Let me explain that a bit. Our statue tradition comes from Egypt, by way of Greece; most of the Egyptian mega-statuary that compares to the statues we are talking about was state art. It was paid for by the state, and the state was the pharaoh. Smaller statues might be....2/22
-
Näytä tämä ketju
-
...used for the private commemoration of the deceased. But you can see what was important in the design of these sorts of statues. They are mostly formulaic and idealized (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ushabti ), often presenting a 'standard' face rather than the face of the deceased. 3/22
1 vastaus 28 uudelleentwiittausta 376 tykkäystäNäytä tämä ketju -
Even larger statues in this tradition are very standardized, not individualized (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kouros#/media/File:Louvre_E5345.jpg …). Because - beyond their religious significance - they're not about remembering the deceased ("Hank here liked propane...") but about revering them more generally. 4/22
3 vastausta 24 uudelleentwiittausta 385 tykkäystäNäytä tämä ketju -
Meanwhile, the big expensive statues for pharaohs were all about communicating state power. It's legitimacy artwork, designed to confirm in the viewer that the pharaoh is big and powerful and doing a good job. Once again, nailing the facial features was not a big issue 5/22
1 vastaus 32 uudelleentwiittausta 416 tykkäystäNäytä tämä ketju -
The thing is, Egyptian religious practice *did* care about remembrance, but they used inscriptions, not statues for that (because the thing that needed to be remembered was the name). This is going to be a theme: you remember with words, you transmit *values* with statues. 6/22
2 vastausta 89 uudelleentwiittausta 576 tykkäystäNäytä tämä ketju -
Ok, so the tradition comes to Greece and they make statues mostly...of gods and heroes. When regular people do get statues in a Greek polis, it is explicitly because they have done something that community values and they express some value the community wants. 7/22
1 vastaus 28 uudelleentwiittausta 375 tykkäystäNäytä tämä ketju -
The irony here is that the first historian to complain that statues don't teach history *is*the*first*historian* himself, Thucydides. Seriously, Thucydides points out that the story behind the statues of the 'tyrannicides' in Athens (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmodius_and_Aristogeiton#/media/File:Tiranicidas_04.JPG …)...8/22
7 vastausta 151 uudelleentwiittausta 688 tykkäystäNäytä tämä ketju -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @BretDevereaux ja @ewanbirney
ahem, Herodotus 1st historian, Thucydides wrote without attention to sources.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 0 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @DaveFernig ja @ewanbirney
Thucydides is pretty clearly aware of Herodotus. You will find ancient historians disagree as to if Herodotus or Thucydides ought to be considered the first historian. In practice, I'd argue that Thucydides is the first historian in the modern sense, pace Cicero.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys -
A historian in that sense is more than someone who simply recounts events; history also involves a particular style of analysis and a consideration of causes. Herodotus' uncritical approach to his sources places him out (or more correctly, before) that tradition.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 0 tykkäystä
This is, I should note, an argument with ancient pedigree. Cicero's affirmation of Herodotus ought to be set alongside Polybius' dismissal and Plutarch's open, unveiled contempt.
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.