Talk:Ancient Greek art

Images in lead

Let's get some, instead of those terrible templates. Johnbod (talk) 00:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Use of galleries in this article

With this edit, I removed the galleries in this article and rearranged the pictures. My justification for doing so is based on WP:GALLERY, and on the comment made at Wikipedia:The Core Contest/Entries § Ancient Greek art. Johnbod reverted my edit, so I am requesting wider discussion here. What do people think about the use of 6 individual galleries in this article, distributed among the sections? —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 19:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I will be doing a lot of changes to the article for the Core Contest, certainly including increasing the image sizes, and improving the selection, as well as expanding the text. But there will be galleries, in fact more of them! I suggest people wait until I'm finished. It's strange User:Crh23 did nothing about the majority of images fixed at 100px, then complains things are too small. Johnbod (talk) 19:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I was part way through my cleanup: I had intended to continue this evening, I figured doing so would be OK as there is no rush and (at least IMO) my incremental edit was still an improvement on how the page was. Thanks for doing the cleanup that needs doing, images are tricky to implement uncontroversially (as evidenced here! ).—  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 19:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ancient Greek art. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160306190600/http://witcombe.sbc.edu/arthlinks.html to http://witcombe.sbc.edu/ARTHLinks.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Mosaics

Mosaic art seems like a major aspect of Greek artwork, at the very least one of the best preserved forms of art from the Greek world. Pottery and metalwork are more ubiquitous, it is true, and perhaps we have way more surviving examples of monumental statuary and figurines. However, mosaics are found in numerous ancient Greek archaeological sites and they're certainly more copious than the amount of surviving wall paintings, murals and frescoes (albeit less numerous than vase paintings). Instead of having a section of its own like pottery, figurines and monumental sculpture, talk of mosaic art is merely relegated to "other arts", as if it were a minor one. I don't think it is. I think it deserves its own section and if nobody minds, I think I'll carve out a new section for it. Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

No objection here. Paul August ☎ 18:03, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Please go ahead. Ceoil (talk) 18:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement! I've done it! I'll expand the section further in the coming days, if not today, but I already have a new paragraph and a neat little gallery with some new fantastic images: --Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• 
  A mosaic of the Kasta Tomb in Amphipolis depicting the abduction of Persephone by Pluto, 4th century BC
• 
  Central panel of the Abduction of Helen by Theseus, floor mosaic, detail of the charioteer, from the House of the Abduction of Helen, (c. 300 BC), ancient Pella
• 
  Alexander the Great (left), wearing a kausia and fighting an Asiatic lion with his friend Craterus (detail); late 4th-century BC mosaic from Pella
• 
  Mosaic of a nymph from the Palace of the Grand Master of the Knights of Rhodes, 2nd century BC
• 
  The winged god Dionysus riding a tiger, from the House of Dionysus in Delos, Greece, 2nd century BC
• 
  Detail of a Hellenistic mosaic floor panel showing an Alexandrine parakeet, from the acropolis of Pergamon (near modern Bergama, Turkey), dated to the middle of the 2nd century BC (during the reigns of Eumenes II and Attalus II)

Macedonian tomb fresco from Agios Athanasios, Thessaloniki, Greece, 4th century BC.

I could also add more images of paintings, if you guys have no qualms with that. It's another major section of the article that lacks a little demonstrative gallery. --Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I have now added this gallery to the painting section, along with the following image to the right. Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• 
  Ancient Macedonian paintings of Hellenistic-era military armor, arms, and gear from the Tomb of Lyson and Kallikles in ancient Mieza (modern-day Lefkadia), Imathia, Central Macedonia, Greece, dated 2nd century BC.
• 
  A fresco of a Macedonian soldier resting a spear and wearing a cap, from the tomb of Agios Athanasios, Thessaloniki, 4th century BC.
• 
  Fresco from the Tomb of Judgment in ancient Mieza (modern-day Lefkadia), Imathia, Central Macedonia, Greece, depicting religious imagery of the afterlife, 4th century BC
• 
  A fresco showing Hades and Persephone riding in a chariot, from the tomb of Queen Eurydice I of Macedon at Vergina, Greece, 4th century BC
• 
  A banquet scene from a Macedonian tomb of Agios Athanasios, Thessaloniki, 4th century BC; six men are shown reclining on couches, with food arranged on nearby tables, a male servant in attendance, and female musicians providing entertainment.
• 
  Fresco of an ancient Macedonian soldier (thorakitai) wearing chainmail armor and bearing a thureos shield, 3rd century BC

@Johnbod: quite honestly, I'd like to know what you think of these additions. I'm just glad to have found a worthy contribution by François Chamoux explaining the impact of Hellenistic mosaic art on both Roman mosaics and Medieval mosaics. --Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:53, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm fine with the mosaic section, though it does remain a secondary form - everything that survives was on the floor, which has never been a position of great prestige. I think there may be a couple too many of the Macedonian paintings (there is one in the lead also) and the gallery maybe should be below the wall-paintings section. Johnbod (talk) 02:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I know this is kind of a late entry to the discussion, but wanted to say that I appreciate PericlesofAthens's recent additions to this article and I think that they are improvements. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: thank you kindly! Feel free to take a look at the new article I just created as well: Mosaics of Delos! :) --Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I checked out the article Mosaics of Delos. It looks great--very impressive! I am astonished you were able to write so much material in just one day. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, very nice! Johnbod (talk) 15:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, guys! I've already consulted four different sources and I'm going to shoot for Good Article status at some point, perhaps after a requested peer review. --Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@Johnbod: good points. I have replaced what was basically a duplicate image of a Macedonian soldier (since he now appears in an image to the right) with a painting of Hellenistic Egypt depicting a thureophoroi-type soldier of the Ptolemaic army. That adds a bit more variety methinks. I also moved the gallery down to the end of the "panel and wall painting" section, per your suggestion. I hope you find these changes to be suitable. I know what you mean about mosaics playing second fiddle to the prestige of paintings in ancient Greek culture, but nevertheless in terms of surviving artwork they form a major corpus of available material for study, especially in understanding now lost works of Greek painted art. I have no plans to expand the section on mosaics, but I certainly think this art form merits its own sub-section.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Definition of ancient Greek art

I'm not an expert on Greek art, you know, despite the flattering view of me Johnbod seems to have (thanks anyway John). I do have a strong background in it, and I studied under a few persons of moderate reknown, but apparently some of the issues failed to rub off, or rather, I was taught from one point of view, the wrong one for this article. Or maybe I dozing off during the lectures. Thus when I saw in this article and the other that the Bronze Age was to be excluded from Greek Art I suddenly came awake. What? How can that be possible? Was the Mycenaean Period not of, by, and for Greeks? Then I began to kook around a bit. I got out my old books, searched the Internet. Sure enough, there was and is a serious issue of definition. The initial great studies of Greek art were done before the discovery that Linear B is Greek in the 1950's. Thus pre-classical. as Boardman put it, was unknown, probably not Greek. After the great discovery, art historians were faced with a raging problem. Was Mycenaean art Greek or not? I was trained on the archaeological side. Of course they are Greek, what else would they be? But, the art historians were slow to accept. There was a sharp break in art development, they argued. Before proto-geometric, the trsdition was different. Oh no it was not, argued the other side. All this crystallizes on the definition of Greek art. Rather than have shocked people like me popping up in these excellent articles, I therefire propose the following: a first section of the definition of Greek art with appropriate references. This can carry over into the other article. I would break out some of the intro for this section. I want to call the two views pre-Ventris and post-Ventris after the originator of all the controversy, who conveniently died to escape it. Unlee there is objection I will procede with that.Botteville (talk) 12:24, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Purely as regards the terminology, "The earliest art by Greeks is generally excluded from "ancient Greek art", and instead known as Aegean art; this includes Cycladic art and the art of the Minoan and Mycenaean cultures from the Greek Bronze Age" seems still a correct factual statement to me (I've just added the ""). Our main weakness or problem, it seems to me, is that Aegean art and Mycenaean Greece (on art) are so weak, and in particular have nothing at all on metalwork, which gives the most interesting Mycenaean survivals. This is a shocking gap really, & it would be excellent to fill it. Artistically, the gap between Aegean and even proto-geometric is pretty wide, somewhat like that between classical and early medieval, and I think that, rather than any actual ongoing dispute over "Greekness" is why the two are still generally treated as distinct. I'm not really sure there is a "raging problem", or not any more. This is what I call a "homework" article, getting a large number of views showing very clear weekly and annual cycles reflecting the academic year. The article is probably already too long and detailed for what most of its readers are looking for - of course one tries to strike a balance. The lead is probably a bit too long already. I agree the section you propose is useful, but I have to say I don't like the idea of it here, just after the lead, for these reasons. Essentially the same stuff would be good ending for Aegean art, and low down here. The article is currently laid out (pottery before marble sculpture etc) to pursuade readers that there is more to AG art than just the iconic classical marbles, & I fear an introductory section bringing in much earlier stuff, and what I suspect is now a rather stale controversy, will distract and maybe put off those new to the subject. The "Monumental sculpture" section already treats Cycladic to Greek as an interrupted development within the same tradition. Johnbod (talk) 14:14, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

With all due respect, I see your reply as fundamentally resistive. That being so, I am not even going to get started. I was working on other things, to which I think I will go on. I will try and finish up the CVA article. For me it is a question of diminishing returns. I don't regard it as very useful to spend your time and my time edit warring over this article and my incurring your enmity. That having been said, here is where we disagree. and those disagreements are major:

• Definitions should come first and not be relegated to the lower interest end of the article. While I appreciate the addition of the quotes, it seems to me more is needed.
• I also question the use of "Aegean." It seems to me someone is applying it in a sense it was never intended to apply, but it needs research. There is no point in my doing that when we can't even agree on "Greek art."
• The question is by no means stale. For example, let's take the views of John Boardman, who is still alive (last I heard). He expresses equivocation in a number of places about what "Greek art" should mean. In the latest thing I looked at (2016), Thames & Hudson "Greek Art", Boardman discusses the issue at the beginning of Chapter 1. "there are two views about what should be regarded as its starting point" (Greek Art). Previously Boardman had often expressed the pre-Ventris view, but typically with equivocation. I think he is used as a ref for that view.
• I don't see a definitions section as interrupting or interfering with the the flow of the subsequent sections as you explain it.
• Finally, your views are pretty firm. It seems to me you fall into the view that the Bronze Age is not Greek art. I don't fault you for these views, but it does seem to me there is a balance problem with that view. Its holders aren't facing up to the archaeological reality but want to cling to the past by modifying the English language: Greek is not Greek, suddenly it is Aegean. Greek art endured a more extensive change, but it was Greek before and remains Greek after; for example, pottery names in the Linear B documents are sometimes the same as "Greek art" pottery names.
• So, my friends often have radically different views from me, but I've learned I can;t change their minds. If they are determined to hold those views, let them. I think Franklin had some such approach, which enhanced his respect. I don't get no respect here on WP. I would say, keep your views if you really want to, but I think I will have to abandon these articles rather than quarrel with you. Gosh, I just told an enemy the same thing on another article. In any case you know where to find me if you want to. For the Bronze Age pottery, I reaffrim that the museum articles and commons categories contain tons and tons of pictures if you are still interested. Ciao.Botteville (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Ok. I probably am being "resistive", but it's not true that I don't see Bronze Age Greek art as "art that is Greek" - I certainly do. I suspect the same is true for Boardman & others (Afaik, he is going strong at 92-ish, and of course the change you described happened during his early career). Perhaps there is a different approach to periodization in art history - the major divisions very rarely change, and sub-divisions within them are not taken very seriously. It's a matter of convenience as much as anything - articles like this are obliged to be full of generalizations that just about work over the current span, but would break down entirely if they have to cover the Bronze Age too. I do wish someone would improve the general Bronze Age articles though. Johnbod (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable reply, more like what I had been led to believe you might say. Let me see if I can say this in a more concise fashion. There is a difference between art history and archaeology. The archaeologist is more interested in periodization, identification, and dating, above all dating. He uses technology a lot, some of it pretty mathematical and physical. The art historian is more concerned with elements of style and the abstractions of decoration. The periodization comes from archaeology. The art history is subsequent to it. We are faced with a double standard. To the archaeologist the Mycenaean Period is Greek and its art is nothing but Greek. Whenever you see its pottery, you say, aha! The Greeks were there, or they imported this stuff from the Greeks. To the art historian, such as Gisella Richter, "Greek" is an art category. Artifacts can be archaeologically Greek but not Greek art. This is the paradox with which scholars such as Boardman are faced. Our articles in this area are mainly art history, not archaeological, so much so that the editors cannot even explain "Mycenaean." They misunderstand it totally. What we need to do (I think) is to present them in such a way that the implications of both views are made clear. We DO need to explain that art historical Greek art is not the same as archaeological Greek artifacts, which happen to be the same objects. Shucks this is already too long. I am NOT saying, we have to include the Bronze Age in this article. We can refer to the articles covering it. Boardman does not hesitate to make the difference clear. Why should we? We can do that in only a few paragraphs, even just one, and a couple of footnotes, even the work by Boardman I just mentioned. You can get it preview on the Internet. Now, for the length of this article: much of is non-concise formatting. It could take 2-col notes and references, galleries with small pictures, and so on. For the Bronze Age articles, well, perhaps they need my attention. I will consider that. However, I'm not here to argue with idiots or work for people with axes to grind. When I first got on here there was a famous German administrator who helped WP expand by quite a few thousand articles. In the end he got so tyrannical (I guess it went to his head) I or anyone could not write anything in the liberal arts without his personal approval. He would go so far as to revert all my material even as I was writing it, and once suggested I do things on sandbox first so he could personally approve it. I ended up swearing at him symbolically. Then I got off WP. Since I've been back I have heard nothing from him. He seems to have gone into hiding. I know he is still here. Perhaps he had a change of heart. Now, I don't mind your suggesting that Bronze Age articles need work, but you should be clear, I am not doing anything at your direction or under your direction. Also, it is my hope that you will reconsider about the definitions paragraph. Otherwise real people might find the article impressively high-sounding, but mainly incomprehensible, as so much art history is. We don't want to impress, but to explain (I think). We used to use the term "arty-farty" for incomprehensible. By the way, I did well in art history.Well this is way too long. I think I have covered it. I am waiting to see what you do now, but also, I got other things I would like to continue.Botteville (talk) 02:12, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, maybe we could combine this and the periodization stuff now in the lead into a short introductory para. I must say I don't especially recognize the picture of the difference between art history and archaeology you draw - I am more familiar with British or western European prehistory, and this doesn't ring many bells there. Our articles on "Aegean art" except the pottery, are so poor I hesitate to add more links to them - if you want an area to work un-interrupted that would be a good place. I am doing a little bit there now, just adding basic links to the pretty crap individual articles we have. Johnbod (talk) 17:01, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Pylos combat agate

seems like nobody is interested in updating this page with this recent find and the theories it is challenging regarding greek arts history

In 2016, the Greek Culture Ministry referred to this excavation as the most significant discovery in continental Greece in the last 65 years.[1] The small scale of the intricate details prompted questions regarding ancient Greek civilizations' ability to create such an object; some archaeologists believe that such minute details could have only been created with the help of a magnifying glass, though none dating from the stone's period have been found on the island of Crete.[13] Its co-discoverer, Dr. Jack Davis, refers to the piece as "incomprehensibly small", remarking that works of art with as much detail would not be seen "for another thousand years."[1] He also added: “It seems that the Minoans were producing art of the sort that no one ever imagined they were capable of producing. It's a spectacular find."[4] Researchers have asserted that this discovery challenges previously established consensuses regarding the artistic development of the Minoan civilization.[3] The agate's researchers state that this discovery necessitates a reevaluation of the time-line on which Greek art developed.[14] While dated as belonging to the Aegean Bronze Age, Davis notes that it bears more resemblance to Classical period art, which developed a millennium later, due to the breadth of anatomical knowledge embodied in the stone's engravings.[11]

Pylos Combat Agate

classical greek art emerged from minoan arts

greeks were unable to create anything other than this

true greek art

115.135.130.182 (talk) 02:54, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Pottery and vase painting

As it stands, the vase painting section is in the painting section, but the pottery section already explains vase painting in more depth, making the vase painting section redundant. Any ideas for how to merge these sections? I think it would probably require changing the structure of the article so that paintings are less separated out from pottery. Birdsinthewindow (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

The single para in the painting section begins "The most copious evidence of ancient Greek painting survives in the form of vase paintings. These are described in the "pottery" section above", then lists some contrasts & comparisons. Why change anything?

Johnbod (talk) 01:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)