Reading Comprehension 2.

[1] Hersey explains how greek art typically always contains sacred trees withgods and godesses in the branches. Also in Greece, there would be groups of trees or a tree in honor of a death and their remains would be accompanied by sacraficial matericals such as bones, horns, flowers, weapons, spears, and skulls. The temples colomns at the time were also made of wood, aka sacred tree trunks. I completely agree with these historical facts Hersey explains in this exert becuase I recall from History & Theory Design I, certain greek structures like the parthenon have symbols like flowers, swags, weapons, and skulls that were used as motifs. They are still incorporated in more recent buildings, not just in Greece, but everywhere to symbolize what the greeks intended them to symbolize.

[2] Personally, I feel motifs, frescos, and other architectural details would never be able to predict the future, but only tell stories of the past. No where on any historical architecture does it give any indication of internet as the source for our information. Yes, these historical pictures tell us details of the past which we then add to our history. These historical facts are then publicized on the internet and other such media, which then we can also discover.

[3] The pyramids of Egypt and the temple of Queen Hatshepsut are very different for the sole fact of culture and the difference between male and female. The purpose of the pyramid was to hold a powerful king, have large scale, for the top to glisten and "shine to all four corners of the earth". It is much simpler, it has no noticeable openings, and it is surrounded by flat desert. As for the temple of Queen Hatshepsut, it is built in to the side of a very large scale rock, therefore making it less noticeable and making it appear less powerful. The fact that it is not the most tallest thing around (the rock is taller) shows a more feminine characteristic, whereas the pyramid is the tallest thing around, which shows a masculine characteristic. The queen's temple has many columns and an entrance that draws the eye to it first when first looking at it. It has nothing shiny that is eye catching. The reason I feel she did this is because for one she wanted to do something different then the queen, she wanted to create her own afterlife name for herself, and two, to create something that was more feminine and let the king have his spot light.

[4]

Peristyle Temple from Greece

Temple of Horus at Edfu of Egypt

Similarities:

Columns, motifs, large scale, power, they tell stories, both are for religious purposes, same material

Contrast:

One made completely of columns while the other has actual walls with columns, larger scale drawings then the other, one entrance way vs. numerous entrances, one level of scale on one and numerous scales on the other.

Greece really focused on axial progression in their religous areas while Egypt did not.

[5] The Egyptian furniture pictured in Harwood seemingly looks light weight. I can tell the material is wood. The different variations of the legs and actual seat parts range from skinny to medium size. No pieces are bulky or thick which helps keep the pieces not so heavy. In contrast, the furniture at Geza is made of stone and is big and bulky, which obviously adds a ton a weight.

[6] The urns show the contrast of male and female which brings me back to the Queen's Temple vs. The Pharaoh pyramids. The pyramid is big because it was built for a mad and the temple was small because it was built for a woman. This picture is kind of the same way, the man is being served by the women showing more power to the male. Grecian culture did not fully value women, sole strength of their nation depended on the male. Women were used for child baring and serving pharaoh's and other important males.