PRIFYSGOL ABERTAWE,
SWANSEA UNIVERSITY.
Home | Search | Maps | Graphics.
Please note, this is not a finished paper but merely notes to help anyone who may be interested.
we
can take nothing for granted and that conceptions which are familiar–or even
axiomatic–to us, may be irrelevant to ancient culture, it becomes clear that
the paradoxes are founded on a discrepancy between our own outlook and the views
and intentions of the ancients.
Frankfort 1948: 124-125
The concept of art is a modern one, not shared by the Egyptians. Yet, we often unthinkingly use modern terms to ancient culture which leads to misunderstanding.
The Egyptians had no concept of art. People who manufactured tomb paintings, etc. would be classed as 'craftsmen'.
There have been many attempts to identify art, non of which seem entirely successful. Carroll (1999) provides a background a definition of art. Art is sometimes said to be aesthetically pleasing, for example. But different groups may find different things pleasing. A number of things are deliberately made to be visually pleasing, for example a mown lawn, but are not works of art. Some artists, for example the German Expressionists produced paintings with the intention of inspiring disgust. In the 1950s, a significant group of philosophers noted that every attempt to define art failed (particularly philosophers influenced by Ludwig Wittgenstein). The Historical Definition School maintains that objects can be considered art if they perform an acknowledged function of art. There may be a number of functions and the present function may differ from the intent of the maker.
Many people visiting the Egypt Centre are interested in Egyptian art but when shown pottery they are not interested. This reaction perhaps stems from the 18th century notion of 'Fine Art.' The doctrine that art should be valued for itself alone and not for purpose or function is sometimes called 'aestheticism'. The idea of the 'fine arts' where paintings, music, etc. in which aesthetic properties are considered more important than utilitarian ones is very much an 18th century one. There are some problems with this view: to view art simply from the point of view of its beauty is to take it from its original context; who decides on what criteria art should be judged; why should the aesthetic be considered 'good'? Because aesthetics are linked to moral value in the west, aesthetics and utility are often seen as separate. But is this separation justified? For the Egyptians the tomb painting was just as functional as a copper alloy adze.
As Alfred Gell has pointed out (1992), ethics and aesthetics belong in the same group. Aesthetics depends on accepting 'initial articles of faith'. Because works of art are considered special, they are often bound up with moral qualities. They may be related to ideas of social harmony and the idea of 'high culture'. Such ideas are not only spurious since they may not be the same as moral values regarded by the Egyptians but also may lead to charges of elitism. Gell (1992) proposes that art is studied as a component of technology, stripped of aesthetic value. He calls the technology of painting, sculpture, poetry etc. 'the technology of enchantment'.
In the West, art and writing are often differentiated. As Assman (1997:114-115) and others have pointed out, the distinction was not so clear with the ancient Egyptians. The Egyptians used the same word to refer to both their hieroglyphic writing and drawing of their art works. Cyril Aldred wrote ''...once a scribe had learnt to draw the full range of...[hieroglyphic signs with requisite skill he had become ipso facto an artist, since the composition of his pictures is the assemblage of a number of ideographs with some interaction between them.'' (Aldred, C., Egyptian Art 1980 p 17)
Renaissance scholars such as William Warburton, believed that Egyptian hieroglyphs were natural signs referring directly to objects. This proved not to be correct insofar as we now know that the symbols refer to concepts and sounds of a language. However the Renaissance scholars had come close to one aspect of Egyptian writing, that is hieroglyphs are iconic (they are meant to represent actual objects). Hence, letters in the shape of harmful animals such as snakes could be dangerous and in Old Kingdom tomb paintings therefore such representations are shown cut in half. Similarly, art was very much like writing. It was a signing system and had to follow a set pattern to be read.
Some western writers such as Hegel did not really think of Egyptian 'art' as 'art'. Others were impressed by its strangeness or monumental qualities. The latter group is here considered.
Egyptian art has often been considered sublime rather than beautiful. In the eighteenth century, the beautiful was divided into the 'sublime', the 'picturesque', the 'pathetic' and so on. The 18th century idea of the Sublime embraced notions of terror, power, vastness etc. Raging seas, towering mountains etc. might be considered Sublime. The aesthetic ideals of 19th century Neoclassicism wanted simplicity, grandeur and massiveness and looked to Egypt (as well as Greece and Rome). Egyptian art has also been valued not necessarily because it was considered beautiful in its own right but because of its associations with the mysterious, exotic East. Egyptian art may be considered beautiful because of its strangeness, its antiquity, its associations with some powerful civilization
Now it is generally agreed that it is pointless to argue whether or not Egyptian art is beautiful. However, connoisseurship is still very much in evidence in choosing what is displayed in museums, what is collected, etc.
It is sometimes stated that the Egyptians were unable to use perspective and that western peoples are somehow more 'developed' in that they can use perspective. It is much more likely that in the eyes of the Egyptians there was no need to use perspective. Similarly Egyptian representation tends toward a 'square', formal depiction of figures which again does not appear natural to us.
In the west, as in other cultures, ideas of what appears natural are culturally conceived. The camera for example has altered our perceptions of what appears realistic. We tend to think that camera image is reality but it is not how we see. For example a camera represents images with depth of field so that some objects are shown out of focus. This is not how our eyes see.
In Hegel's idea of history, the symbol is called a kind of 'pre-art' Vorkunst, which mainly belongs to the Orient. The earliest art is a kind of 'unconscious symbolism' such as Indian and Egyptian art. In this the artists themselves were unclear as to their aim 'The very appearance of Egyptian works of art makes us see that they contain riddles to which not only we ourselves lack the key but even those who pose them to themselves' (Hegel, G.W.F., 1927 Sämtliche Werke, ed H. Glockner (Stuttgart) Vol Xii (Vorlesungen über die Aesthetik, part II section 1 p407 translated by Gombrich 1972 p188). Hegel sees Egyptian art as inadequate in contrast to that of the Greeks.
Today studies of Egyptian art tend to be descriptive. This method of studying Egyptian art is now orthodox. Egyptologists turn out one after another corpus of objects or individual object showing its slight difference from others. While the recognition of difference does show workshops and chronology, Davis (1983) questions this type of specialist study and points out that it could be argued that scholars should concentrate more on issues of general consequence.
The description of the 'evolution' of Egyptian art often leads to certain periods being regarded as the pinnacle of achievement. Old Kingdom and Amarna art is often cited as particularly developed (Redford 1979: 8 for the value placed by earlier scholars on Old Kingdom art). W.S. Smith A History of Egyptian sculpture and painting in the Old Kingdom Oxford University Press 1946 pxv: writes ‘Nowhere in the ancient world until the time of the new spirit of Greek civilization is there anything comparable to the technological accomplishment, the naturalism, and the productivity of Egyptian art as exemplified in the first of its great periods of achievement, the Old Kingdom.’ Cyril Aldred seemed to have a particular affiliation with Amarna art. The idea that Old Kingdom art and also Amarna art was particularly accomplished may be linked with its apparent naturalism (See section on naturalism).
Edward Said (1978) describes orientalism 'as a system of knowledge about the Orient, an accepted grid for filtering through the Orient into Western Consciousness...the idea of European identity as a superior one in comparison with all non-European peoples and cultures'. Hence Egyptian art, along with other aspects of Egyptian culture may be viewed as lesser than western art.
O'Connor (1997: 17), review the plusses and minuses of the Egyptological study of Egypt. Of art he states that the culture-historical approach has led to a high standard with regard to issues of dating, authenticity and relationship to the broader culture. A detailed data base has been built up. But 'the approach has tended to be fragmented, particularistic and heavily weighted to (admittedly important) issues of dating and style. That art offers an especially valuable insight into Egypt's mental world has been realised, but mostly along relatively narrow lines, with regard to the religious system.' O'Connor gives examples of how Egyptology might become more innovative. In terms of art, he suggests more work could be done on showing how art is structured by the world view, particularly cosmogony. Etc. The way in which art is transformational is not simply limited to tomb walls but spreads to more 'mundane' items such as cosmetic containers and decoration of chairs.
Cyril Aldred, perhaps from early training at the Courthauld Institute of Art uses western art-historical vocabulary 'naturalism', 'mannerism', 'realism' etc. when talking about Amarna art in (1988). Amarna art is often considered naturalistic but it is not ideologically neutral. Montseratt (2000: 44-45) compares the pictures of family life from Amarna to the mass-produced images of the 1897 jubilee of Queen Victoria showing her surrounded by her family to convey imperial solidarity. Also the naturalism tends to obscure the fact that many of the pieces of the royal family were intended for religious devotion. They were set up by the elite in their homes to invoke the royal family as intermediaries in the worship of the Aten.
In addition, as Montserrat (2000: 45) points out, in other periods Egyptologists have no trouble interpreting the art to show it as an expression of human domination, but not so with the Amarna art. The scenes from the ‘House of Rejoicing to the Aten’ for example are usually shown for their naturalistic beauty. Yet this scene of fish, birds and animals are combined with pictures of the bound enemies of Egypt. Nature, like Egypt’s enemies are bound and tamed.
The desire to see realism extends to the desire to see images of the royal family themselves as naturalistic. In other periods Egyptologists seem happy to recognise that scenes of the youthful pharaoh with his ever beautiful wife are not portrayals of reality. Yet for the Amarna period it is often stated that the 'feminised' image of the king shows he was suffering from some disease (e.g. Aldred1988).
In the past archaeologists have tended to collect items which they have found aesthetically pleasing. This was in part because museums and collectors funded excavations. Petrie was one of the first excavators to stress the importance of all objects (Petrie, W.M.F., 1904. Methods and Aims In Archaeology New York: MacMillan Company). Most of the objects in the Egypt Centre and most Egyptian artefacts in other British museums were looted from Egypt by the agents of collectors looking for saleable items. The collecting of the aesthetically pleasing and ignoring of the other has lead to a warped representation of ancient Egypt.
Antiquities have frequently been 'enhanced' to improve their sale value. For example pottery may be painted and refired. This has lead, through thermoluminescense dating for the object to be judged a fake.
Conservation is often done to enhance the beauty of the object. But what is considered appropriate varies from age to age. A number of Egyptian coffins of the Third Intermediate Period have a yellowish varnish. In some cases, conservators may have tried to remove this varnish believing it to be modern or perhaps seeing it as 'dulling' the true beauty of the object. There has been a debate on whether the heavy yellowing was intentional or a by-product of the varnish ageing. However, there are a number of unvarnished coffins with yellow painted backgrounds. Therefore it is generally accepted that the varnish was put on these objects by the Egyptians for symbolic purposes. The varnish had the same name as incense (senetjer) which could mean 'to varnish' or 'to make divine'. The shining appearance to could be associated with god like qualities.
Today it is considered normal to place beautiful objects in museums for the entertainment and education of the people. This European practise is however relatively new. During the 18th century the power of art to morally and spiritually improve began to be encouraged and art museums were set up. However, from the start, some observers were concerned that removing objects from their settings could obscure their former intent. Goethe for example, was concerned that Napoleon's gathering of art treasures from various parts of the world for display in the Louvre destroyed something else.[1]
Today the first aim of an art museum is to present objects for aesthetic contemplation rather than for historical or other information. For this reason, art museums tend to keep their galleries uncluttered of information so that the display is aesthetically pleasing (perhaps this is the way the Egypt Centre was designed. Note that the upstairs cases are very small).
The desire to judge art in western terms is also reflected in the consideration of naturalism as a virtue. Petrie in Revolutions Of Civilisation (1911) uses art as one expression of civilisation and describes realistic art as being 'its best' and non-realistic as degenerate (p16). In this book Petrie states that he did not use 'elements of moral ideas and religion' to measure civilization 'because they are so largely subjective'. He did not then think of judgement of art as being subjective. Petrie himself was very conservative in his artistic tastes. In addition he disliked the Petrie medal ‘’The first aim of the artist seems to have been his own virtuosity according to modern standards’’ (Drower : 359). Petrie preferred pre-Raphelites and Art Nouveau and had friends from this group (Drower: 339).
Part of the reason why naturalism in art is favoured in the west seems to stem from its Greek heritage. Is some evidence that the Greeks of the archaic period considered the pictograms of Egypt to be an imagined reality. E.g. pharaoh as a giant. The Greeks were interested in illusionist art which aims to trick the eye. Plato in particular was against such ideas and in the Republic complained that such ideas as perspective art was morally bad. It did not show the true world but rather the world through the eyes of the artist.
Beauty is a western term which is not really matched in Egyptian literature. The word 'nfr' is often translated as beauty but it might be more accurate to translate it as 'good' or 'youthful' or 'perfect'.
Baines (Baines, J., 1985. Fecundity Figures: Egyptian Personification and The Iconology Of A Genre. Warminster: Aris and Phillips. 277-280) uses the term 'decorum' which he borrows from Gombrich (Gombrich, E.H., 1972. Symbolic Images: Studies in the art of the Rennaissance. London: Phaidon. 7-11). Baines uses the term to describe a set of rules which govern the placing including juxtaposition, colour, etc. of representational motifs. In some ways it implies what is fitting or appropriate within a social context. The motivation of the system however is not that which is considered beautiful.
The Egyptians appear to have created each item from those views which individually convey the most information and conform to a timeless archetype. Thus representations may be composed from elements seen from different angles.
Bibliography
Aldred,
C., 1988. Akhenaten King of Egypt
Assman,
J., 1977. Moses the Egyptian. Havard
University Press
Carroll,
N., 1999. Philosophy of Art. A
contemporary introduction. London and New York: Routledge.
Davis,
W. 1983 'Egyptian Images: Percept and Concept' Göttinger Miszellen, 46., 83-96.
Drower,
M.S., 1985. Flinders Petrie. A Life In
Archaeology. London: Victor Gollancz.
Duncan, C. 'The Art
Museum as Ritual' In Preziosi, D., 1998. The
Art of Art History: A Critical Anthology. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
473-485.
Frankfort, H., 1948. Ancient
Egyptian Religion. New York: Harper.
Gell, A., 1992. The
Technology of Enchantment and the Enchantment of Technology. In J. Coote and A.
Shelton (eds.) Anthropology
Art and Aesthetics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Gombrich, E., J.
Hochberg and M. Black, 1970. Art,
Perception and Reality. Baltimore and London: The John Hopkins University
Press.
Gombrich, E. H., Art
and Illusion. A Study In The Psychology Of Pictorial Representation. London:
Phaidon.
Monserrat, D., 2000. Akhenaten.
History, Fantasy and Ancient Egypt. London and New York: Routledge
O'Connor, D., 1997.
'Ancient Egypt: Egyptological and Anthropological Perspectives' In Lustig, J.,
1997. (ed). Anthropology and Egyptology A
Developing Dialogue. Monographs in Mediterranean Archaeology 8. Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press.
Said, E. W., 1978. Orientalism.
London: Routledge and Keegan Paul.
Weeks 1979 Art, Word
and the Egyptian World View 59-81, In Weeks ed
Weeks, K.R., ed.,
1979. Egyptology and The Social Sciences.
Cairo: The American University In Cairo.
[1] Goethe in Elizabeth Gilmore Holt, 1979. The Triumph of Art for the Public. New York: Garden City, 79. The Frenchman Quatremère de Quincy also art museums as destroyers of historical meaning. See Daniel Sherman, 'Quatremère/Benjamin/Marx: Museums, Aura, and Commodity Fetishism', in D Sherman and I Rogoff (eds), 1994. Museum Culture: Histories, Discourses, Spectacles. Minneapolis and London: Media and Society, vi, 123-43.
Back to Working with Departments
The University | People | Life | Study | Research | Admissions.