Lord Elgin took the Parthenon Marbles back with him to England
Lord Elgin took the Parthenon Marbles back with him to England with permission from the government. But the Ottomans controlled the government at the time, so even though Lord Elgin took the Parthenon Marbles legally, whether or not the marbles were there is to give away is debatable. From a moral standpoint, the Parthenon Marbles belong in Greece, since the Greek government never gave Lord Elgin permission to take them in the First Place. Nevertheless, that is probably never going to happen. I work in a museum, and a good chunk of art and artifacts were at one point or another stolen. You know that scene in Black Panther where Killmonger is in a museum, standing in front of various African artifacts? That is my boss’s screensaver for her work computer. We work in a museum because we love art and we want to share it with people, but we all know that a lot of art was acquired immorally, although we rarely say it. It is not right, but I do not see things changing anytime soon.
Response 1
I agree with the arguments postulated by this student that the legality of the Parthenon marbles rests in the Greek government and not the British government. The arguments formulated about Parthenon Marbles provides a clear indication that the Greek government has legality to have them. Lord Elgin purported permission to take it to England under the pretext of preservation from destroying artifacts lacks a moral basis. In essence, the arguments that the Parthenon marbles will be safe in England is no guarantee that it will not be tampered with or even worse stolen. The reports of a chunk of artifacts being stolen are clear assurance that the Marbles can never be safe there. Consequently, the Greek government should be given its Parthenon marbles to preserve its identity and for the future generation.
The Archaic Greek sculpture of Kouros from c.600BCE strongly differs from Early Classical Kritios Boy (ca. 480 BCE.) Although both of them try to represent a human form, their depiction style is the main element of difference. In Kouros, a piece from over 100 years earlier than Kritios, one can see how Archaic Greek art looks less human and realistic. Starting from the Kouros’ face, one can see how his eyes have an abnormal, almost like an animals’ eyes shape. His eyes are large and unproportional to the rest of his face. The other reason why someone may say why his face does not look realistic is to as to why he does not show any expression. His face also appears flat. On the other hand, his body also appears quiet shapeless in comparison to a more elegant Kritios Boy. A significant notice of difference and artistic depiction skills in Kritios and Kouros is how realistic their arms appear to be. Kritios Boy appears as if he was a real person, truly standing alive in there, while Kouros looks less developed. One can also see a stronger resemblance of Kouros to Ancient Egyptian Portrait Statue of Mentuemhet from Karnak, Egypt, that perhaps Kouros was inspired from.
Response 2
I agree with the distinctive features exhibited by the Early Classical Kritios Boy (ca.480 BCE) and the Archaic Sculpture of Kouros from c.600BCE.This is attributed to their depiction style though both of them try to represent the human form. Kouros’ face is less human with animals like eyes shape, making it have an unrealistic face. The Kritios Boy, on the other hand, appears to be realistic and looks like a real person. The arms appear to resemble a real person standing alive. In a nutshell, the Kourous appears to be less human and unrealistic, while the Kritios Boy appears to be a real and alive person, as shown by the depiction of appearance.