Egypt discovers Two-3,500-year-old tombs in ancient city of Luxor-with a mummy

a reply to: surfer_soul

It had to do with their immortality obsessionism magic (as the monuments themselves explode with), yes, and it was also about projecting the propaganda that they were divine kings (to be continue to be WORSHIPPED post mortem)... as well as other projection of other various state power dynamics (depends from site to site 'art' specimen to 'word' specimen).

So with the Great Pyramid, Koofu wouldnt have gotten to stoke his immortalist ego power trip, yet had they not built it and the rest there wouldnt have been an "Egypt" in the minds of the world as they will always be. They'd have scattered ruins of the minuscule variety like the Sumerian's Hittite's Assyrian's Indus Olmec's etc. As they probably wouldnt have lasted any longer than the rest of them either.

Of course the great irony is that those monuments were beacons for treasure hunters and imperialists the world ever over, which screwed their tombs and their supposed concept of NEEDING all that gold and their mummies in there all tidy and the like.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: seasonal

Yeah. I've been doing exhaustive documentary series the past six months (SOON to be released), where the Darkest Patterns of the present track all the way through the past. I didnt even realize how thick the trends would track thru even their era.. So I've been inundating myself in that era the past couple weeks.

Of particular note to my interests is how the written forms of language were specifically designed to control the population.

And approaching this question here, from what I've gathered, the "flat" art was effectively practice for the relief art (both being components of Hieroglyphics). Because the art itself was part of the language set itself, where the odd thing about their whole culture is how for 3000 years it never changed. Meaning the art wouldnt change. Because they were true relics of stone their whole tribes thinking.

And in perpetrating it they had a hierarchy of people that would work on each design that would go up, whereas the person doing the drawing didnt know how to read, let alone the one that did the carving, let alone the painting part at the final stage. And those poor devils spent decades training to even get that far. That's how thick the information control went. They did have the more of a 'commoner' form of writing too (Hieratics), and even there 95% of the population couldnt read it; it existed for control.

That's not too different from the art department in a games company.Someone does concept art Some people do 3D modelling. Others do texturing. Then there's level design, lighting, animation and so on.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: seasonal
And approaching this question here, from what I've gathered, the "flat" art was effectively practice for the relief art (both being components of Hieroglyphics).

Actually, no. The art you see was developed (like modern manga art, for example) with preferred styles that vary throughout the history of Egypt. Or Chinese art (very distinctive, right? Not much perspective - their preference).

Anyone who wanted to be a working artist learned to draw and sculpt things the way that the royal workshops did them. This means you learned from a pattern and worked with grid squares to make sure everything "looked right." Nobody wanted an odd-looking piece; they all wanted things that looked like what the king and the nobles had.

Because the art itself was part of the language set itself, where the odd thing about their whole culture is how for 3000 years it never changed. Meaning the art wouldnt change. Because they were true relics of stone their whole tribes thinking.

It did change, and so did hieroglyphs. As they came into contact with new ideas and other nations, they added signs and combined signs to help make new words and new concepts.

And in perpetrating it they had a hierarchy of people that would work on each design that would go up, whereas the person doing the drawing didnt know how to read, let alone the one that did the carving, let alone the painting part at the final stage.

Scribes and artists and priests all knew how to read. While the apprentices might not have known how to read, they certainly recognized groups of signs that they worked on. They were not as proficient as the scribes. Some of the nobles were not very proficient at reading or writing, either.

And those poor devils spent decades training to even get that far. That's how thick the information control went. They did have the more of a 'commoner' form of writing too (Hieratics), and even there 95% of the population couldnt read it; it existed for control.

Cursive hieroglyphs and hieratic and demotic (Late Egyptian) all are the equivalent of modern cursive writing (as opposed to printing.) These simplified forms were faster to write and therefore were used on papyrus. Hieroglyphs were reserved for formal occasions and generally only used on stone.

See Allen, James P. Middle Egyptian: An introduction to the language and culture of hieroglyphs. Cambridge University Press, 2000. (sections 1.9, 1.10, 1.11 for a discussion and examples)

Also... everyone spent part of each year working in the local temple - which then supplied them with food and clothing (collected previously in the form of taxes and re-distributed around the land by the agents of the king). They could probably recognize the names of some gods and possibly other things though they were not literate.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
I do hope you're doing a piece on the great sphinx. I sent a post to Robert Schoch about it but got no reply. People and archaeologists seem to ignore the evidence before their eyes. The ratios of the great sphinx has no comparison in the rest of ancient Egyptian architecture. The Egyptians knew about perspective and anatomical scale.
Look at all the other sphinxes around Egypt and their heads are relative to their body size, the great sphinx is no where near relative. So one could assume the head was carved after. But that then that questions if they did it after (supposedly the head of a lion first) why didn't they cut away the body to bring it more to scale.

originally posted by: tinner07
I wonder why it is that they could build the great pyramids, great palaces and temples, gold statues but could only paint people in 1 dimension. Ever see a painting of people from Egypt that was anything other than 1 dimensional?

Just wonder why

I think you mean "two dimensions" (one dimensional is simply a dot.)

It was the cultural preference... just like Japanese art is not hyper realistic, nor is Chinese art. Or Celtic art, for that matter. So (as with other cultures) they had workshops that showed people how to make things "look proper" - the type of decorative art that the kings and nobles liked.

Part of it also relates to material. With stone tools there's only so much detail you can get. Try carving a manga character on a piece of limestone using a sharpened flint blade and you'll soon see the logic of their preferences.

originally posted by: Byrd

Actually, no. The art you see was developed (like modern manga art, for example) with preferred styles that vary throughout the history of Egypt. Or Chinese art (very distinctive, right? Not much perspective - their preference).

Anyone who wanted to be a working artist learned to draw and sculpt things the way that the royal workshops did them. This means you learned from a pattern and worked with grid squares to make sure everything "looked right." Nobody wanted an odd-looking piece; they all wanted things that looked like what the king and the nobles had.

I was speaking to how the flat wall paint works I've seen all seem to directly emulate the form that would go over the reliefs. The uniformity of it. The continuity. This is how we do it, forever, whether it be raised or 'doodles' on the flat wall, is how it comes off to me. Like they're all attempting to work off stencils.

a reply to: crayzeed

Although architecture falls under my 'Invention Mandate' in telling the Story of Humanity in the context of patterns not to be repeated, specifics like what you're getting at aren't where I put attention but instead of the thinking the implications the interactions of Human Nature vs. Society vs. Elites with the Inventions in the grand scheme history (for the sake of the future).

Now I do have motive to reveal any kinds of 'worthy' 'secrets' along the way, as thats my nature, but things like the 'mysteries' of se the Sphinx, or the big huge 'secret' underground region underneath that site not so much as it doesnt speak of the human experience.

Just in the Bronze Age I have Egypt, Indus, China, the Sumerians city-states, the Mediterranean etc wildcards all to deal with...

BUT I do have a big long section on the Great Pyramid, as the elitist mentality that drove it, and the bootlicking boots on the ground whom built it, now that the important lessons about the human condition.

a reply to: Byrd

I think you mean "two dimensions" (one dimensional is simply a dot.)

Thanks, wasn't sure. Your answer explains it I guess. That is how they were taught. It just seems odd that like every person is drawn from a side view.