Um, baby, yeah.. my email isnt working and AIM wont sned the damned thing. here ya go :wink:
Andrew Puleo
52450
Met Museum
Due : 11.28.05
Egypt, Greece, Rome, and the East
The Metropolitan Museum of Art Collection
Statuette of Isis and Horus, 330?30 B.C.E.; Ptolemaic period
Egyptian
Purchase, Joseph Pulitzer Bequest, 1955 (55.121.5)
Sphinx of Amenhotep III, ca. 1391?1353 B.C.E.; Dynasty 18, reign of Amenhotep III; New Kingdom
Egyptian
Purchase, Lila Acheson Wallace Gift, 1972 (1972.125)
Why I chose two separate pieces of art with nearly 1500 years separating them is simple: it illustrates how little Egyptian artwork changed during that entire span of time. The same blue stone, the same dimensions of the figures bodies and faces, even the same expressions on those faces weren?t altered during this span. It is for this reason I am not a big fan of Egyptian art; I feel they tried too hard to get it right, and it left them in the dusts of time. Although the Pyramids are monumental, and will last for millennia to come; the reality is that they are hollow. I feel the same of Egyptian art ? technically a marvel, a great achievement; but like a mummy, the soul is somewhere else. Isis blankly cradles a stiff Horus in her arms, each arm coincidentally, is in an unnaturally position, and I sensed no tenderness or emotion. Like a doll sitting in a larger dolls lap, Horus sits. The sphinx also sits, motionless, staring forward, holding two jars, which I would venture to guess, hold his own entrails or maybe his heart or his brain; all of which are disconnected from him in death. Maybe Egyptian art does it for some people, but I look at it and am awed only by its age or size and scope, not its energy or life.
Bronze man and centaur, Statuette of a man and centaur, mid-8th century B.C.; Geometric; Geometric
Greek
Gift of J. Pierpont Morgan, 1917 (17.190.2072)
I can?t say why I liked this little statue the best out of everything the Met has from Greece. When I first looked at it I commented that it was ugly, until I looked at it all around. Brought to life in bronze is what looks like an old man embracing a centaur. Both of the figures have a very feminine quality to them, while also extolling death. Both figures are bald, but wearing matching ?beehive? hats. All four eyes are hollow, and very large in contrast to the rest of the figure. This is definitely early Greek, the skinny sections and the triangular angles give it away.
The reflection of mythology in everyday life seems more important to the ancient Greeks than anything else. Their legends and heroes and what we quickly brush away as ?myths? couldn?t have been more real to them. However, their stories weren?t so much fantastical tales or stern parables; but the extolment and celebration of the virtues they lived by day by day. The art and ideas that poured out of this culture probably will never be matched, nor will the incredible legends that they lived out in their everyday lives. Some people at first glance might see a common man embracing a mythological figure - but it is the best representation of what a near perfect culture strived towards and succeeded in being: truly godlike.
Bronze chariot inlaid with ivory, Chariot, 2nd quarter of the 6th century B.C.; Archaic
Etruscan
Rogers Fund, 1903 (03.23.1)
A culture so universally associated with warfare and conquest must be represented carefully. I believe this chariot fits the mold. Although probably decorative, it is still menacing enough; one only needs to imagine the rest of the picture. The two, nine-spoked chariot wheels still remain intact, and support the bronze body of the chariot. The cab of the chariot is inlaid with ivory scenes depicting horses and warfare. Inside are what appear to be hooks and notches made to hold both a shield and spears.
I only assume the piece is decorative because of its not appearing in the Arms & Armor section. A field commander or general very easily could have used this chariot, his rank befitting its ornate glory. The Etruscan and Roman culture of conquering their neighbors ceaselessly is represented here; a piece of art, a sculpture of metal and rare ivory dedicated to warfare. This is not to say it is not a very functional piece of art, or has any less merit than an everyday pottery bowl or grave marker, just to imply the connotations of why it was created, and for what purpose.
Blades & Mountings for a Pair of Swords (Daisho), long sword: dated 1440; short sword: fifteenth century; Muromachi period
Long sword (katana) inscribed by Sukemitsu of Bizen; short sword (wakizashi) attributed to Yasumitsu, Japanese
The Howard Mansfield Collection, Gift of Howard Mansfield, 1936 (36.120.417,418)
This piece of artwork is simply two Japanese swords, sheathed, and presented to the viewer. I enjoyed the piece, because unlike the rest of the Japanese katana swords on display, the pieces were left attached as a whole instead of separated, blade from hilt and sheath. The sheaths themselves are anthracitic black, with a tiny, oval, gold emblem bearing a Japanese character. The hilts of each sword are also matching, with yellow braided grips and the same emblem that adorns the sheath is also emblazoned on the cap of the hilt. The blade, although not visible, is no doubt a perfect example of the craftsmanship and artwork of the era ? The maker would have left his mark on the blade, by a special mark on the trailing edge. This mark could have resembled waves in the ocean, a mountain range, or any uniform pattern.
Reflecting the ideology of the Samurai warrior and Japanese culture as a whole, the sword is considered an extension of the warrior?s body. To use or even draw a katana for any other purpose except to kill one?s opponent would shame a warrior, and shame is a fate worse than death. The simplicity of the sword in comparison to some of the more
ornate ones that surround it speaks about its simplicity maybe even its necessity. Although born out of need, the sword and its counterpart, the warrior, would have both been examples of the Bushido code of honor respected so highly by the Japanese culture.
If I were allowed the chance to take home anything in the entire museum, I would have selected the Japanese katana and wazikashi, not only for their monetary and historical values; but for their aesthetic value as well. The pureness of craftsmanship that was poured into those two swords is unmatched by any object produced today, by any hand. The skill required to create one is still a mystery, lost to modern man and recreated only partially. Something of that caliber is one of a kind, and I would be honored to possess it. However, since the Metropolitan Museum probably would not look kindly on me requisitioning it for my own collection, the sword will stay in New York City, behind a temperature controlled Plexiglas enclosure for the entire world to enjoy.
