Question: Do Hephaestus and Aiona work naked due to having Fire Immunity and needing no protection, and did human smiths in ancient Greece work naked also?
I think this may have come out of a post a while back where we talked about Hephaestus often being shown nude in art having to do partly with his status as lower in prestige than most of the Olympians (sub-divine, in a way, and therefore not cool enough for clothes) and partly with the idea that as a god of the forge and volcano, his nudity represented their prohibitive heat. Or maybe it's just a general question about the sartorial concerns of smithing - I'm not going to judge.
Anyway, no, ancient Greek smiths did not work naked, and anyone who smiths in the modern day (including Aiona's player, who is a badass jewelry maker and has done her share of shaping the finer metals) will tell you why: it's dangerous as hell. Sparks and bits of metal are flying around without warning; not wearing something (preferably something nice and thick) over your more delicate areas is a good way to lose them. Burns, chemical injuries and shrapnel were all very real dangers to blacksmiths, who would need to avoid them as much as possible while working. Other parts of the process, including smelting or finishing, could have been done stripped to the waist or more naked to manage the heat and protect clothing, but it still wouldn't be particularly safe.
It's not a coincidence that ancient blacksmiths had a lot of problems with heatstroke, smoke inhalation and heavy metal poisoning. And, speaking of poisoning, many scholars believe that's the sociological source of Hephaestus' lame foot; blacksmiths in Greece's Bronze Age commonly added arsenic during their process, and prolonged exposure to low levels of arsenic poisoning caused shriveled, lame limbs and skin degeneration, which may be why the Greeks envisioned their forge god as lame and ugly.
As for Hephaestus himself, he probably could forge naked if he wanted to; I'm not sure if he would, but he's probably got the Stamina to handle shrapnel and he certainly isn't going to be bothered by the sparks, so it'd definitely be an option (and, I think, considering his popular image as naked in a lot of Greco-Roman art, he might be more comfortable that way). Aiona doesn't forge nude as a rule, especially since she owns relic clothing; she probably doesn't care one way or the other, though, since being naked certainly wouldn't stop her from working on a project any more than wearing clothes that were about to get ruined would.
Hi, art major here. Don't mind me as I say much. Up until the Hellenistic period of art in Greek Culture, Gods were always nude. Very rarely did the Goddess be depicted nude, but the wanted to show off the body on the male figure. This transferred to the society, where most males were nude almost all the time and women were clothed.
ReplyDeleteThe first depiction of the male clothed I believe is in the Hellenistic period or when Rome conquered them. Either way, Greek Gods are nude, Roman Gods clothed. Figure I just leave that here and let the ideas swim.
Thanks! We're not art majors, so we always appreciate a perspective that we don't encounter much. :) I've definitely noticed a lot more clothing in Roman reproductions/depictions of the Greek gods - that makes perfect sense. I've definitely seen some gods clothed all the way back to the archaic period, though (here, it's me hanging out with Dionysus); are there particular figures this applies to more than others?
DeleteLol, let me wrack my brain. Ok, Dionysus is one of the rare few cases of clothing for men, I believe that there are some examples of Apollo too in this case. But its rare with the Greeks. They loved perfection, they tried to epitomize it above all others. So then the created many statues, first working on geometric figures to give the representation of the human figure on pottery.
DeleteThrough many trials and errors, they began to make the human figure until they got to Kouros. I believe that is the spelling. Anyways, through this we seen near perfection of the Athletic Male body, which is what they wanted first, not the female body. The female was inferior and used as a bartering chip much like stocks and such are used in businesses. But it was not enough to make the human figure. They wanted more.
So they designed a 'perfect' human athlete, just how much detail was in it alone is astonishing and then they embelished some details on muscle, but it worked for them. It gave the impression of the greatest athlete ever and they gave those bodies to their gods.
I can go on and on, but I'll stop there cause it gives a basis. Clothed gods are rare. Unclothed goddesses are rarer. A great example is the Venus de Milo. Though it is unfortunate that most of the greek statues that we see today are not the originals. They are greek copies. The temple statues and other stuff like that are gone, for a lot of it was made out of Bronze, not marble. You can tell a copy from the original cause the greeks cared not of eternity, they let limbs and such go out freely with no support. We only have a rare few originals from Greek like when a ship was sunk or stuff hidden away or the Romans wanted the original. Now, any questions?
Also, I am still in school for my art major, not graduated. I must make that clear. lol.
We saw quite a few kouroi, they're pretty awesome. There's definitely a marked difference between those and the later physiques, especially once you get to the Roman embellished versions. (We also saw a lot of kore, the female equivalent - but those were clothed!)
DeleteThe guide at the National Archaeological Museum in Athens told us the same thing - Roman copies are usually in marble, but marble's not as strong as the original bronze, so you can usually tell a Roman copy by the "support" added to it - an animal, pillar or other bit of sculpture to hold up the figure that in the original Greek sculpture would have been freestanding. (The Belvedere Apollo's a good example - he has a little strut to support his cloak, another under his upraised foot, and that snaky post over on the left is literally stopping him from falling over, whereas a Greek original wouldn't have needed any of that.) We did see some of the few remaining bronzes - some rescued from the Antikythera shipwreck, others from Sounion - and the difference is pretty awesomely striking.
Hey, student or not, I'm still prepared to believe you've read more art history than I have. We try to keep up on it, but it's just not one of our areas of greatest expertise, so thank you!
Well, the difference in the Kouro and later additions is because of one man. Polyclitus, which developed a canon used by many, like how the Egyptians had a canon of proportion to all of their artwork. This canon uses contrapposto which is a fancy term for counterpose. In it, the body would have a natural S curve to it as one side of the limbs would be tense as the other was relaxed, having the impression that it looked like the person was ready for anything. A good example is the Kritios Boy.
DeleteThough that could not be it. They changed their thinking in the Hellenistic, not wanting just perfect bodies, but emotion in their artwork. They wanted to create a soul out of marble and they did. Laocoön and his Sons is a good example of the raw emotions, as the Priest were killed by Poisieden who sided against the Trojans. Interesting piece and history.
Isn't that the era where women were seen not only as bargaining chips but also as walking wombs, and the only "true" love was seen as the love between men?
ReplyDeleteKind of right, kind of wrong. Think of it this way, lets say you were a merchant back then and wanted to get more trade. Lets say you also have a son that helps you out with the store, but he is not needed. So you would look at what you wanted to add to your trade and then see what was available.
DeleteNow then, lets say I was a prominent olive farmer, though I had daughters. So then to get rid of my daughter, I would let your son marry my daughter, with it sealing a deal of now were are business partners, like one of us absorbed the other. It does not matter who had the son and who had the daughter. But women were part of contracts and they only needed to make babies.
I would though, like to see this played out in a story though. Of where a Male scion marries a Female Scion, one of them Greek and another thats a lesser Pantheon of the Mediterranean. As a piece offering from them. It was something HUGE to the Greeks, but not the Romans. Same as Nudity and facial hair. To the Greeks, facial hair was the epitome of Barbarianism. Any facial hair and you were not civilized.
It's a very long era to make such broad generalizations. But there are very few eras where women aren't walking wombs unfortunately.
Delete