Notes from a visit to the Metropolitan Museum of Art, NYC, part 2

The Met has a ginormous selection of Greek and Roman artifacts.  What I don’t know about Greek and Roman artifacts would fill a museum, one even larger than this.  But the stuff on display is intriguing so I wade in.  Funeral urns, columns, lots of statues of soldiers and boys and ladies, all naked.  Glass cases full of cups and bowls and signet rings and necklaces and stick-pins and cutlery and weapons and plates and all manner of stuff, going on forever.  It’s a morass.

At the top of one stairwell, placed so as best to be not read by anyone, an informative card states: “as Greece and the democratic city-states rose, ostentatious displays of wealth became normal.”

Which explains why all this crap is here.  The consolidation and rise of a Greek state (caused by the success of Alexander, if I’m not mistaken) leads to Greek folk competing for who has the nicest chariot, the coolest decor, the spiffiest clothes.  And so artists are pressed into service creating status items to serve the fancies of the wealthy.  Millions upon millions of fancy geegaws are created for the vanity of these folk. 

The Greek empire becomes too large and decentralized and is eventually overtaken by the Romans.  The Roman empire then employs its own artisans to loot and pillage Greek culture and appropriate it for the fancies of wealthy Romans and the cycle is repeated.  Millions upon millions more fancy geegaws are created for the vanity of Roman folk.  The Roman empire becomes bloated, corrupt and over-reaching, the government becomes de-centralized and powerless and eventually collapses. 

And all those people with their fancy geegaws die, and their nations become vulnerable to military and economic attack, and somewhere in there all those fancy geegaws go from being shiny cool things to useless crap to rare antiques to priceless artifacts, and they all get carried off to museums by the new reigning powers, whose wealthy want their own fancy new geegaws to show how rich and powerful they are.

Point being, I can’t see the art in a museum any more, I can only see the transfer of wealth.  At the other end of the Met is the Tomb of Perneb, who was some important Egyptian guy.  And it’s cool to see, but I can’t help but wonder why Perneb isn’t in his tomb, and why his tomb isn’t in Egypt.  All those mummies in all those sarcophogi, did they imagine in their wildest dreams that they would end up in a glass case in a building off Central Park in 21st-century New York?

Because one day, maybe not in our lifetimes but who knows, the folks in Washington DC will become so corrupt, even more so than now if that’s believable, using the current administration’s corruption and contempt as a touchstone, a jumping-off place as it were, so corrupt and contemptuous of the people of this nation, and people in general for that matter, that there will inevitably be a shift in power as the American empire becomes too bloated and over-reaching to sustain itself.  At that point, the wealthier, more powerful states, like California, say, will inevitably break away and form their own economic entities, weakening the federal structure even further and making the US vulnerable to economic and military attack.  And maybe those powerful states will form separate nations and fight the other states, and maybe there won’t be enough money to even do that. 

In any case, Washington will become weaker and weaker as a political center (this may take some time: my Roman History scholar tells me that the Roman Senate lasted until 600 AD, meeting and talking and passing laws that no one paid attention to).  It will eventually be abandoned due to either economic depression or military invasion and its museums and government buildings will be looted and burned and no one will care at that point because there will be other things to deal with.  And eventually the Lunar Module and Archie Bunker’s chair and the Declaration of Independence and Lincoln’s hat and the Washington Monument will all be on display in some museum in China and tourists will come and wonder about the blind ignorance of those foolish, arrogant people who didn’t see this misfortune coming.

And they will marvel at the stolid grace of the Fender electric guitar and the comic stoicism of the Model T Ford and the cruel beauty of the Tommy gun and the zen-like simplicity of the iPod, all jumbled together in a vitrine marked “20th Century America” while a clip of Marylin Monroe standing over a subway grate plays.

This all starts with the ruling leader of whatever nation claiming sweeping executive powers and invading nations in unnecessary wars in search of valuable resources.

hit counter html code

Comments

22 Responses to “Notes from a visit to the Metropolitan Museum of Art, NYC, part 2”
  1. sheherazahde says:

    Woah, You are so right about that.

    Another excellent and insightful post.

  2. greyaenigma says:

    US fail history!? That’s unpossible!

    Which reminds me a little of this.

    I, for one, welcome my wei qi-playing overlords. I’ll say “hi” to them at breakfast.

  3. eronanke says:

    On Egyptian ‘art’ – sort of off topic

    When it comes to artefacts, the Met asserts that they can be considered art. I, personally, do not agree, because the culture of Egypt did not lend itself to ‘art’, merely decorative elements on both mundane and magical items.
    Let’s take statuary; their design is often profoundly beautiful. To the Egyptians, as opposed to the Greeks and Romans, a statue was not meant to resemble anyone, but signify someone in a magical, idealized sense. The magical proponent is meant to endow the owner and comissioner with the vitality that appears in the statue’s figure.
    Most Egyptian artefacts serve not as things to be marvelled at by the public; the interiors, for example, of the great temples were never seen by the people who would worship the gods who lived within. Whereas the Romans would put up busts or statues of their leaders to glorify them, the Egyptians would have statuary placed in tombs, in temples, or in homes away from the public eye, even, at times, away from themselves, as they were not interested in a representation of themselves for artistic sake, but for their magical ability to house one’s soul and to retain their physical vigour.
    The Greeks and Romans cut marble to look like themselves, and what they had after was a bust that looked like them. The Egyptians cut stone to make themselves perfect, and thereafter had a potent magical object which served only its magical purpose.
    As for smaller objects; mirrors, wigs, shoes, etc; one can easily put them aside as mundane artefacts of the ancient elite, and belonging more to a museum than an art gallery.

    • Todd says:

      Re: On Egyptian ‘art’ – sort of off topic

      The task of changing the museum’s name from Metropolitan Museum of Art to Metropolitan Museum of Art ‘n’ Stuff falls outside the purview of this journal. But I agree with you in this: when I see all the swellegant Egyptian artifacts on display, meant for the purposes you so aptly describe, I get this really weird, ugly feeling like I’m participating in a monstrous, hideous society in which I would, perhaps, in an ideal world, not be participating. I am, essentially, looking at stuff I’m not supposed to be looking at. On top of looking at stuff I’m not supposed to be looking at, I’m looking at stuff I’m not supposed to be looking at tens of thousands of miles away from where I’m not supposed to be looking at it. So it’s not enough that someone dug up a tomb and stole everything inside, including the entombed, and sold it all to a museum and maybe even dismantled the whole thing and sold it to a museum, it’s that somebody wholly unrelated from a different country did so. I don’t know why it makes a difference that the tomb raiders are from different countries, but it does. Whether it’s Egyptians looting their own temples for the gold or Napoleon’s troops blasting off the nose of the Sphinx for laughs or Some Guy “discovering” Tutenkamen’s tomb (much as Columbus “discovered” America) or the Met very nicely “rescuing” the Temple of Dendur from the Nile, it all comes down to living people laughing at the quaint superstitions of dead people, as though they were any different.

      • eronanke says:

        Re: On Egyptian ‘art’ – sort of off topic

        My question is; why don’t we do this with Roman ‘art’? Egyptian mundane items for daily life are ALWAYS shown, but for Romans? Statuary. For Greeks? Sometimes we get a bowl. But with the Egyptians? It’s always, OOOOh! A Sandal!

        I have a lot to say on Egyptomania, (as my field DEMANDS me to take a side on it), and, one day, I’ll write a giant essay on my views on the anthropological tendancies that lead us to where we are today. (PS: Napoleon’s troops didn’t do that to the nose- urban myth).

        I have a FILM question for you, now: WHAT IS UP with shaky camera work? I saw the Bourne Ultimatum today and I almost threw up! It seems as if EVERY action movie refuses to frame a shot! Is this cinema verite, or is it shoddy cinematography?

        • Todd says:

          Re: On Egyptian ‘art’ – sort of off topic

          If it makes you feel any better, the Met is festooned with ancient Greek and Roman daily-life items, tumblers and rings and bowls and cups and broaches. There’s a whole vitrine of Etruscan safety pins, for Jove’s sake.

          I haven’t seen Ultimatum yet, but I think there’s a place for shaky-cam work if it’s used properly.

          • eronanke says:

            Re: On Egyptian ‘art’ – sort of off topic

            Let me tell you, I am a detail-oriented person; if a movie is set in modern-times, I cannot suspend disbelief in regards to innacuracies. Therefore I got offput by most of the series, technologically speaking. In this sequel, it was very early on (within 20 minutes).

            I saw Transformers today, and, I hate to do it, but I give Michael Bay much more credit for good shaky-cam than Greengrass. The latter, in Ultimatum, drowns out meticulously-staged action shots and makes me feel cheated. At least Bay doesn’t use it continuously, even in stationary scenes (like sit-down conversations).

            And forgive me if I forgot if you spoke of it already, but please don’t let your children see Transformers before they watch the cartoon – Megatron, tho voiced by a synthetic Hugo Weaving, (if I’m not mistaken), is barely evil, as Bay relies on far too much telling rather than showing. And I could *feel* the absence deleted/extended scenes, and that isn’t good.

        • teamwak says:

          Re: On Egyptian ‘art’ – sort of off topic

          I recently came back from a short trip to Italy. I spent a fantastic day in the Museum of Archeology in Naples. The Roman statues, especially the caesars are staggering. This is a link to my photo album http://picasaweb.google.com/Teamwak/NaplesMuseumOfArcheology

          There was also some sweet statues in the Vatican Museum. http://picasaweb.google.com/Teamwak/VaticanAndMuseum

          I always thought the British were the chief plunderers. Not so, the Catholic Church is the boss of this field, and the Vatican is its treasure trove. Staggered is the right word. The sheer amount of fantastically beautiful art works under one roof blew my mind! And Im not even prone to that sort of thing. I’d never really seen any of that stuff before. I learnt two things on my trip; I’ve now got a thing about statues, and they were called Old Masters for a reason 🙂

          • eronanke says:

            Re: On Egyptian ‘art’ – sort of off topic

            Let me, then, set the record straight.
            The plunderers of Egypt, specifically, in general order of quantity:
            a) Egyptians (modern and ancient)
            b) British
            c) French
            —after these three, chronologically, the others also follow—
            d) Germans
            e) Americans
            f) Italians
            g) Misc private institutes (Museums, universities, private galleries, etc)

            • teamwak says:

              Re: On Egyptian ‘art’ – sort of off topic

              You know, deep down, I knew we would be pretty top of the list lol.

              But the Catholic Church has been busy on the last 1500 years. Plus, do we get any points for looking after things well?

              And no, wee’re not giving the Elgin Marbles back :-S

              • eronanke says:

                Re: On Egyptian ‘art’ – sort of off topic

                You must remember; Egyptian paganism is of little interest to the Pope, other than Hermetic texts.
                The British, French, and Germans, however, were attempting to identify their culture with the austerity and artistic elements of ancient Egyptian society, ignoring the modern Egyptians.
                And, unfortunately, the Church gets VERY little credit for taking care of ANYTHING, since their interest is not to publish enough or share enough out of their coiffures to be of worth to the Egyptological community.

                • Todd says:

                  Re: On Egyptian ‘art’ – sort of off topic

                  I’m going to assume you mean “coffers,” since the Catholic church is not known for their elaborate hair-dos, tonsures excepted.

                  • eronanke says:

                    Re: On Egyptian ‘art’ – sort of off topic

                    Yeah, I noticed that, but I figured, then I’d had to delete the whole comment…
                    Well, you know I have a hair-brain.
                    (HAHAHAHAHAA… so funny, I know.)

              • Todd says:

                Re: On Egyptian ‘art’ – sort of off topic

                After all the historical records have been lost, one day a few thousand years from now an archaeologist will be flabbergasted to discover Egyptian artifacts not only in Egypt, but in England, France, Germany, the US and the Vatican! And the historical record will be changed to take in the new information: not only did the ancient Egyptian empire never end, it flourished in ways we never comprehended before — they even infiltrated the Catholic church, something the Masons failed to do for thousands of years.

                • teamwak says:

                  Re: On Egyptian ‘art’ – sort of off topic

                  Isnt that the synopsis of Dan Browns new novel?

                  😉

                • eronanke says:

                  Re: On Egyptian ‘art’ – sort of off topic

                  I can explain to you why, odds are, this will never happen.
                  Archaeologists TODAY can differentiate between ancient imported artifacts and native products; I must assume that archaeologists from the future will have the same ability.

                  All the Egyptian artefacts will be found in major metropolitan centers, as ancient imports are, and in the same way we can say, “The Elites of these cities displayed luxury imports in both private and public circumstances.”

  4. ndgmtlcd says:

    Hey! Don’t be glum. California won’t split off. The whole West coast will.

    The Byzantine empire survived for more than a thousand years after being split off from the rest of the Roman empire.

    That’s long enough for the Chinese to break down, too.

    Jay Leno’s entire car collection will end up in a lunar museum. The selenites will love it! The forbidden city will be a hit with the martian crowds.