3 ms·

> Such a practice seems especially outrageous to modern viewers, considering our appreciation of Egyptian artifacts as masterful works of fine art, but Bleiberg

> Such a practice seems especially outrageous to modern viewers, considering our appreciation of Egyptian artifacts as masterful works of fine art, but Bleiberg is quick to point out that “ancient Egyptians didn’t have a word for ‘art.’ They would have referred to these objects as ‘equipment.’” When we talk about these artifacts as works of art, he said, we de-contextualize them. this is very interesting and I have never thought about it in this way. One could really think of it as equipment, serving a real purpose (or having served and now makes a nice peace of a wall somewhere else). I wonder what the acient egyptions would think of our appreciation of their statues?

dalbasal 8y ago
We kind of don't have a word for "art" either. Historically/etymologically, art means "skilled work" or just "stuff made by people" (as in artifact). The word/concept seems to have evolved gradually to its current meaning with all its complex connotations of beauty, metaphorical depth and existing for its own sake. Even early modern and Renaissance art was probably seen differently to how we see it. A lot of the best statues and paintings had religious purposes, kind of like Egyptians.
- LeanderK 8y ago
  I don't think this is an valid argument. I think that "art", as understood now, is pretty much the word for "art". A language is an evolving thing and the usage defines the meaning. Many words change their meaning and new words emerge. > Even early modern and Renaissance art was probably seen differently to how we see it. A lot of the best statues and paintings had religious purposes, kind of like Egyptians. Nearly everything artists in the past produced was commissioned work, the dutch old-masters are no different and I would be suprised if the appreciation for arts emerged out of nowhere, it was (as nearly everything is) a gradual process. I am a bit suprised by my lack of knowledge how art evolved as a concept, so I can't really argue much here.
  - dalbasal 8y ago
    I would be surprised if it was entirely absent in Egypt too. I didn't mean to imply renaissance people had no concept of art, just that the concept (not just word) was likely somewhat different to ours, which has evolved since.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- Bartweiss 8y ago
  > A lot of the best statues and paintings had religious purposes, kind of like Egyptians. I think it's worth distinguishing religious works from religious tools. As I understand it, religious works were generally made to glorify God in a cultural sense - mostly as commissioned works to make churches and cathedrals more impressive. That's substantially different than pieces with intrinsic religious significance, whether as a literal idol, a vessel for a soul, or an offering to a divinity. For instance, a relief of a Pharaoh might be considered significant while placed in a sealed tomb, even worth opening the tomb to deface, but a pietà shut up in a basement is largely irrelevant. It's an interesting point, though, because the distinction can definitely get fuzzy. The Stations of the Cross can be performed by simply carrying a blessed cross, but it's hard to deny that the construction of actual stations is the creation of an artistic religious tool. (And of course, an archaeologist would find the stations, but not necessarily have a way to know about the practice without implements.) Rosaries and reliquaries are clearly functional art, and even devotional paintings become ambiguous when literacy and ownership of a Bible aren't standard. I think there's still a worthwhile distinction here between artistic/instructional and instrumental works, but I'm not sure it would hold across faiths or larger time spans.
  - z3phyr 8y ago
    If you think it from a non-abrahmic perspective, most of the religious works were actually practical tools or stages to perform worship or sacrifices. Most of the statues were actively used for worship (albeit vanity must have played a role)
    - dalbasal 8y ago
      Also Abrahamic. The religion described in the bible is one centered around temple sacrifice, with very specific tools described (including the temple itself) for performing these "works," as they're referred too.
  - dredmorbius 8y ago
    The History of Philosophy episode on icons and iconoclasm is relevant and, as with the rest of the podcast, excellent. https://historyofphilosophy.net/iconoclasm https://historyofphilosophy.net/iconoclasm MP3 direct: https://hopwag.podbean.com/mf/play/h7m3vi/HoP_303_-_Don_t_Picture_This_-_Iconoclasm.mp3 https://hopwag.podbean.com/mf/play/h7m3vi/HoP_303_-_Don_t_Pi... I've been thinking of our recent technological fetish for digital identity and identifiers as something of a modern cult of idolatry, grounded in many of the same aims, and subject to similar failures: digital IDs are representations through which we interact with the represented, but problems arise when we mistake the icon or idol with the archetype or ideal.
- pessimizer 8y ago
  The primary meaning of art is that a thing is both physically useless ("existing for its own sake"), and desired by the wealthy - therefore scarce and difficult to duplicate. The other connotations assigned to art are just the ways that the wealthy think of themselves.

dalbasal 8y ago

We kind of don't have a word for "art" either. Historically/etymologically, art means "skilled work" or just "stuff made by people" (as in artifact). The word/concept seems to have evolved gradually to its current meaning with all its complex connotations of beauty, metaphorical depth and existing for its own sake. Even early modern and Renaissance art was probably seen differently to how we see it. A lot of the best statues and paintings had religious purposes, kind of like Egyptians.

LeanderK 8y ago
I don't think this is an valid argument. I think that "art", as understood now, is pretty much the word for "art". A language is an evolving thing and the usage defines the meaning. Many words change their meaning and new words emerge. > Even early modern and Renaissance art was probably seen differently to how we see it. A lot of the best statues and paintings had religious purposes, kind of like Egyptians. Nearly everything artists in the past produced was commissioned work, the dutch old-masters are no different and I would be suprised if the appreciation for arts emerged out of nowhere, it was (as nearly everything is) a gradual process. I am a bit suprised by my lack of knowledge how art evolved as a concept, so I can't really argue much here.
- dalbasal 8y ago
  I would be surprised if it was entirely absent in Egypt too. I didn't mean to imply renaissance people had no concept of art, just that the concept (not just word) was likely somewhat different to ours, which has evolved since.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
Bartweiss 8y ago
> A lot of the best statues and paintings had religious purposes, kind of like Egyptians. I think it's worth distinguishing religious works from religious tools. As I understand it, religious works were generally made to glorify God in a cultural sense - mostly as commissioned works to make churches and cathedrals more impressive. That's substantially different than pieces with intrinsic religious significance, whether as a literal idol, a vessel for a soul, or an offering to a divinity. For instance, a relief of a Pharaoh might be considered significant while placed in a sealed tomb, even worth opening the tomb to deface, but a pietà shut up in a basement is largely irrelevant. It's an interesting point, though, because the distinction can definitely get fuzzy. The Stations of the Cross can be performed by simply carrying a blessed cross, but it's hard to deny that the construction of actual stations is the creation of an artistic religious tool. (And of course, an archaeologist would find the stations, but not necessarily have a way to know about the practice without implements.) Rosaries and reliquaries are clearly functional art, and even devotional paintings become ambiguous when literacy and ownership of a Bible aren't standard. I think there's still a worthwhile distinction here between artistic/instructional and instrumental works, but I'm not sure it would hold across faiths or larger time spans.
- z3phyr 8y ago
  If you think it from a non-abrahmic perspective, most of the religious works were actually practical tools or stages to perform worship or sacrifices. Most of the statues were actively used for worship (albeit vanity must have played a role)
  - dalbasal 8y ago
    Also Abrahamic. The religion described in the bible is one centered around temple sacrifice, with very specific tools described (including the temple itself) for performing these "works," as they're referred too.
- dredmorbius 8y ago
  The History of Philosophy episode on icons and iconoclasm is relevant and, as with the rest of the podcast, excellent. https://historyofphilosophy.net/iconoclasm https://historyofphilosophy.net/iconoclasm MP3 direct: https://hopwag.podbean.com/mf/play/h7m3vi/HoP_303_-_Don_t_Picture_This_-_Iconoclasm.mp3 https://hopwag.podbean.com/mf/play/h7m3vi/HoP_303_-_Don_t_Pi... I've been thinking of our recent technological fetish for digital identity and identifiers as something of a modern cult of idolatry, grounded in many of the same aims, and subject to similar failures: digital IDs are representations through which we interact with the represented, but problems arise when we mistake the icon or idol with the archetype or ideal.
pessimizer 8y ago
The primary meaning of art is that a thing is both physically useless ("existing for its own sake"), and desired by the wealthy - therefore scarce and difficult to duplicate. The other connotations assigned to art are just the ways that the wealthy think of themselves.