Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Do So Many Egyptian Statues Have Broken Noses?

artsy.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–157 of 157 posts

Re: Why Do So Many Egyptian Statues Have Broken Noses?

#151

Post by atomical »

soneca wrote: post #87
NelsonMinar wrote: post #40

The computer geniuses here at Hacker News have decided the main argument of this article are wrong. But among archaeologists ritual defacement is understood to be a regular thing that happens to art all over the world. Roman coins defaced: https://www.coinsweekly.com/en/Defacing-the-past-damnation-a... Teotihuacan icons demolished and destroyed by fire: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2017/sep/24/teotihu...

I had to collapse about 8 threads to find the first comment of someone doubting the argument (in a polite way). Your comment is popular because you are fighting a "easy-to-hate" minority that is only relevant because you made it so. You make fun of a kind of HN commenter that you find typical. But if your comment is the most popular (#1 now), and assuming that people are upvoting you because they agree that it is ind…

This whole comment is semantics and not even the good kind. It's arguing to find an argument. It's good ammo for OP's next snarky comment though so I approve.

Re: Why Do So Many Egyptian Statues Have Broken Noses?

#152

Post by atomical »

laurent123456 wrote: post #93
soneca wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had to collapse about 8 threads to find the first comment of someone doubting the argument (in a polite way). Your comment is popular because you are fighting a "easy-to-hate" minority that is only relevant because you made it so. You make fun of a kind of HN commenter that you find typical. But if your comment is the most popular (#1 now), and assuming that people are upvoting you because they agree that it is ind…

It's quite common that the top comment asks "why is everybody saying X", as if X was a widespread opinion. But then you have to scroll three pages down to find the comments being referred too, and they are usually heavily downvoted.

Check the comments on stories related to diet. You'll see all sorts of crazy pseudoscience being peddled. There are a lot of smart people here, but even smart people can be led astray.

Re: Why Do So Many Egyptian Statues Have Broken Noses?

#153

Post by [deleted] »

atomical wrote: post #150
sbov wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find most "smart" professionals I interact with are people, mostly like other people. The internet is different of course, but if you're painting people with a broad brush based upon internet interactions, there are bigger problems than "smart" professionals saying dumb things.

It's a generality and it's useful for describing a group of people.

[deleted]

Re: Why Do So Many Egyptian Statues Have Broken Noses?

#154

Post by intrasight »

sbov wrote: post #65
intrasight wrote: post #9

I had the question, after visiting Rome, of why so many Roman statues lacked a penis. Found this. But I'm sure that in many cases it was just due to the fact that appendages on statues are more easily damaged - whether nose or penis. http://ourromanadventure.blogspot.com/2009/10/where-are-all-...

Our Vatican tour guide said they always joked that there is probably a room somewhere in there full of statue penises.

LOL. I did the "exclusive" Vatican tour last year. Totally the way to go. No waiting in line AND you get to see the pope's statue porn room. Made me realize that the best porn of the time was in marble. But no pile of penises did I see on that special tour. ;)

Re: Why Do So Many Egyptian Statues Have Broken Noses?

#155

Post by dalbasal »

z3phyr wrote: post #127
Bartweiss wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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, whet…

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)

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.

Re: Why Do So Many Egyptian Statues Have Broken Noses?

#156

Post by dredmorbius »

Bartweiss wrote: post #84
dalbasal wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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, whet…

The History of Philosophy episode on icons and iconoclasm is relevant and, as with the rest of the podcast, excellent.

https://historyofphilosophy.net/iconoclasm

MP3 direct: 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.

Post reply on HN