The aesthetics of empire in Athens and Persia
This thesis is a comparative study of Persepolis and the Akropolis as monumental centres of empire. It considers the relationship between style and politics on the two sites, specifically, the extent to which stylistic variations can be explained by their capacity to promote different political effects. Starting from Gellâs proposition that âart is a system of action intended to change the world, rather than encode symbolic propositions about it,â it examines the precise mechanisms, in particular the eliciting of cognitive or behavourial responses, by which the architecture and sculpture of the two sites have social consequences. It seeks to demonstrate a relationship between variations in the material traits of the sites and the political systems of the two states, defined both in terms of the autocratic/democratic distinction, but also the different structures of the two empires. The comparison of the two sites gives greater analytical security to the interpretation: they function as controls for each other. Each of the five chapters considers a different material aspect of the sites. The first chapter considers the spatial layout of the two sites; the second considers the function of the architectural
Downes, S. E.
The aesthetics of empire in Athens and Persia. This thesis is a comparative study of Persepolis and the Akropolis as monumental centres of empire. It considers the relationship between style and politics on the two sites, specifically, the extent to which stylistic variations can be explained by their capacity to promote different political effects. Starting from Gellâs proposition that âart is a system of action intended to change the world, rather than encode symbolic propositions about it,â it examines the precise mechanisms, in particular the eliciting of cognitive or behavourial responses, by which the architecture and sculpture of the two sites have social consequences. It seeks to demonstrate a relationship between variations in the material traits of the sites and the political systems of the two states, defined both in terms of the autocratic/democratic distinction, but also the different structures of the two empires. The comparison of the two sites gives greater analytical security to the interpretation: they function as controls for each other. Each of the five chapters considers a different material aspect of the sites. The first chapter considers the spatial layout of the two sites; the second considers the function of the architectural
aesthetic empire athens persia comparative_study monumental centre empire considers_relationship style politics two_site specifically extent stylistic variation explain capacity promote different political effect starting proposition art system action intend change world rather encode symbolic proposition examines precise mechanism particular elicit cognitive response architecture sculpture sit social_consequence seek relationship variation material trait sit political_system state define_term autocratic democratic distinction also different structure empire comparison two_site give_great analytical security interpretation function control other five_considers different material aspect site first_considers spatial layout two_site second_considers function architectural