From the two different sources about Greek Art, I was able to find intersting fact that the two, even though they were dealing with same topic, were totally different as far as way of cateogirzation was concerned.
The Source from Wikiepdia is actually well categorized source in my own opinion. Texts are categorized according to the different forms or kinds of art. (i.e. Pottery, Metal Vessels, Arcithecture etc.) It seems that the source focused on "ART" itself. I mean to say that the source is not really concerning about other aspect of Greek Civilization in relation to the Art. The source was able to give information about Greek Art but nothing more.
But unlike Wikipedia source, the second source was more comprehensive and useful for me. As a historian, my concern is not really Art itself, but its implication, and relationship with other aspect of Greek Civilization. In the Second source, the texts were arranged according to the timeline, development, different civiliation, and other aspect of Greek Civilization. For example one of the contents of the source was "Ancient Greek Colonization and Trade and their Influence on Greek Art". Actually this kind of source was exactly what I was looking for. My concern was not only to widen my knowledge about Greek Art but also to find out its implication in Greek Civilization.
So, as a historian, I would prefer the second source but I would also say that as long as ART is a subject and concerned, Wikipedia source will be quite useful too.
Source 1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_in_ancient_Greece
Source 2 http://witcombe.sbc.edu/ARTHgreece.html
The Source from Wikiepdia is actually well categorized source in my own opinion. Texts are categorized according to the different forms or kinds of art. (i.e. Pottery, Metal Vessels, Arcithecture etc.) It seems that the source focused on "ART" itself. I mean to say that the source is not really concerning about other aspect of Greek Civilization in relation to the Art. The source was able to give information about Greek Art but nothing more.
But unlike Wikipedia source, the second source was more comprehensive and useful for me. As a historian, my concern is not really Art itself, but its implication, and relationship with other aspect of Greek Civilization. In the Second source, the texts were arranged according to the timeline, development, different civiliation, and other aspect of Greek Civilization. For example one of the contents of the source was "Ancient Greek Colonization and Trade and their Influence on Greek Art". Actually this kind of source was exactly what I was looking for. My concern was not only to widen my knowledge about Greek Art but also to find out its implication in Greek Civilization.
So, as a historian, I would prefer the second source but I would also say that as long as ART is a subject and concerned, Wikipedia source will be quite useful too.
Source 1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_in_ancient_Greece
Source 2 http://witcombe.sbc.edu/ARTHgreece.html
No comments:
Post a Comment