Reading comprehension 2

Reading Comprehension 2

 

1.     1.  In Hersey’s writings great emphasis is given to the idea that the temples built in ancient Greece were structures that embodied the ideals of one sacrifice, and two nature.  I find the argument that the temple was the built embodiment not convincing.  Although I can see a clear connection between the body of the victim being sacrificed and the basic design of a column as Hersey describes, column as a foot, shaft as a body, and capital as a head. I feel that this is not enough evidence to make me believe that the soul design of the temple were to be based on the idea of sacrifice.  However the idea of nature being a powerful inspiration of design seems a bit more validated.  According to the text long before temples worship was held in groves of trees bound by rope and that in the pagan religion trees were so important that each god was symbolized on earth by there on tree.  When looking at the Greek temple style I am able to see this idea of a grove of trees emulated to perfection in rows and rows of organized columns.

 

2.     2  From Macaulay’s writings of the archeological study of a common day motel horribly misinterpreted I was challenged to ask myself, have I been guilty of this as well when studying past cultures art and architecture.  Although the field of archeology has made vast strides in the last 100 years there it is still highly difficult if not impossible to be able to know exactly what the thoughts and ideas that at the time drove culture. Often as students in this post-modern era it is easy for us as students to what we may find on the Internet to be just as accurate as information found in validated publishing’s or even knowledge that we may acquire ourselves.  I think that this reading, although humorous, offered serious room to leave us asking what we should believe and what should be disregarded.

 

 

3.  33.  As a pharaoh of ancient Egypt one if not the main concerns through out there rule was the construction of there funerary complex.  Although there are a few variations, Pyramids as those seen at Giza dominate the style of tomb design of ancient Egypt.  This style of architecture was grand in scale standing triumphantly upon the desert floor boasting the power of the king who lay rest there.  It is not until the reign of Queen Hatshepsut, or the fourth dynasty that we see a shift in tomb design.  The queen’s tomb speaks a more modest language. Fit snug into the side of the cliff it embraces the surrounding landscape rather than concurring it like the traditional pyramids.  Another clear distinction between the to structure styles is the inviting entrance of Hatshepsut’s complex verses the brut exteriors of the pyramids. Although there are likely many different reasons for these contrasts in design style, two stand above the rest.  The first, simply the gender of the designers. As a woman the need to separate her self from the former men rulers makes a powerful statement.  The second is the way of life at the time. In years previous when the pyramids were built life was somewhat unstable in the Egyptian Empire, separation of peoples and warfare were common.  However Queen Hatshepsut was known for unifying the upper and lower kingdoms of Egypt. Reflecting this in a design of a tomb complex that set itself apart from the past.

 

4.    4.  Egyptian and Greek architecture is often looked upon as two totally different phenomenon’s, and for good reason.  From what we know the differences between design ideology Greeks and Egyptians are vast.  However we do see some similarities in temple design between these two cultures. One of the most noticeable similarities is the use large of columns surrounding the perimeter of the temples.  Although with the Egyptian column boasting a stylized papyrus capital and the Greek column adhering to a strict Doric order it is easy to decide which one belongs to which. Another aspect of these two temples is they are each designed with a single axis of progression. Despite quiet different cultures and values It is no accident that each of these building take on the similar form.  Both the Egyptians and the Greeks fundamentalized the way the west built its places of worship for generations well past there own.  

http://www.sacred-destinations.com/egypt/images/philae/resized/hypostyle-hall2-cc-romsrini.jpg

http://www.planetware.com/i/photo/valley-of-the-temples-agrigento-aggrtm.jpg

 

5.     5. When comparing the style of Egyptian furniture to that of Egyptian architecture, especially that of the Pyramids of Giza it is easy to see how very different they are. When considering why it is they are so different, you must first ask what are they used for? The pyramids at Giza are tombs. No one is living and using the structure on a daily basis. At the same time they are much more than that. They are an expression of power laid upon the landscape to boast the glory of the king for eternity.  Yes, Egyptian furniture shows power and wealth through expensive materials and luxurious design, however they are created to be used.  This is likely the difference between any type of design. How and by whom is this building, or chair, or anything for that matter going to be used.

 

6.        In the study of Grecian culture ceramic vases are one of the most important and due to the longevity of material abundant artifacts that we have.  The two vases below depict a king or high Greek official sitting upon a throne. In each vase one or multiple women are closely attending him to.  These depictions reinforce the belief that men held much more power over women in Greek society. Vases were often used in Greek society to keep historical records of important rituals or events thus validating the study of these vases to grow a better understanding of just how this ancient society was ran.