jason. Then they fled to Corinth. Shortly after this they were wed and had two children. This is where the story gets more interesting.
So they have been married for awhile, living comfortable in Corinth until Glauce, daughter of King Creon, catches Jason's eye. Jason then runs off with her in order to become next in ling to the throne in Corinth. Then he and the king have Medea cast out. With this betrayal Medea snaps. She devises a plan that results in the death of Glauce and the King, then she kills her own children to punish Jason further. Before she can be punished for her own actions she is rescued by her grandfather and ushered off the Athens where she marries King Aegeus, who we suspect she had been in cahoots with all along. Then they marry and her trail of despair and death continues.   
But I intend to focus more on the play by Euripides.While there is certainly no argument claiming Medea was a good woman who was wrong, you have to take into consideration what Jason did. He first used her in order to complete some tasks and promised her marriage later, getting her to kill her own brother. Then he does marry her and has children with her only to leave her and cast her out later? If there was a douche by any other name...pardon my comparison.
But if we take the fact that she was essentially an evil wizard out of the equation do you feel even the slightest bit of compassion? I certainly did, but once she murdered her children it faded away. And by faded I mean disappeared with the snap of my fingers (assuming I could snap my fingers). Then there's Glauce...pursuing a married man? For shame. This is something I would expect to see on trashy daytime television, though I suppose this behavior had to begin somewhere. But it seems Medea is simply a woman scorned.
Wouldn't you agree? I'm not defending the things she did, but I am saying that I can see where the desire might occur. If Joshua left me for another woman I would be destroyed and livid.
But this is one of the many endlessly entertaining myths I fill my time with studying. Sometimes it helps to identify to them. Echo served as a therapeutic comparison for a short time for myself.

I honestly need to start working on my homework instead of blogging about things I doubt very few people read.

Life updates:
I have resolved to get a tattoo. It will be a chambered nautilus shell, the proportions and measurements found using the golden ratio. Perfect balance. Done in dark brown ink on the inside of my left wrist. I will be going with my darling Christine when she gets her tattoo done. She is getting giraffe spots on the inside of her left wrist as well. Though more to cover up the tattoo she allowed her ex-boyfriend to give her. It is a simple peace sign (I love here but that is horrible cliche...) but something she wishes to forget all the same.


images:
Study for Jason and Medea by John William Waterhouse (top)
Medea by Eugene Delacroix

James Rosenquist

While working on some homework today I learn a little bit more about the post-modernist movement, though not enough to make me enjoy it in the least. I have always had a strong aversion to it and that hasn't changed, but I was surprised to find one painting in the bunch that I seemed to really enjoy. It is "Bedsprings" by James Rosenquist. I was flipping through his work, mostly unimpressed until this image caught my eye. There is just something about it I find so delicate and captivating. In his entire body of work I didn't find a single piece that captured me as much as this one. Perhaps it was the way he so precisely cropped her face, focusing solely on the eye, cheek, and nose. Unlike his other work this women is accurately and precisely rendered, and with some softness to boot. Compared to say the image of JFK in "President Elect"she is nearly a classical portrait.This woman has depth and life, and suggesting any sort of perspective or realism was quite rare for him.
Then suspending it by twine away from the stretching board. That, at first, gave me a sense of creepiness (a childish word, I'm aware). I felt like he was dissecting her - not literally, of course - but trying to break her apart, separating her from her various parts. Breaking her down by her flaws and perfections. But these warm and sensuous colors suggest something endearing, not calculating. The piece is both baffling and calming to me.

James Rosenquist, unlike most pop artists of the time, had a much more varied color palette and far more dramatic compositions. Most had neutral backgrounds with loosely rendered object or subjects, making them appear flat. But here Rosenquist eliminated the background and focus on one single aspect of beauty, rendering it to perfection. He won't make me like the modern or post-modernist movement, but he will make he appreciate him as an individual artist just a little bit more.

Hellenistic Art, part 2

I left off before discussing the Seated Boxer, one of many pieces depicting men as strong, but defeated. These gave men dignity and displayed honor, they had a fairly obvious purpose here, but some are confusing with their meanings. One such piece is Old Market Woman (150 BCE - 100 BCE).

Preceeding this era all Greek art consisted of beautiful pieces of the young, strong, attractive and powerful. But this piece shows something quite the polar opposite of the norm and is very characteristic of this age. Here we see a woman wrinkled, tattered, bent with age and her spirit broken. She is weak and haggard. Despite her less than desireabe physical condition she still carries on, but not because she enjoys any pleasure form life anymore, but because she simply must.

I find pieces like this quite interesting. They aren't something most people find aesthetically pleasing, nor do they glorify any particular individual. I believe that this artist, though unknown, wanted to depict things the way they truly were and how he saw the common people around him. It is sort of a precursor for Realism when you think about it. Though a lot of Hellenistic overdramatizes some things this is truthful, but emotional all the same.

Hellenistic art was aiming to depict a social climate much wider than we have seen before. We see soldiers, fighters, and the old or dying. They handle it with sensitivity, but they still maintained some traditions in art, such as scenes including eroticism.

A very famous sculpture that openly explored eroticism is Venus de Milo (150 BCE - 125 BCE) by Alexander of Antioch-on-the-Meander. The area where the artist signed has been lost since. This piece is a roman copy and the use of marble made it a bit more vulnerable to damage, which is obvious in the lack of arms. From the information we've gathered we know that her left arm - which is seperately preserved - is holding an apple, the one Paris awarded her when he judged her to be the most beautiful goddess. And we can only surmise hat the right arm is doing. We tend to believe hat her right hand was loosely grasping at the fabric covering her in an attempt to keep it from slipping futher. This is to intentionally tease the viewer; it plays with sexuality without being outright sexual or crass.

I consider this piece to be more sexual than say the Aphrodite of Kindo where she is entirely nude. One of the many things that arouses people is not knowing and hiding her lower half form the viewer entices them. This makes her more desireable than she might have been had she been entirely nude....though I doubt all would agree with me on that. I guess some would prefer less mytery.

This next piece is more overtly sexual in it's nature, depicting the same goddess; Aphrodite, Eros, and Pan (100 BCE) - artist unknown.

Here you see Aphrodite is resisting Pan's unwanted advances and Eros rushing in to try and protect her from very unspeakable acts. The composition and set up here is quite tense, which was clearly intentional. Her archaic smile smile is interesting here, the detail work is incredible and the positioning of the bodies and twisting makes it very dynamic. I love her stance, you see how defensive she was and feel her panic and her son rushing to her aid is quite heart-warming, despite the situation.

Actually I'm a tad irked by Eros' appearence. Previous to this era he is representd as an adolescent and full of promise, this pudgy-winged-infant is laughable. He looks like the putto depicted in many other works. They were attendants to many maidens. Another issue is how babies are often rendered almost as miniature adults, but that mostly had to do with a lack of understanding of the fragile form. They even seemed to have personailites to match their unusal form. But I can fully air these annoyances another day.

But this piece, which was commissioned by Dionysios of Berytos, is exuding sex and dominance. And considering it was displayed in a buisnessmen's clubhouse you have to wonder about their tastes, though pieces like this were commonplace during this era so it could all just boil down to trends.

Another equally erotic piece is Barberini Faun, also known as Sleeping Satyr (230 BCE - 200 BCE) by Gianlorenzo Bernini. We see a satyr who has consumed too much wine and threw down his panther skin onto a nearby rock and fell into an intoxicated sleep, though it seems a but estless when you note his furrowed brow. It seems to me that this man might be playing the part most female nudes in art tend to; helpless and exposed.

While it has never been unusual to portray a male nude in greek sculpture, I can't really recall it ever being intentionally sexual too often. Sculptures like these are the product of Hellenistic scultors exploring sexuality of the human body.