Although I have never heard anything like this before I find that Hershey has an enlightening way of thinking how Greek architecture is based on the idea of sacrifice. In Hersheys argument he states how animals were sacrificed to the gods at their personal "holy tree." During a sacrifice the trees were decorated with the remains of the sacrificed. As we find later the trees are sacrificed in a way in which they became the first used column, and soon became the general form of a column. The trees were bound together just as the feet were. Also it was decorated with the remains such as the head, representing the capital of the column. Hershey speaks about the breaking down and reconstruction during a sacrifice. This is seen to be like the stacking of the columns. I find this to be an interesting way to think about the relation to sacrifice but he does bring up, in my opinion, some valid arguments on how they compare.
[2] Meant in jest, Macaulay shapes a world of the future in which the main character claims meanings for archeological evidence uncovered at the Motel of the Mysteries. EXTRACT what you believe to be the lesson of mis-interpreting evidence and link that lesson to the real world phenomenon of the internet. In other words, EXPLAIN how you might avoid such a blunder as mis-reading evidence when you use the web as your major information source.
I feel as though Macaulay is trying explain how people tend to have a notion or a belief and have a tendency of taking the first thing they find to validate what they believe to be true. I find myself searching information on search engines such as google or yahoo, all the time. I generally look up a point that I need verification on and if i find multiple websites stating the same facts I tend to trust what I have found. Although I know this is not reasonable cause to find the information true, a lot of people tend to do so and mis-interpurret what they read or see. In order to avoid such mis-interpretations I could make sure there are copyrights or a valid source to prove that the website is reliable.
[3] The funerary temple design of Queen Hatshepsut speaks a very different design language than the pyramidal forms for other pharaohs. From your readings and the ideas addressed in class, RECOUNT possible reasons why Queen Hatshepsut used this building form.
Queen Hatshepsut's tomb was built very different than the pyramids. This shows the different roles in gender. The pyramids were built from ground up starting with the base being wide and coming into a single golden triangle point at the top. This is to show the dominance and the power that the men had. Where as Queen Hatshepsut's tomb was built more to the ground and sink with the land. As the pyramids stand alone, her tomb is built into the side of a cliff, also, going with my point of being in sink with the ground. Her tomb goes across with a flat top, rather than going up with a point at the top. The flat surface I also believe shows how she was more about being one with the people and bringing everyone together rather than coming off as the dominant figure.
[4] Although some evidence suggests links between the Egyptian and Greek civilizations, and some building forms and details provide support for that linkage, the two societies produced design responses in great contrast to one another. Select a building type (house, tomb, or temple) from each culture and ELUCIDATE similarities and differences in the two forms over time. Provide an annotated illustration for each selected type.
I chose the hypostyle hall ( shown below, http://history.memphis.edu/hypostyle/images/hypostyle_karnak_35.jpg
) for the egyptian temple and the parthenon (shown under the hypostyple hall, http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/parthenon-and-the-acropolis-landmark-1.jpg) for the greek.
[5] Harwood shows examples of Egyptian furniture on pp. 60-61. HYPOTHESIZE about the lightweight nature of Egyptian furniture when compared to tomb architecture, as at the Pyramids of Giza, which many characterize as massive and heavy. (5 points)
As you can see on the hypostyle hall, the columns show images from top to bottom in which tell a story. The columns resemble lotus stems. These columns were of a large scales, making people feel small. This shows the role of dominance. In the parthenon, we find the grand scale followed with the repetition of columns around the building. One major difference in greek and egyptian architecture though is the general layout. As I was doing research I found some information that helps to explain this. 
as shown in this image the Egyptians has a more complex layout in their temples. Including, sacutaries, halls, courts, etc. and the columns are on the inside where as the Greeks were more simple in their structures. They generally had 2 rows of columns and the columns were generally lied on the exterior. The columns were all ionic or doric. A general layout is seen below.
as shown in this image the Egyptians has a more complex layout in their temples. Including, sacutaries, halls, courts, etc. and the columns are on the inside where as the Greeks were more simple in their structures. They generally had 2 rows of columns and the columns were generally lied on the exterior. The columns were all ionic or doric. A general layout is seen below.http://www.aldokkan.com/art/temple.htm
Also we spoke of the parthenon being dominating in plan and material and was in relation with the land and the other architectural structures around.
The furniture shown on pages 60-61 are in deed light weight in nature compared to the pyramids of giza. The materials for one, that are used, are different types of woods such as acacia cedar cypress and sycamore. Depending on the quality of the woods will result in the way the wood is handled such as being painted or designs being crated. The design (square and boxy) yet small and delicate, oppose to the large pyramids of giza in which are created out of stone. With the stone being such a heavy and corse material, and being such of large nature, the pyramids are built in order to last for eternities and not necessarily be moved. On the other hand, the small wooden chairs are used for the sole purpose of being a chair. They are lightweight, moveable, and functional. They are made out of a material that potentially can rot over the years and wont always last.
[6] Based on a careful reading of the visual evidence in these two images, DRAW OUT an explanation of design and gender roles as you see both depicted. As this language of urns represents essentially one of the main ways we know about Grecian culture, COMMENT on the validity of such a practice of reading evidence.
In both of the images I feel as though it shows a great example of gender role. Both show the male sitting as the women are serving him. This visual interpretation shows that the women were looked down upon and the men were the dominant and powerful figures in Grecian culture. They show the women standing in front of the males as they sit higher up than them on their, so one would say, "throne." This is also shown in the pyramids, in which I spoke about in a more recent question, how the pyramids were for the pharaos showing their power and dominance. Where as the Queen Hatshepsut's tomb had a flat top and connected with the land and the people.
Be careful when choosing images, two of the images used didn’t load. When making observations such as these having pictures not only add interest but help facilitate the point that you are trying to make. Good job!
ReplyDelete[1] very nice response [2]good job tying response with the reading [3]reasonings are well supported, good [4]good comparisons [5]good [6]Ok, but what about the validity of 'reading' the vases?
ReplyDelete