Identify a prehistoric or Mesopotamian artwork for a subject analysis.
Pick a work either illustrated in your book or a prehistoric or ancient Near Eastern work that you find online. A great place to search is the
Near Eastern Antiquities Department of the Louvre, Paris.
Look at the piece of art and ask yourself: Does it have imagery? Do not use an undecorated pot or architecture sampling. You want to use a piece of
art that has imagery for your analysis.
Next, you will analyze and describe the subject of the image. This may be blatantly obvious, or it may involve some outside research into individuals,
history, or religious mythology. For example, if your artwork involves the God Shamash, explain his importance.
Think about the following questions when you analyze your chosen artwork:
Is what you are describing subject, or is it style? Why? Stay with subject matter here. There is not always a clear-cut division between subject and
style.
How is the work reflective of its culture, and what purpose did it serve in its original context?
Consider, if an artwork is taken from its site without a record of its original location, what do we lose in terms of historic knowledge?
Write a 250 word initial post. Please include the following:
Identify the work by title, culture, date, material (medium) and its present location. (This is standard identifying information when introducing any
artwork.)
Include either a link to the artwork or an attached image of the artwork to share with your peers.
Describe the artworkâs subject and how that subject reflects its original culture or the work’s original purpose. Are there unanswered questions about
the meaning or purpose of the work? Outside research is always useful and welcome, but sources must be properly cited using the APA style guide.
3 references
Remember, in this discussion, using descriptive words is vital. Think about how figures look.
Is there depth?
Is there clarity and order, or is the image chaotic?
Think about whether the style conforms to conventions of the time period.
Much can be said about style, but it takes some looking.
Your initial post should be at least 250 words and must substantively integrate the assigned readings from the module with proper APA (Links to an
external site.) style formatting.
https://owl.excelsior.edu/citation-and-documentation/apa-style/
https://home.excelsior.edu/students/library/
Sample Solution
In any case, Descartes has been reprimanded for asserting a lot without having represented it in the Cogito. He has just figured out how to show that there is thinking going on, rather than a thing having those contemplations. Right now, Descartes is just permitted to state that there are considerations occurring at the time they are being thought, so this proposes he ought not allude to himself as a ‘suspecting thing’, as he has not demonstrated that those musings have a place with him. The Lichtenberg Objection takes a comparative point by contending that the main thing demonstrated by the Cogito is that there is thinking occurring. It recommends that the musings don’t require a scholar, likewise that the occurrence of downpour doesn’t require a ‘rainer’. I take this to be an insufficient analysis as the relationship expect that the pith of downpour is equivalent to that of contemplations. In any case, it appears that considerations are comparative basically to that of strolling. Strolling requires a walker and contemplations require a scholar. Descartes begins the 6th contemplation off by building up his body and the material world. To do this, he clarifies the distinction among creative mind and keenness, and how creative mind requires more exertion. Creative mind isn’t a basic piece of the ‘thinking thing’ that he believes himself to be, so on the off chance that he had a body, it would clarify the presence of creative mind. He reasons that almost certainly, he has a body which encounters the outer world. He at that point comes back to the Cogito to demonstrate that in addition to the fact that he is a reasoning thing, however that he has a psyche which is independent to his body. As an extreme dualist, he accepts that the brain has totally various properties to the psyche, which thusly, prompts him to accept that they can’t be indeed the very same thing. The body is a distinct, unessential and broadened substance though the brain is sure, fundamental and indissoluble. With different strategies, Descartes has attempted to set up that in addition to the fact that his bodies exist, however his brain does as well. The Cogito has attempted to demonstrate that he is a ‘thinking thing’ which was then evolved upon to demonstrate the presence of a body and psyche. Despite the fact that I consider the Cogito demonstrating him to be a ‘Res Cogitans’ a triumph, the strategies wherein he affirms the presence of a body miss the mark and frees itself up to analysis. Consequently, I trust Descartes to be fruitful in demonstrating his reality as a reasoning thing as it were. About Essay Sauce>
In any case, Descartes has been reprimanded for asserting a lot without having represented it in the Cogito. He has just figured out how to show that there is thinking going on, rather than a thing having those contemplations. Right now, Descartes is just permitted to state that there are considerations occurring at the time they are being thought, so this proposes he ought not allude to himself as a ‘suspecting thing’, as he has not demonstrated that those musings have a place with him. The Lichtenberg Objection takes a comparative point by contending that the main thing demonstrated by the Cogito is that there is thinking occurring. It recommends that the musings don’t require a scholar, likewise that the occurrence of downpour doesn’t require a ‘rainer’. I take this to be an insufficient analysis as the relationship expect that the pith of downpour is equivalent to that of contemplations. In any case, it appears that considerations are comparative basically to that of strolling. Strolling requires a walker and contemplations require a scholar. Descartes begins the 6th contemplation off by building up his body and the material world. To do this, he clarifies the distinction among creative mind and keenness, and how creative mind requires more exertion. Creative mind isn’t a basic piece of the ‘thinking thing’ that he believes himself to be, so on the off chance that he had a body, it would clarify the presence of creative mind. He reasons that almost certainly, he has a body which encounters the outer world. He at that point comes back to the Cogito to demonstrate that in addition to the fact that he is a reasoning thing, however that he has a psyche which is independent to his body. As an extreme dualist, he accepts that the brain has totally various properties to the psyche, which thusly, prompts him to accept that they can’t be indeed the very same thing. The body is a distinct, unessential and broadened substance though the brain is sure, fundamental and indissoluble. With different strategies, Descartes has attempted to set up that in addition to the fact that his bodies exist, however his brain does as well. The Cogito has attempted to demonstrate that he is a ‘thinking thing’ which was then evolved upon to demonstrate the presence of a body and psyche. Despite the fact that I consider the Cogito demonstrating him to be a ‘Res Cogitans’ a triumph, the strategies wherein he affirms the presence of a body miss the mark and frees itself up to analysis. Consequently, I trust Descartes to be fruitful in demonstrating his reality as a reasoning thing as it were. About Essay Sauce>
