Social Contexts Essays - Art History, Realism, Food Security

Social Contexts Essays - Art History, Realism, Food Security Social Contexts Art in Canada FFAR 250 Social Contexts presented to Mark Mullin on December 3, 1999 written by Marguerite Gravelle 4320662 1. When analysing an artwork what is to be gained from considering the social context in which it was created? Are there possible drawbacks to this methodology? Provide clear examples to substantiate your argument. When analysing artwork, in any form, there are often times social contexts in which can be interpreted. Not always does the history behind the painting need to be revealed to fully understand the concept of the artwork, yet it is helpful in determining if the artwork is truthful in its representation. Although in analysing artwork it is likely that there are drawbacks to considering the social context. To illustrate this point, I'm going to use the visual arts as my medium of choice. Understanding the social context can be an important tool. An advantage of knowing the history of the painting or sculpture can really enrich our knowledge, being in the 20th (soon to be 21st) century, about some of the social periods from previous times. It can demonstrate how traditions were carried out, how they had an impact on the different social classes. It's a visual teaching aid of a sort. Even in the time period of which the artwork was created can be used as a tool to show how the life was in different parts of the world. It was also used as a hammer in the realist movement to show the upper classes that life for the poor was horrible. The visual arts is the only medium in which the pictorial image creates a universal language in which anyone, regardless of nationality or social class can interpret. The text which is created by this language often creates a context which is left open to interpretation. Contexts are created by the artist, critics, judges, the public, essentially, any one who views the work and forms an opinion relating to it. The contexts stem from subject or content of an artwork, and are usually facts regarding the content. Yet, the contexts almost always have backgrounds themselves, therefore making the original contexts, texts. This will be more clearly illustrated later. The chain is seeming to be a never ending process. There are always more conditions to the previous ones. All context, therefore, is in itself, textual. This concept of all context in itself textual is a post-structuralist strategy. A man named Derrida is a man who has developed this idea that the post-structuralist concept of every statement made, can be interpreted in infinite ways, with each interpretation triggering a range of subjective associations. Every statement has an association, therefore it's a sort of domino effect. He also says that no matter how precise a work strives to be, the absolute meaning can never be found due to this never ending sequence. To better illustrate this concept, I have chosen a painting from the mid-nineteenth century. It was painted by a french artist in 1854 named Jules Breton. It is called The Gleaners(figure 1). The gleaners were impoverished women who picked the left-over wheat from the farmers' fields after they had been ploughed to bake bread for their families. In this painting there are numerous women who's arms are brimming with wheat. The women are beautiful, healthy looking. The children even seem happy running around playing next to their mothers. There are many contexts which can be extracted from The Gleaners. A major influence would be the revolution in France in 1848. Perhaps the gleaning laws enforced in 1851, even the physical health of the gleaners. For arguments sake, let's take the physical health of the gleaners to show how a statement can trigger other associations. The physical health of the gleaners in the 1850's could be researched in the reports from the army conscripts. The conscripts were usually poor men who wanted a secure and stable job. These reports showed that most of the men were of poor health and diseased. These reports can be associated with who was writing the reports, officers? The associations never cease. We can never fully determine what the health was of the gleaners because every context we take will lead to another context. The key point in this image

Ancient Olmec Trade and Economy

Ancient Olmec Trade and Economy The Olmec culture thrived in the humid lowlands of Mexicos Gulf coast during the Early and Middle Formative periods of Mesoamerica, from about 1200–400 BCE. They were great artists and talented engineers who had a complex religion and worldview. Although much information about the Olmecs has been lost to time, archaeologists have succeeded in learning much about their culture from excavations in and around the Olmec homeland. Among the interesting things they have learned is the fact that the Olmec were diligent traders who had many contacts with contemporary Mesoamerican civilizations. Mesoamerican Trade Before the Olmec By 1200 BCE, the people of Mesoamerica- present-day Mexico and Central America- were developing a series of complex societies. Trade with neighboring clans and tribes was common, but these societies did not have long-distance trade routes, a merchant class, or a universally accepted form of currency, so they were limited to a down-the-line sort of trade network. Prized items, such as Guatemalan jadeite or a sharp obsidian knife, might well wind up far from where it was mined or created, but only after it had passed through the hands of several isolated cultures, traded from one to the next. The Dawn of the Olmec One of the accomplishments of Olmec culture was the use of trade to enrich their society. Around 1200 BCE, the great Olmec city of San Lorenzo (its original name is unknown) began creating long-distance trade networks with other parts of Mesoamerica. The Olmec were skilled artisans, whose pottery, stone tools, statues, and figurines proved popular for commerce. The Olmecs, in turn, were interested in many things that were not native to their part of the world. Their merchants traded for many things, including raw stone material such as basalt, obsidian, serpentine and jadeite, commodities such as salt, and animal products such as pelts, bright feathers, and seashells. When San Lorenzo declined after 900 BCE, it was replaced in importance by La Venta, whose merchants used many of the same trade routes followed by their forebears. Olmec Economy The Olmec needed basic goods, such as food and pottery, and luxury items such as jadeite and feathers for making ornaments for rulers or religious rituals. Most common Olmec â€Å"citizens† were involved in food production, tending fields of basic crops such as maize, beans, and squash, or fishing the rivers that flowed through the Olmec homelands. There is no clear evidence that the Olmecs traded for food, as no remains of foodstuffs not native to the region have been found at Olmec sites. The exceptions to this are salt and cacao, which were possibly obtained through trade. There appears to have been a brisk trade in luxury items such as obsidian, serpentine and animal skins, however. The Gulf Coast Olmec blossomed at a time when there were at least four other islands of expanding civilization in Mesoamerica: the Soconusco, the Basin of Mexico, the Copan Valley, and the Valley of Oaxaca. The Olmec trading practices, traced through the movement of goods produced or mined elsewhere, are key to understanding the Early and Middle Formative histories of Mesoamerica. Characteristics of the Olmec trading network include: baby-faced figurines (essentially, portable versions of the Olmec stone heads);distinctive white-rimmed blackware pottery and Calzadas Carved wares;abstract iconography, especially that of the Olmec dragon; andEl Chayal obsidian, a translucent to transparent banded black volcanic stone. Olmec Trading Partners The Mokaya civilization of the Soconusco region (Pacific coast Chiapas state in present-day Mexico) was nearly as advanced as the Olmec. The Mokaya had developed Mesoamericas first known chiefdoms and established the first permanent villages. The Mokaya and Olmec cultures were not too far apart geographically and were not separated by any insurmountable obstacles (such as an extremely high mountain range), so they made natural trade partners. The Mokaya adopted Olmec artistic styles in sculpture and pottery. Olmec ornaments were popular in Mokaya towns. By trading with their Mokaya partners, the Olmec had access to cacao, salt, feathers, crocodile skins, jaguar pelts and desirable stones from Guatemala such as jadeite and serpentine. Olmec commerce extended well into present-day Central America: there is evidence of local societies having contact with the Olmec in Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. In Guatemala, the excavated village of El Mezak yielded many Olmec-style pieces, including jadeite axes, pottery with Olmec designs and motifs and figurines with the distinctive ferocious Olmec baby-face. There is even a piece of pottery with an Olmec were-jaguar design. In El Salvador, many Olmec-style knick-knacks have been found and at least one local site erected a man-made pyramid mound similar to Complex C of La Venta. In the Copan valley of Honduras, the first settlers of what would become the great Maya city-state of Copn showed signs of Olmec influence in their pottery. In the basin of Mexico, the Tlatilco culture began to develop about the same time as the Olmec, in the area occupied by Mexico City today. The Olmec and Tlatilco cultures evidently were in contact with one another, most likely through some sort of trade, and the Tlatilco culture adopted many aspects of Olmec art and culture. This may have even included some of the Olmec gods, as images of the Olmec Dragon and Banded-eye God appear on Tlatilco objects. The ancient city of Chalcatzingo, in present-day Morelos of central Mexico, had extensive contact with La Venta-era Olmecs. Located in a hilly region in the Amatzinac River valley, Chalcatzingo may have been considered a sacred place by the Olmec. From about 700–500 BCE, Chalcatzingo was a developing, influential culture with connections with other cultures from the Atlantic to the Pacific. The raised mounds and platforms show Olmec influence, but the most important connection is in the 30 or so carvings that are found on the cliffs that surround the city. These show a distinct Olmec influence in style and content. Importance of Olmec Trade The Olmec were the most advanced civilization of their time, developing an early writing system, advanced stonework and complicated religious concepts before other contemporary societies. For this reason, the Olmec had a great influence on other developing Mesoamerican cultures with which they came into contact. One of the reasons the Olmec were so important and influential- some archaeologists, but not all, consider the Olmec the mother culture of Mesoamerica- was the fact that they had extensive trade contact with other civilizations from the valley of Mexico well into Central America. The significance of the trade is that the Olmec cities of San Lorenzo and La Venta were the epicenter of the trade: in other words, goods such as Guatemalan and Mexican obsidian came into Olmec centers but were not traded directly to other growing centers. While the Olmec declined between 900–400 BCE, its former trading partners dropped the Olmec characteristics and grew more powerful on their own. Olmec contact with other groups, even if they did not all embrace the Olmec culture, gave many disparate and widespread civilizations a common cultural reference and a first taste of what complex societies might offer. Sources Cheetham, David. Cultural Imperatives in Clay: Early Olmec Carved Pottery from San Lorenzo and Cantà ³n Corralito. Ancient Mesoamerica 21.1 (2010): 165–86. Print.Coe, Michael D, and Rex Koontz. Mexico: From the Olmecs to the Aztecs. 6th Edition. New York: Thames and Hudson, 2008Diehl, Richard A. The Olmecs: Americas First Civilization. London: Thames and Hudson, 2004.Rosenswig, Robert M. Olmec Globalization: A Mesoamerican Archipelago of Complexity. The Routledge Handbook of Archaeology and Globalization. Ed. Hodos, Tamar: Taylor Francis, 2016. 177–193. Print.