1. When I see the first picture I think of a slaughter and in the second picture I see a evenly fought battle.2. The first picture tells a story of a bloody and vicious battle while the second one tells of a strategic hard fought battle. They are similar because they both represent the same battle.3. To what extent does the use of color determine what message is conveyed in a work of art?
Benjamin 3AFor a first thought for both pictures, I instantly think of war and fighting between two sides. It must be from modern times since the artillery and weapons seem recent (guns, MGs, cannons, etc.). Both seem to be telling similar stories, a story of intense fighting and war. One side being the Italians and the other being the Ethiopians. The bottom picture seems to be more violent, but the top one seems to be a little calmer. The bottom one might have been painted by an Ethiopian and the top one by an Italian. Art is an applicable AOK in this instant. How does the artistic representation of a historical event change it's meaning for different people?
The fist thought of the the first picture is colorful. The first picture looks less perilous, less threatening than the second one. The second picture looks a lot more menacing. It looks a lot more organized as well. Both stories tell of people going to war and death. Both are art, they both have a purpose, whether it is to document history or just to represent part of their culture. Like I said before, the first one is much more colorful, and there isn't much free space, which makes it look a little messy. When put in comparison to the second one, that uses a cool color to contrast in the background. As it can be seen, although they are the same battle countries viewed it very differently. They are both a representation of war, but they are not the same thing. To be honest, the first one looks like they have are having a party instead of having a war. I think that the second representation, is the Italian's point of view, and the first representation is the Ethiopian's point of view. This is because I tend to attribute colorful/messy art with less developed nations. Is it possible that both nations thought of war as an act of art? To what extent is war art? To what extent is one representation more significant than the other? Blanca V.
George 3AOn first the picture, I don't really see it as a war, as it is very bright. I have the sense of war being dark, like in the second photo. The second photo looks like a war, as I see the cannons firing, compared to the first picture, where it is difficult to see the guns. The soldiers lining up the second photo looks more accurate to a depiction of war, compared to the other photo. In my perception, I see two groups of soldiers, grouped up, or lined up, in an old war, firing at each other. In the first picture is looks so messy, as everything is everywhere, compared to the second one, where it appears more organized.Both of them are depicting a war between two nations, as I can see different flags, on the different sides. The top image displays the war as mess, as you see people everywhere, along with the hospital behind the troops. The army also looks a lot smaller in the first one compared to the second one. In the second one, with all of the troops lining up, it looks bigger, compared to the first one, showing the support squad. The second picture is showing that the battle isn't as large, compared the first one. The first one displays many more support roles, like the medics of the war, where the second one just displays the actual fighting. The story shown in the first photo was that this was a big battle, requiring lots of action by both sides to fight. Meanwhile, the second photo has the story of the battle, just as a battle, with no support roles, just two groups of people firing at each other.How does the artistic presentation of an event from different perspectives affect the perception of students studying the event later on?
MengMy first thought on the first picture is that that they are the civilian of different country and about to have a war against each other, but the leaders are negotiating or threatening each other. The second picture is where they having the actual war going on. I think both story are similar, but one picture is follow by the other. Where the first picture is the beginning of the war where both side is ready to fight and have the "ceremony" and conversation taking place. The second picture is after the "ceremony" where the invasion takes place, both countries are holding up their flag and fighting against each other. Italy is invading Ethiopia, and Ethiopia is protecting their land. To what extent can arts tells the truth of history?
Jose1. My first thought on the first work of art was that it appeared to have many 'cultural' roots and looked rather haphazard and chaotic. The artists made use of the large space and tried to use different elements, such as shape or color, to create different scenes. My first thought when looking at the second work of art is that it looked cleaner and much more organized. I thought it was rather boring as the colors are really dull and the shapes seem flat. I wasn't really feeling the 'battle' vibe when I looked at the second piece of artwork since it was so precise.2. The first piece of artwork tells the story of a bustling battle that included a variety of different types of people. The second piece of artwork tells the story of a very clean, organized battle with not many casualties. In a way, they do tell the same story as they both make use of similar elements, such as the Italian flag and the weaponry. I would be able to understand anyone who said that they told different stories, though. The use of color creates two different feels to the battle, and their attitudes do not really math. One makes it look chaotic and the other takes the destructive element of battle out of it. In a far fetched kind of way, I'd like to think that the first painting would focus on the 'epic' nature of battle while the second painting focuses on the somber nature of battle and death.3. To what extent does color convey emotion?
Djellza1. Image 1: My initial thoughts upon viewing this image were that it is capturing a time in history long ago. The people in the image looked exceptionally foreign to me. I wondered what the setting of the image is.Image 2: At first look, image two is much more vivid to me. I was able to clearly distinguish the event occurring is a battle and was shocked to see that there were actual portrayals of casualties in the very center of the image. I also noticed the flags and therefore had a better idea of what was happening and where.2. Both images tell a very similar story of the Italian invasion of Ethiopia. I only noticed a few differences between the two images:Image 1: This image shows more community involvement since there are so many more people shown in it.Image 2: This image portrays more of the actual battles and war rivalries as well as the casualties. 3.To what extent can history be truthfully captured through art?
Ya-Marie1. The first photo looks more chaotic, there are alot of people involved within the war. In the front row at the bottom you notice women holding weapons. A lot of horses are involved, and they are using less advanced weapons. The second photo looks well organized, both country's have advanced weapons but still have include horses. A woman a sitting upon horse so I'm assuming shes royal. There are a group of children next to her with riffles. 2. Both stories are speaking of a war between two countries in which women and children were involved in. The pictures don't show as many deaths meaning there were not many deaths. The first photo seems like it was painted or drawn in earlier time because it looks very chaotic and the amount of advanced riffles are not as large as in the second photo. 3. To what extent does advancement in technology change ones perception of history?
Paola 3AWARM-UPMy thoughts of both of these pieces, is that one is more colorful and one seems dull, another thing that makes them seem more different is that because one haves more details than another. I say that one has more details than the other because the top picture demonstrates the more involvement of many people while the other just seems to demonstrate the same battle but it just shows a battle and death than what else could be happening in that battle. The first picture story is that it appears that Ethiopia is more advanced than Italy, it appears like as if Ethiopia seems more involved because they do not only have people in the battle but also supporters with their culture such as food and music because I see trumpets and drums. I think this make Ethiopians more into the battle than a simple battle where both are equivalent like the second picture shows. It doesn't seem to gruesome where in some parts of the picture you find dead bodies with their blood on it. On the second image it seems to be sticking to a monochrome color and it appears as though they are both equal and have nothing else to do but represents a trench type of battle similar to the one that had either England vs. Germany from WWI or England vs. French either one of the two where they do not move but goes if someone goes or attack all at the same but at a distance. It appears as though the Italians have a variety of people while the Ethiopians had one type, or one of the same uniform. The leader from Ethiopia seems to be off the image but in the first picture it haves the leader right in the middle to demonstrate that he was involved in the battle.AOK: historyDoes history demonstrate the image that we should get in our head or does a picture tells it all? Does it give it a different perspective?
GaniuI remember these paintings from freshmen year, in which we compared these two art pieces. We agreed on the fact that the first painting had greater depth than the second. The first painting is is brighter and has more light in it's image although it is far more crowded. Also it is written on probably relaying information to the viewer. I notice both Italians and Ethiopians on separate sides or against their own.Their are contours on the first piece signifying hills. ON the second pieces the landscapes is less improved upon and the colors are monotone and drab. It captures very little attention. Although both paintings are about the same thing, the way the artist portray the historical content can sway the way the information is viewed. meaning that art can lie about history through the artist beliefs.
KolleenFirst thoughts: War; the art of war; early war (first picture) and a later war (second picture).The second picture shows Italians and Ethiopians fighting each other.The first picture looks like an older style of art was used compared to the second one. The placement of the flags and the colors used in the picture make it hard to tell that both images are depicting the same war. The pictures are telling the same story. I can tell this when I look closely at the flags. the second painting looks more organized than the first one so it is easier to get ideas from it. in the second painting you can tell that the Ethiopians are beating the Italians. The Ethiopians also out number the Italians. An Ethiopian is looking triumphant on a white horse in the middle of the picture (2nd) while the Italians are dropping dead. The AOKs applicable are Art and History. The painting tells of a historical event, the Ethiopian invasion of Italy. How can bias in history be portrayed in art?
NyaMy first reaction to the first picture was confusion. There was just a lot of color and so much to look at it was very interesting. By the color my first impression was not that there was a war going on but instead that maybe there was a festival or a special ceremony of some kind going on. My first impression of the second picture was immediately war and death. The colors are a lot darker and my attention was drawn immediately to the middle of the picture where men lay dead. Both paintings tell a story about war but I think that the second shows a more realistic side. We see flags of each side fighting and the scene is more dramatic. There are many distractions int he first picture. AOK: history and artHow does art affect our perception of historical events?
Shaunakay1. Picture 1: The attack seemed more clustered, Italy has more casualties and the attack doesn't seemed so well planned.Picture 2: Looks more organized, Abyssinia looks more organized than Italy. Yet Italy has more weaponry. 2. Both stories are similar, they show a battle with Italy trying to take control of Abyssinia. They both show a person on a horse on top. They are different because of organization. 3. To what extent does the artists' intent in each photo convey?
Maxwell The 2nd picture is of more strict formation. In reference to how the 2nd picture members are more space apart as oppose to the 1st picture. The first picture seems more vibrant in color than the second. In the second picture I could identify the two different parties battling as oppose to the first. I think they could be telling the same story but the second picture is more effective in telling it than the other, in my opinion. How can the colors and formation of art effect the meaning behind art that refer to or represent history?
Odunayo At first glance, both images look like a great battle. The first image shows a giant cluster of people. It would be difficult to tell them apart if not for the Ethiopian colors on one side. The second image clearly shows Ethiopian and Italian flags so that they are easy to differentiate. I feel like they were drawn by Ethiopian artists because, in both pictures, the Ethiopian side seems livelier and seems to have an advantage. This is shown even more in the bottom image. The Ethiopian side has a much larger army and even has festive designs. The story is the same but, the difference is that the bottom image shows the Ethiopian side dominating the other side. This brings up the knowledge question: how do personal biases show themselves in our art?
SagenThe first thing I noticed on the first image was the language written on the thin beige lines because it was something familiar to me. Ethiopian writing is very similar to the writing from where my parents originated, so this piece really stuck out when I noticed the language. Even before I was told that the pictures represented the Italian-Ethiopian War, I had a very thought about it portraying that war. I cannot really tell where the line draws for which side is which because it all seems like a mixture of people. It seems unorganized compared to the second picture where you can clearly see that Ethiopia is on the left and Italy is on the right; the flags make it easier to distinguish them. I thought that the second image didn’t resemble what I envisioned the war to look like; I actually expected to look somewhat similar to the image above, but they are very dissimilar. The second picture is obscure when it comes down to who is winning in my opinion because the second one is special compared to the other one.To what extent can one’s cultural background influence how one perceives art?
HyonThe first thing I thought about the two pieces were that they were very old because of the perspective they were drawn in. Things that were closer did not appear larger. I found the first piece to be very confusing because there was a lot of things going on. While the second on I can easily see that there was a war going on. I think that both stories tell the same story but in different perspectives. I found the first one to be more chaotic while the second was more uniform.
Ashanti M.At a glance you wouldn't be able to tell that each painting is of the same battle. The first painting gives off a mood that shows terror and gives the viewer a sense of destruction. While the second on seems much more organized and structured, even though you can clearly tell its war. These painting both tell two different but similar stories. Providing to sides to this very complex story. The first painting tells a story of blood shed and chaos. The setting almost seems like a complete massacre. You can barely tell who is who. But you know that they're from different sides.
Jamilet Cordon At first glance I see the color impacting me. Both pieces have primary colors as the color scheme through out the painting. Especially the second piece where the red, blue, and yellow are largely implicated in the work. The first once tends to have a warmer hue to it. The color balance between the two piece shows us a different view on each one where one battle seems to show a heavenly feel as its a battle of the gods or a the good. the other battle shows a more dynamic and tense feel to the battle. how does the little details in a painting such as the proportions affect the over all view of the relationship of the story ?
charls1. The first picture uses a lot of bright colors. The second picture has more of a sense of contrast, creating a greater sense of distinction in the picture.2. The first picture tells the story of the Italians and the Ethiopians fighting, it includes the details of Ethiopians being served water and playing instruments. The Ethiopians in this picture are depicted overwhelming the Italians, as there are much more Ethiopians in their placement in comparison to the Italians. The second picture tells the same story, excluding the additional elements that didn't portray the military battle. It is much more linear in order to to only portray it as a battle. The Ethiopians appear to be losing in this picture, as shown by the many people being shot.3. To what extent does personal bias affect the retelling of historical events?
Thanks for posting!! Swift