So, I went to the Met today...
Dec. 28th, 2003 12:11 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
conuly
For my project, I'm supposed to compare and contrast the Stele of Youth and Little Girl and the Grave Stele with Family Group. I have some thoughts down, others would be appreciated.
Then I wandered for a bit. Now, to be fair, while my family used to go the Met quite a bit when we (Jenn/Ginger and I) were little, we haven't in a while, and an art museum really isn't my favorite type of museum. But Figgy (who really needs to come to school up here or at least visit one summer in the future when she's more independant or something just to get all this out of her system) was so thrilled with the "youliveinacitywithallthosemuseaums!" squeelness of it all that I felt I ought to enjoy it, at the very least for the nostalgia.
So I wandered. And wandered. Took a good look at the Monet's, was quite pleased that I could identify them as such without reading the tags (and they weren't the most famous ones at first either). Wandered over to the American section, saw this perfectly wonderful library table with an inlaid skymap on the top.... *drools... but not on the table* I want. That table. Wandered around and looked at the preserved rooms.
Then I got to the good stuff. I found the armor. That stuff is expletive awesome. It's amazing how many styles and designs there are, not even counting purely decorative aspects. But it made me a bit sad. It's such a waste, really... all that time and effort, and it's beautiful work, to save people from being killed by those whom they wish to kill. And none of it matters because those who made it and those who wore it are all dead anyway, and all the armor in the world couldn't save them. Made me feel lonely for a bit.
Oh, and then I got lost. Inside the museum. This was the prelude for me misplacing the train station and wandering several blocks out of my way to get back to it on my wayhome to the bookstore.
But I want to go back, maybe sometime next week, with Jenn and Lizziey and Mommy. *nodnodnod*
Later I'll post a nice nostalgic post about my childhood spent wandering this museum with my family (or so I wish you to believe, anyway...)
Then I wandered for a bit. Now, to be fair, while my family used to go the Met quite a bit when we (Jenn/Ginger and I) were little, we haven't in a while, and an art museum really isn't my favorite type of museum. But Figgy (who really needs to come to school up here or at least visit one summer in the future when she's more independant or something just to get all this out of her system) was so thrilled with the "youliveinacitywithallthosemuseaums!" squeelness of it all that I felt I ought to enjoy it, at the very least for the nostalgia.
So I wandered. And wandered. Took a good look at the Monet's, was quite pleased that I could identify them as such without reading the tags (and they weren't the most famous ones at first either). Wandered over to the American section, saw this perfectly wonderful library table with an inlaid skymap on the top.... *drools... but not on the table* I want. That table. Wandered around and looked at the preserved rooms.
Then I got to the good stuff. I found the armor. That stuff is expletive awesome. It's amazing how many styles and designs there are, not even counting purely decorative aspects. But it made me a bit sad. It's such a waste, really... all that time and effort, and it's beautiful work, to save people from being killed by those whom they wish to kill. And none of it matters because those who made it and those who wore it are all dead anyway, and all the armor in the world couldn't save them. Made me feel lonely for a bit.
Oh, and then I got lost. Inside the museum. This was the prelude for me misplacing the train station and wandering several blocks out of my way to get back to it on my way
But I want to go back, maybe sometime next week, with Jenn and Lizziey and Mommy. *nodnodnod*
Later I'll post a nice nostalgic post about my childhood spent wandering this museum with my family (or so I wish you to believe, anyway...)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-12-27 11:40 pm (UTC)The armour and swords in the met are great. I like them 'cause they're shiny. ;) The paintings are my favourite part of the museum, though. All of them. I love paintings. Did you see any Picasso or Braque? I've been very interested in their work with cubism lately. I don't recall exactly which paintings of Monet the Met has, but he was one of my favourite artists when I was little and I always love his work. I'm not sure if you've been to Chicago or not, but the Chicago Art Institute has rooms and rooms of Monet paintings. I love that museum. They've also got all of these doll house rooms on display in the basement -- I LOVED those when I was a kid. Still do. They're awesome.
No comment on the steles -- I don't know much about grecian art at all. I appreciate it, and I enjoy looking at it to some extent, but most sculptures don't interest me nearly as much as paintings do, and my art history courses have always focused more strongly on painters of the seventeenth thru twenty first century than anything else. Sorry.
You should make nostalgic museum posts! They'd make me happy, because then I get to be nostalgic about new york's museums, too.
no subject
Date: 2003-12-27 11:58 pm (UTC)The only one I recall of Monet's that they had which I'd never seen before, yet recognized as his was one about Ice Floes... they also had his sunflowers and quite a few others which I forget the names of.
About the steles... c'mon, can't you think of differences/similarities? You don't need to know what you're talking about to say "this guy is posed unnaturally" and "they're sitting more informally in this stele than in the other". *whinewhinewhine*
I didn't see any modern art, I was too busy staring at the uber-cool armor. I love that stuff.
Actually, I might go again tomorrow with my friend Gabe, so I'll be sure to look out for Cubists then.
no subject
Date: 2003-12-28 01:23 am (UTC)Well, there are obvious stylistic differences between the two steles. The first is done in the Egyptian style, while the second is much more recognizably Grecian, with the 3d, sculpted figures, each seeming to follow the rules of "perfect" proportion that most classical sculptors observed. The figures on the first stele appear very stilted and carved, and they're even in the traditional one foot in front of the other, profiled perspective used in Egyptian art. The sphinx is the most realistic looking part of the sculpture to me, probably because it appears to have been completely carved from its block of stone instead of just... Oh, I don't know the technical term for it, but the figures are only surface carved, not almost completely realized like the ones in the second stele. Still, the Egyptian influence is still present in the sphinx. Though its face looks more Grecian than Egyptian to me, it's got highly stylized wings, and its pose is straight out of an Egyptian wall painting.
As I mentioned, the figures in the second stele are a lot more dynamic and follow the pattern of classical proportion, something the first ones do not. For me, the most interesting bit about this stele is the clothing. It's really intricately detailed, with fascinating folds that really create a sense of reality. Even the small figure (a child?) has wrinkles in her clothing. The child on the first stele seems to be wearing a shift, but it's very simple, hardly recognizable. I would guess that the sculptor of the second stele used models... s/he may have followed the rather unrealistic guidelines of classical proportions (do you know them? eight heads in a body which is perfectly muscled, similar "beautiful" faces... Michelangelo’s David is the most perfect and famous example of classical anatomy that I know of off the top of my head.) but the clothing seems to have a firm basis in reality.
One thing that I find interesting is the differences in the children. Even though the first stele seems to me to be, on the whole, stinted and unrealistic, the girl looks a lot more childlike than the one on the second stele. The second girl looks like a little adult, complete with adult proportions and features. The girl on the egyptianesque stele seems much more childlike... perhaps it is the expression on her face... Very interesting. I would like to have seen these in real life. The photos are nice, but a lot of the detail is lost.
It would be silly to point out the obvious differences in tone -- the first seems to me to be a much more relaxed scene, despite the stiff poses of the figures. The second is much more formal, like a precursor to the portrait paintings done later on... can't remember the exact time frame. I wonder what the significance of the sphinx is to the first stele -- it seems rather random in relation to the scene. Do you know?
I might write more... I can ramble indefinitely about art ... but I'm sleeepy. Must go to bed now, it's almost two thirty and my parents are home so I can't stay up here in case they wake up and scold me.
no subject
Date: 2003-12-29 08:44 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-12-27 11:40 pm (UTC)The armour and swords in the met are great. I like them 'cause they're shiny. ;) The paintings are my favourite part of the museum, though. All of them. I love paintings. Did you see any Picasso or Braque? I've been very interested in their work with cubism lately. I don't recall exactly which paintings of Monet the Met has, but he was one of my favourite artists when I was little and I always love his work. I'm not sure if you've been to Chicago or not, but the Chicago Art Institute has rooms and rooms of Monet paintings. I love that museum. They've also got all of these doll house rooms on display in the basement -- I LOVED those when I was a kid. Still do. They're awesome.
No comment on the steles -- I don't know much about grecian art at all. I appreciate it, and I enjoy looking at it to some extent, but most sculptures don't interest me nearly as much as paintings do, and my art history courses have always focused more strongly on painters of the seventeenth thru twenty first century than anything else. Sorry.
You should make nostalgic museum posts! They'd make me happy, because then I get to be nostalgic about new york's museums, too.
no subject
Date: 2003-12-27 11:58 pm (UTC)The only one I recall of Monet's that they had which I'd never seen before, yet recognized as his was one about Ice Floes... they also had his sunflowers and quite a few others which I forget the names of.
About the steles... c'mon, can't you think of differences/similarities? You don't need to know what you're talking about to say "this guy is posed unnaturally" and "they're sitting more informally in this stele than in the other". *whinewhinewhine*
I didn't see any modern art, I was too busy staring at the uber-cool armor. I love that stuff.
Actually, I might go again tomorrow with my friend Gabe, so I'll be sure to look out for Cubists then.
no subject
Date: 2003-12-28 01:23 am (UTC)Well, there are obvious stylistic differences between the two steles. The first is done in the Egyptian style, while the second is much more recognizably Grecian, with the 3d, sculpted figures, each seeming to follow the rules of "perfect" proportion that most classical sculptors observed. The figures on the first stele appear very stilted and carved, and they're even in the traditional one foot in front of the other, profiled perspective used in Egyptian art. The sphinx is the most realistic looking part of the sculpture to me, probably because it appears to have been completely carved from its block of stone instead of just... Oh, I don't know the technical term for it, but the figures are only surface carved, not almost completely realized like the ones in the second stele. Still, the Egyptian influence is still present in the sphinx. Though its face looks more Grecian than Egyptian to me, it's got highly stylized wings, and its pose is straight out of an Egyptian wall painting.
As I mentioned, the figures in the second stele are a lot more dynamic and follow the pattern of classical proportion, something the first ones do not. For me, the most interesting bit about this stele is the clothing. It's really intricately detailed, with fascinating folds that really create a sense of reality. Even the small figure (a child?) has wrinkles in her clothing. The child on the first stele seems to be wearing a shift, but it's very simple, hardly recognizable. I would guess that the sculptor of the second stele used models... s/he may have followed the rather unrealistic guidelines of classical proportions (do you know them? eight heads in a body which is perfectly muscled, similar "beautiful" faces... Michelangelo’s David is the most perfect and famous example of classical anatomy that I know of off the top of my head.) but the clothing seems to have a firm basis in reality.
One thing that I find interesting is the differences in the children. Even though the first stele seems to me to be, on the whole, stinted and unrealistic, the girl looks a lot more childlike than the one on the second stele. The second girl looks like a little adult, complete with adult proportions and features. The girl on the egyptianesque stele seems much more childlike... perhaps it is the expression on her face... Very interesting. I would like to have seen these in real life. The photos are nice, but a lot of the detail is lost.
It would be silly to point out the obvious differences in tone -- the first seems to me to be a much more relaxed scene, despite the stiff poses of the figures. The second is much more formal, like a precursor to the portrait paintings done later on... can't remember the exact time frame. I wonder what the significance of the sphinx is to the first stele -- it seems rather random in relation to the scene. Do you know?
I might write more... I can ramble indefinitely about art ... but I'm sleeepy. Must go to bed now, it's almost two thirty and my parents are home so I can't stay up here in case they wake up and scold me.
no subject
Date: 2003-12-29 08:44 am (UTC)