Ancient Ceramics - Research Paper Example

 Ceramics 2 One of the wonderful attributes of ceramics is that it can be preserved for great periods of time, outlasting paints, papers and other types of media. Because of this quality, we can learn a lot about ancient cultures and arts. A great deal of information about a society can be preserved in the sculptures and other artworks they leave behind. By studying ceramics created centuries ago by people living with a completely different worldview, it becomes easier to understand how the specific curve of a line or concept of scale communicates that culture’s values and beliefs. Through the fashions or designs depicted, it is possible to glean a sense of what was important to these people in terms of material, social and spiritual beliefs. In some cases, we get a very good idea of what the people looked like or what they held as superior examples of beauty for their time. These pieces can sometimes change our perceptions of a region as well. Perceptions change when it becomes possible to compare the piece with other pieces created during the same time period. The ways in which the piece differs from common characteristics, remains the same or demonstrates greater or lesser skill all serve to tell us something about the time. All of these factors come into play when studying a ceramics piece such as the “Statuette of a Standing Woman” found at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. The “Statuette of a Standing Woman” is a terracotta piece that dates to sometime in the late fourth or early third century BC. Terracotta is a specific type of clay that is fairly common and produces a red to a pale yellow shade of pottery depending on the iron content in the clay (Pitelka, 2009). The inner qualities of the clay and the way it is fired makes it especially resilient to breakage, making it possible for the piece to survive this long. In this case, the warm pale yellow natural tint of the clay gives the statuette an almost life-like quality. The museum indicates the piece is likely of Boeotian origin (Metropolitan Museum, 2006). Boeotia was a region of north-central Greece that is commonly thought of, because of the depiction offered by the Athenians, as a region of less intelligent and less skilled individuals (Fine, 1983). However, this collection of small cities sharing a common language includes the location of Thebes, Athens’ arguably greatest rival, so this conception is questionable. It is made even more questionable when looking at the detail of this piece. The artist remains unknown, but the statuette displays no indication that the artist was incapable of understanding the technical attributes of weight, gravity, form and direct modeling to produce a graceful figure that differs from other statues of its period. The statuette is realistically and gracefully posed as compared to other statues created during this period which tended to take on a flatter, more Egyptian-influenced stance (Fine, 1983). This is perhaps a bit misleading as she is most commonly compared with the much larger statues featured on Greek monuments. In spite of this, the statuette portrays a higher sense of naturalism and personality. This greater depth in the depiction indicates a much higher level of artistry and observation, perhaps even artist support as expressed in the confidence of the piece, than is found in other areas at that time. The statuette portrays a young woman standing with one hand balanced on a jutting back hip, making it clear that her weight is thrown mostly to her back foot, and her head tilted at an authoritative angle as she twists to look over her right shoulder as if she were awaiting the obedience of a young child. Her face is tilted downward, but there is no sense of deference to her pose. Her front foot peeks out from beneath her skirts with the glimpse of a sharply pointed shoe, somewhat like a modern cowboy boot. Her other hand hangs at her side holding what appears to be the strap of a water jug. This is a strong indication that the statue is intended to depict a woman in her everyday activities, perhaps as she makes her journey to the local fountain and must harness the children along the way. She is dressed in a traditional chiton, which is essentially a basic rectangular tube of fabric with openings for the head and arms (Cleland, Davies & Llewellyn-Jones, 2007). The folds of the fabric of this garment fall in tight folds around the woman’s legs and breaking on the arch of her foot. This illustrates the tremendous amount of fabric that was commonly used for this type of outfit. The chiton is covered by another traditional piece of clothing called a himation, which is like a large cloak. The himation covers the woman’s shoulders, portions of her arms, her torso and falls down at an angle to her upper thighs. Although it was often worn by women as a form of modesty when in public, as might be expressed by a mother attempting to set an example for her children, it was also used as a teasing form of provocation depending on how it was worn (Cleland, Davies & Llewellyn-Jones, 2007). Because there is no definitive answer to just which style indicated provocation as opposed to modesty, it is impossible to determine whether the woman is flirting with men or patiently scolding children from her dress alone. As with the chiton, the folds of the fabric appear natural. They stretch in a soft diagonal across the woman’s hips and upward across her chest. The real character of the piece, though, comes in the expressiveness of her tiny face. This face is rendered in great detail, featuring round eyes and a smooth brow, full cheeks and a delicate chin. Her expression is calm and peaceful, yet stern and unyielding. She seems a woman who knows what she wants and expects someone to do it – quickly. Her hair is also highly detailed, parted in the center and pulled back into a bun, giving us an indication that she is a young married woman. There is evidence that the statuette was once painted because the museum reports that red tints can still be found in the hair. It is clear no glazes were used. While such a simple piece might not immediately seem to convey much information about her society, the woman conveys a great deal of strength and confidence. These are not concepts we tend to associate with ancient women, most of whom we assume lived very subservient, constrained lives. She shows no sign of weakness and instead seems to be asserting a certain form of authority. The detail of the piece belies its early composition and suggests that these people also had a highly refined sense of art and aesthetics and confidence to express themselves in a unique way from their neighbors. The careful balance of the piece represents a very sophisticated approach to poses while the details of the face indicate the importance of individuality within the culture. This piece interests me a great deal because of the sensitivity to the subject and the high level of individuality it captures. The expressiveness of the piece, not just in terms of the woman’s personality but also in terms of what she communicates about her culture, is intriguing. She is different from any other early Greek statue I’ve seen before, most of which look like columns instead of natural people. What else strikes me about this statuette is that she could as easily represent a woman today standing in a long broomstick skirt and poncho. Her expression has just the same kind of independence and authority you see in the looks of women today who are confident of their rights in society and their ability to take care of themselves. This piece has given me a new perspective on ancient life and its similarity, in day to day realities, to life today. It also gives me perspective on how important the smallest detail can be to the overall message of the finished piece. Works Cited Cleland, Liza; Glenys Davies & Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones. Greek and Roman Dress from A to Z. Routledge, 2007. Fine, John. The Ancient Greeks: A Critical History. Harvard University Press, 1983. Metropolitan Museum of Art New York. “Statuette of a Standing Woman.” Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. October 19, 2010 http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/09.221.28 Pitelka, Vince. “Glossary of Ceramic Terminology.” Appalachian Center for Craft. (2009). Read More