# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Majiayao vessel (left) and Milgrad Cat Milk Cartons (right)

# data[].attributes.headline
Majiayao & Milgrad Cat Milk Cartons Compare and contrast

# data[].attributes.subject
Majiayao & Milgrad Cat Milk Cartons Compare and contrast

# data[].attributes.body
At first glance, I didn't see how these two objects could have any similarities other then the fact that they both hold something. After listening in class and taking another look I can see that they have other similarities. First, being the fact that if you just looked at these objects they seem like basic drawings on some type of container but if you really look and take the time to think then you can see that they were both well planned out. For the Majiayao vessel, the painter had to plan out how each of the spirals would hit the nuclei in a perfect way to create a motif while the Milgrad Cat Milk Cartons designer had to plan out how he was going to place each piece of the cat so they can be laid out in a way to create a whole cat. Neither of these objects were just randomly designed. Also, they both were added on the vessel/cartons for aesthetic purposes. To be looked at as a beautiful piece. Another similarity between the two is that they were both intended to hold some type of food, one might have been made to hold this for the dead as they go into the afterlife but nonetheless, they both held something. They are also both easily recognizable designs. Everyone knows what a cat looks like and while you might not know what a “running spiral” is anyone would be able to easily recognize what a spiral looks like.

The differences between the two are pretty obvious. First, just what they are made of, the Majiayao vessel being made of clay while the Milgrad Cat Milk Cartons are most likely made of some type of paper with a wax type lining to hold liquid. One is made to be reused as much as needed while the other is made for a one-time use. Another thing that makes them different is for the Majiayao vessel you just need the one vessel to tell the whole story, but you need more then one of the cartons to be able to get the whole picture. One is very clearly a design of a “living” being of some sort while the other is just shapes. The shape of the objects are also very different. The cartons are a simple rectangular shape, and the vessel is a more complex round shape.

This was a very interesting compare and contrast topic to discuss because if I hadn’t went to class and learned about the Majiayao vessel and what a “Running Spiral” is I don’t think I would have had any idea how these objects would have related. I could have put the pieces together eventually, but I think I would have had to think a lot harder about it. Although, talking about what makes them different was much easier than just having to relate them.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Jar with Four Lugs (Guan), Earthenware, Neolithic period, Hongshan culture, (ca. 4500–3000 BCE), The Metropolitan Museum of Art, (https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/65596)

# data[].attributes.headline
Jar with Four Lugs (Guan), Earthenware, Neolithic period, Hongshan culture, (ca. 4500–3000 BCE)

# data[].attributes.subject
Jar with Four Lugs (Guan), Earthenware, Neolithic period, Hongshan culture, (ca. 4500–3000 BCE)

# data[].attributes.body
The Jar with Four Lugs (Guan) comes from the Neolithic period of the Hongshan culture. It stands at 12 1/2 in with the largest part of the vessel being 11 1/2 in in width. It is an Earthenware vessel made of clay.

The vessel is a burnt orange color with some greenish-yellow marks around it, which could be from it deuterating over time. Starting from the top down, the lip of the vessel is a little thicker than the neck in a round coil shape. The rim of the vessel is narrow with the neck following down at just about the same width. The neck slightly protrudes out in an bloated fashion. At the end of the neck, which goes down about ¼ of the vessel, there is an indentation that divides it from the belly of the vessel almost making a very slight shoulder. The belly leads down in a round shape. A little lower than the center, about an inch, of the vessel there are four small handles evenly spaced around the belly. The handles are very small, too small to fit a hand in to. They look maybe big enough to fit a finger in. Most likely placed there to put some type of string into it to be hung or carried. A few inches lower is the foot of the vessel. It doesn’t have a separately designed base to it, it just comes to a rounded bottom.

The Jar with Four Lugs (Guan) is very simular to the Vessel Hongshan Earthenware from East Coast Neolithic 4000-2500 BCE. They both have little handles that could have been placed there to have been carried or to have a string of some sort put through them. They both have a very rounded belly and a pretty simple base to them. The Jar with Four Lugs look like it would have been more likely to hold some type of liquid over food or ashes of a dead person. This would fit because as you said in class on Thursday the Hongshan culture seemed to shift to making vessels to hold liquid over food. They both were used as burial vessels and in the Hongshan culture, the tombs were buried beneath stone-covered mounds and were very spectacular.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Ding' Ritual Food Vessel with 'Taotie' Decor, Cast bronze with patina and encrustations, Chinese, Shang dynasty, c. 1600-c. 1050 BCE, 14th-11th century BCE, Collection of the Harvard Museum of Art, Massachusetts. 

# data[].attributes.headline
Ding' Ritual Food Vessel with 'Taotie' Decor, Cast bronze with patina and encrustations, Chinese, Shang dynasty, c. 1600-c. 1050 BCE, 14th-11th century BCE

# data[].attributes.subject
Ding' Ritual Food Vessel with 'Taotie' Decor, Cast bronze with patina and encrustations, Chinese, Shang dynasty, c. 1600-c. 1050 BCE, 14th-11th century BCE

# data[].attributes.body
The vessel I will be describing comes from the middle Shang dynasty between 1600-c. 1050 BCE. It is a bronze casted vessel with a green jade-like color. Starting from the top there is a wide opening to the vessel with about a 1/2-inch-thick lip around it. Connected to the sides of the lip are two handles on either side of the vessel. They are positioned directly across from one another. They look to be a rounded square-shaped form with a small round hole in the center of each. The holes looked too small to place a hand in, so they were most likely there to be attached to a rope to be carried or lowered into a tomb. Right under the lip there is a small indentation that leads into the belly of the vessel. The belly takes up most of the vessel. It looks to be about six inches from the rim to the bottom of the belly. The belly comes down in a very concaved shape swooping down about a half inch of the top of the legs. Connected to the bottom of the belly are three legs. The legs are long thin cylinder shape coming down into a flat surface at the bottom. Almost the whole vessel is decorated with the taotie motif. Right under the lip there is a thin register that has a different type of motif. It looks to have little zoomorphic like creatures with a spiral design filling in the background behind them. Right under that register is the large taotie motif which takes up most of the center of the belly. On either side of the taotie motif there is a coil that protrudes out. This coil is also designed with the indentations. Under the taotie motif there is a flat surface that leads into the bottom of the belly which connects to the legs. The legs also have a curvy spiral design on them. It’s much clearer to see toward the top of the legs while the bottom of the legs seem to have lost their design over time.

As I was looking through the museum collections, I wanted to pick one with the 'Taotie' because I was interested in taking a deeper look at them. This one is very similar to the Ding vessel from Panlongcheng, from slide thirteen of the study images. They both have the same rounded shape to them with the 'Taotie' design. However, this one looks to be a style five 'Taotie' because of how much the motif takes up the vessel as well as it being slightly raised from the surface. It also contains very elaborate lines and details in the motif. From the lecture knowing that style five was common in late Shange, I would say that this vessel is mostly from late Shang. The museum's date on this object. Comparing it to the study image from early I would guess that it came from Panlongcheng just because of the close resemblance to the both of them. Although this one is a bit shorter and had flatter legs then the study image one, they used the Section mold technique that would make these vessels have to look completely different because they could not make two of the exact same vessels. So maybe they made one with the pointy legs and decided they wanted one with flatter legs. They also both have handles on the top to possibly be lowered down into a pit as the Panlogcheng people did use offerings for the dead.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Bagley Meaning and Explanation response essay

# data[].attributes.headline
Bagley Meaning and Explanation response essay

# data[].attributes.subject
Bagley Meaning and Explanation response essay

# data[].attributes.body
Bagley’s essay goes over the idea that the Shang bronze designs don’t have a symbolic meaning behind them. He believes that art historians try to read into them too much without having solid evidence to back up claims made about them. He uses examples of Lindisfarne Gospels and the Book of Kells to back up his claims. Basically, saying that if you read too deep into some works of art, they will no longer make sense and that not every detail is meticulously thought out in a way to give the work deeper meaning. He believes that maybe the bronze designs are nothing more than added decoration to make the items look more valuable and aesthetically pleasing to the viewer's eye.

I don’t fully disagree with the argument that the essay is making. Although, I do feel like Bagley could have stated something differently. I don’t think that everything in art has to have a very deep meaning but there is a reason that someone put something on a page or a bronze vessel, which is another way of looking at “meaning.” I’m a graphing design student and one thing that has been said over and over again to me is that a good design has to have some meaning. For example, if I am making a poster for a music class that is studying the piano and I want to use a page of music as the background I should hope that I would be able to find a page that was written specifically for piano music. This does have meaning, it’s meaning is just for the piano student that when they see this poster they will understand what type of music class it is. That example could be looked at as having some sort of deeper meaning. But not all art is going to have some creative deep meaning behind it. Another example, if I wanted to make a poster with little bubbly graphic flowers because I think they will make the page look cute that still has meaning but just not a very deep one. You could look at it and say maybe I was just doing it for aesthetic reasons and another person could look and think that it was to make the viewer feel happy and brighter. I don’t think all art has to have a deep meaning, but I do think all art has some sort of meaning. Because even putting something on a page for aesthetic reasons is still a “meaning” of putting that on a page. I do agree with Bagley in the fact that we don’t have to give a greater descriptive meaning to every art we find because maybe they did just put designs on the bronzes for aesthetic reasons or because those designs made the bronzes look truely valuable. I don’t agree that aesthetic purposes don’t have meaning. Maybe the taotie design does make bronze objects valuable and that is a “meaning” or “purpose” to put that design on the object.

I would like to add that Bagley states many times that there is little known about about the Shang religion and why they would have decorative elements on their bronze. So I think that making a statement that people “can’t assume” because there is little evidence is crazy. They may be assuming something, but they are also doing more research and searching for more evidence to be able to back up those assumptions. If we didn’t assume things first and go off those assumptions or hunches, then we wouldn’t get anywhere with art. Some things could come out as true while others may come out as false, but that shouldn’t be the case. It’s just human nature.

Like I said I do agree with some of the things Bagley said in the essay, I don’t agree with the fact that he thinks that Shang bronzes have no meaning other than just to be decorative. To me that feels like a slap in the face to the people who made them. Also, why would they spend so much time on making and designing them if they have no meaning at all? I don’t think all art was made to have a deep meaning behind it, but the bronzes discussed were found in ritual or other religious context so to say that they don’t have deeper meaning doesn’t make sense to me.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Anyang bronze on the left, it has a shorter and wider body. It has a set of handle, four legs, and extruding bumps around the outside. The regional bronze, on the right, is taller and thiner in comparison. It also has a set of dragons on the handles. 

# data[].attributes.headline
Bronze Fang ding from Danyangzhou, Jiangxi during the Regional Bronze Age period and Fang Ding Tomb of Fu Hao Anyang Bronze Late Shang 1300-1000 BCE 

# data[].attributes.subject
Bronze Fang ding from Danyangzhou, Jiangxi during the Regional Bronze Age period and Fang Ding Tomb of Fu Hao Anyang Bronze Late Shang 1300-1000 BCE 

# data[].attributes.body
The comparison between the Bronze Fang Ding vessel found in the Tomb of Fu Hao from Anyang during the Late Shang period and the Bronze Fang Ding from Danyangzhou, Jiangxi during the Regional Bronze Age period shows the interaction between cultures. It also shows how art developed through different civilizations—taking inspiration but adding in their own beliefs and other ritual practices.

Fang Ding vessel from Anyang was made for ritual and funerary purposes which were very important in Anyang. This was especially true during the reign of King Wu Ding, who would do many divinations during his days. This specific Fang Ding vessel was found in the tomb of Fu Hao, who was one of King Wu Dings's wives. This vessel was used as a burial offering for Fu Hao. The large size of the vessel and where it was found show the societal differences happening in Anyang. These vessels were reserved for people of a high ranking or status. This wouldn’t be an easy object to make. It would take time and precision to make such a piece. The vessel was also detailed with its designs which would also show how the people of Anyang would take the time not only for people of status but also for the dead. These vessels were used as offerings for the dead to help them in the afterlife. With this large vessel being found in a tomb we can say that the people of Anyang had some beliefs in the afterlife and that they were concerned with what will happen after death. With this vessel being found in a tomb we can also say that they had a connection between the living and the ancestral spirits. This shows the importance of ancestral worship during the time.

The Fang Ding vessel from Anyang was styled with a style five taotie which was a significant motif from Anyang. They made a deep opening to hold food for Fu Hao as she walked over into the afterlife. They decorated around the square vessel with raised bumps as filler motifs to show their dedication in making a beautiful object as an offering. The legs are also decorated in what looks like a taotie motif. This motif was highly popular during this time with some people believing it to be a mask. If I would make a take on it, I would say that it was to protect those who traveled into the afterlife as it is a mystical type of beast. The careful decoration on the vessel, not only further shows the importance they held for the worship of their ancestors but also the hierarchal status they held.

Many bronzes were found in Danyangzhou, Jiangxi, this shows us that they were not worried for resources. With the many bronzes found and where they were found, it's safe to say that these people also had some connection with sacrificial offerings and burial offerings for the dead. This shows that they offered to their ancestors much like the people of Anyang. We do see a bigger focus on animal-shaped objects so we could think that maybe the people of Jiangxi had a bigger belief in creatures of the world as well as mythical beasts of the afterlife, which is more of what the people of Anyang would have believed in. Both places had human sacrifice and many ritual practices in common. Such as barring the dead with offerings to take in the afterlife and placing objects and people as sacrifices to the ancestors. We can recognize the specific bronze Fang ding vessel from Jiangxi, talked about, and we can recognize a similar type with the Fang ding vessels found in Anyang. And because Fang ding vessels are thought to only be given to those of higher social status then we know there was some type of social hierarchy going on in Danyangzhou, Jiangxi.

The Regional Bronze Fang ding is styled with the style one taotie. This shows us the connection they had with Anyang because of the popular motif. The body of the vessel is square and used to hold food, as the people of Danyangzhou, Jiangxi had more emphasis on food for offerings over drink. They believed that their deceased would use this in the afterlife. We seem to have an emphasis on “realistic” looking creatures. This is shown in the tigers placed on the handles at the top of the vessel. This makes me believe that these people had a deeper connection with the world itself and worshiped the “real” world over things of the spiritual world. The legs of the ding vessel also have ram faces on them over a taotie motif. This again goes into their fascination with more realistic creatures over fake ones.

Both of these objects show us the differences and similarities between Anyang and regional bronze objects. We can see many similarities which in turn tells us there had to have been some connection between the two groups of people. The region bronze looks very close to the one from Anyang but adds pieces that represent its own culture. Because of where these objects were found we can find a connection to the religious practices also happening between these groups. They both believed in sacrifice, offerings for the dead, the afterlife, and ancestorial worship.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Zhi, Bronze, Western Zhou Dynasty, China, 1046–771 BCE, Metropolitan Museum of Art https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/42169 

# data[].attributes.headline
Zhi, Bronze, Western Zhou Dynasty, China, 1046–771 BCE, Metropolitan Museum of Art

# data[].attributes.subject
Zhi, Bronze, Western Zhou Dynasty, China, 1046–771 BCE, Metropolitan Museum of Art

# data[].attributes.body
This “Ritual Wine Cup (Zhi)” comes from the 11th century BCE. It is dated to the Western Zhou Dynasty from 1046–771 BCE. It is made of bronze and is 5 3/4 in tall. The top of the vessel has a wide lip that leads into the neck of the vessel which slopes inward to the belly. The belly protrudes outward and is more square-shaped than circular. Below the waist of the vessel, there is a hard angle that leads into what would typically be the foot. However, for this vessel, it is connected to a rounded square platform.

The vessel has a greenish-brown color to it, which shows its age and deuteration over time. This vessel is split into five registers, with three of them being highly decorated. Each of these registers are duplicated on the front and the back of this vessel.  The first register starts at the top of the neck near the lip and is blank. The second register is also found on the neck, and it is decorated with a zoomorphic design, meaning looking like some type of animal or mythical like creature. The design looks to be two dragons mirroring each other. The third register is a large taotie design found on the belly of the vessel. This taotie has more of a human-looking nose than the more typical animal nose. The fourth register, which is near the top of the platform, looks to have two zoomorphic designs mirroring each other, much like the dragon design on the second register. This register looks to be more deuterated than the others. The fifth and last register, which is at the foot of the platform, is blank.

I believe this vessel comes from Early Western Zhou. Comparing it to the Li Gui from Early Western Zhou, they share many similarities. They are both rounded square vessels placed on a platform. The Li Gui does have a more prominent square platform with very sharp corners. Still, the Zhi is raised, and the platform is slightly less squared. The square shape was a very prominent shape used in the Early Western Zhou Dynasties. Next, they both have a large taotie motif with slight differences from the Shang Dynasty from which it came from. This slight change being the more human-looking nose seen on both. The use of the taotie motif was significant to the Early Western Zhou Dynasty as it showed the power, they had over the Shang Dynasty, which they concurred and captured their bronze casters to work for them. With all these similarities between the two and the fact that it still uses the taotie motif and the rounded square shape, which are no longer used in the Middle or Late Early Western Zhou Dynasties, we can tell that this is an example of an Early Western Zhou bronze.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Liyu hu vessel, Jin state vs. right: Xiasi hu vessel, Chu state

# data[].attributes.body
The Liyu hu vessel comes from the Jin state. The Jin people were a little more conservative with their art. Vessels became more of commodity vessels. They could show power and wealth. If you had money you were able to purchase more. Although, the Jin did hand down vessels to their loved ones to be cherished and remembered by. They also were buried with their vessels but this was more of wanting to be remembered as wealthy and show power vs using them so much as ritual objects specifically made for the dead. The Jin wanted faster ways of producing bronze vessels so they used things like the pattern mold technique. This was to lay patterns on the vessels faster and to mass produce. We can see the very intricate design on the Liyu Hu vessel. This would have taken a very long time but using the pattern mold technique the Jin people would have been able to make vessels like this quicker and more then once. This did cause some of the vessels to look sloppy. Many animal, animal combat and griffin motifs were seen in this state as well. This showed the trade that was happening between the Jin and the Steppe Nomads. We also see the use of the taotie motif from the Shang. This would be used but added with interlacing dragon motifs. The Jin people also used new motifs that were not used on bronze which are seen on the Liyu Hu vessel.

The Liyu Hu vessel is heavily decorated. It is sectioned off into eight registers, not including the foot, with intricate designs. The four larger registers have a dragon interlace motif with the fourth including the taotie motif from the Shang. These four registers are divided by three smaller ones containing tiger reliefs lying down. The last register between the larger one containing the taotie, and the foot contains a bird motif. All the birds are faced toward the right. On the foot of the vessels, there is a rope motif. As we can see from this vessel there are many new things happening in Jin. We see the use of the taotie which comes from the Shang wanting to make it their own; they added the interlace dragon motif. This intricate design would have been made using the pattern mold technique. Next, we see the use of the mythical creatures, the dragon and taotie, and the use of real animals, the birds and the tigers. We also see the use of the bird motif and the other real animal motifs which would show the connection to the trade with the Steppe nomadic groups. Finally, we see the use of the rope motif which was a new motif to be seen on bronze vessels.

The Xiasi hu vessel comes from the Chu state. The Chu people were using new ways to create bronze vessels. They used the lost wax method to create many open work components to their vessels. They were more imaginative with their designs, testing new things and coming up with new ways to add components to their vessels. The Chu believed in the Division of the Souls. The soul would be divided into two after death the Hun and the Po. The Hun was said to leave the tomb and go on the journey to the afterlife, while the Po was said to stay in the tomb and be taken care of by all the objects left there. The Chu people didn’t believe in human sacrifice so they used human stature to emulate a human sacrifice. Like the Jin people, Chu bronze vessels were used to show power and authority. Like the Jin the Chu passed down inscripted vessels as well as were buried with their vessels from their life on earth.

The Xiasi hu vessel is heavily decorated with openwork and s-shaped interlace motifs. It has four dragon sculptures attached to it, two as the handles of the vessel and two as the feet. These dragon sculptures are quite large on the vessel. The dragon handles, taking up about half of the vessel itself. The dragons themselves have their tongues sticking out and antlers attached to their heads. This vessel and the Liyu Hu vessel have much in common, yet are both wildly different. Starting with the shapes of the vessels, they have a similar shape to each other, with a long narrow neck leading into a round protruding belly, yet the Chu vessels have more character. It is more square and geometric compared to the Jin vessel. They both contain dragon imagery, the Jin using a more conservative approach by just adding carved interlace motifs and the Chu adding large sculptural objects. They both have an interlace pattern, Chu using very small intricate line work while the Jin pattern is much larger and easier to see. Another big difference is the fact that the Jin vessel is completely covered with motifs, while the Chu vessel uses much more negative space.

We can see with the Xiasi hu vessel from the Chu state that they were trying new things. They weren’t being so conservative with their art. The use of the open work would have taken a very long time to execute so they were forced to take their time and not use shortcuts. The Jin on the other hand were keeping their are more conservative. They were trying to push more vessels out at a faster rate which caused some to lose quilty.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Bell from the King of Chu from the Tomb of the Marquis Yi of Zeng, bronze, Waring States Period in 433 BCE (left) The Liberty Bell, bronze, 18th century, 1752 

# data[].attributes.headline
Bell from the King of Chu from the Tomb of the Marquis Yi of Zeng and the Liberty Bell compare and contrast

# data[].attributes.subject
Bell from the King of Chu from the Tomb of the Marquis Yi of Zeng and the Liberty Bell compare and contrast

# data[].attributes.body
Bell from the King of Chu from the Tomb of the Marquis Yi of Zeng is made from bronze. It comes from the Waring States Period in 433 BCE. We know that it comes from this time because of the inscriptions on the bell. This bell was gifted to the Marquis Yi of Zeng at his funeral from the King of Chu. It was a symbol of respect for the Marquis from the King of Chu. This also shows the communication between Chu and Zeng. The large bronze bell is decorated with soarder beading on the surface for texture. On the top of the bell, it has two dragon sculptures mirroring each other as the handle. On the center of the bell, there is an inscription written.

The Liberty Bell is made of bronze and was originally made in 1752 in London and it was recast in Pennsylvania. The bell was made to announce the town of meetings happening. It would later go down in history as a symbol of freedom for the United States. Was said to have been rung to announce to people of the first public reading of the Declaration of Independence.

Although, completely different and from widely different cultures these bells have things in common. Firstly the obvious, they are both bells made from bronze. Not only that they both contain inscriptions. The Bell from the King of Chu contained information about the date and who it was from and the Liberty Bell contained a Bible verse. The Liberty Bell is much less decorated than the Bell from the King of Chu. Other than raised ridges and the Bible verse the bell is blank. Whereas the Bell from the King of Chu is heavily decorated with soarder beading on the surface for texture, bronze dragon sculptures, and beaded motifs. They are both symbols of importance to their culture. The Liberty Bell represents freedom and the Bell from King Chu represents respect and power.

The reason I chose to compare and contrast the Bell from the King of Chu and the Liberty Bell was because I wanted to show the significance of the use of bells throughout history. There is a 2184-year difference between the two objects yet they both hold significant importance in history. One was made as a musical object that would be played while the other was made as a tool to announce. It is interesting to see the different uses of the same type of object in different cultures. Bronze objects were also seen as a sign of status and wealth during the Warning States Period. This bell would have shown the power and wealth that the King of Chu would have had to get a bell like this commissioned for the Marquis. Whereas the Liberty Bell was commissioned to just be placed in the town hall for practical use.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Is the term "Zhou art" the best term to use to describe the art work from 1000 BCE through 221 BCE

# data[].attributes.body
I feel as though labeling the whole 800-year period as just “Zhou art” takes away from the other art discovered from this period. It is an oversimplification of the objects found and the history behind them. Zhou art comes in many different shapes and forms from the region it was found in. Eastern Zhou art is very different compared to the Western Zhou art, therefore lumping everything together takes away from the individual regions, and different practices happening within them.

The use of “Zhou art” to characterize this period, at first, seems to make sense. The Zhou dynasty had a very prominent cultural force during this period. They concurred with the Shang dynasty, showing their power as a collective. They believed after the conquering of the Shang dynasty, that they were the new rightful rulers. This was backed by the phenomenon of the “five pacers” which was a very close alignment of the planets. They took this as a sign from the “heaven” that they could start their new regime. This was only the start of the Zhou dynasty and would encapsulate everything that would happen throughout their reign. Art from all over the Zhou dynasty would change rapidly, spanning from Eastern Zhou (771- 221)  to Western Zhou (1000-771).

Early Western Zhou would take many artistic ideas from the Shang dynasty and put them to use. We can see this with the use of the taotie on many objects from the early Western Zhou period. They would start to add their own artistic touches to the object. During the Early Western Zhou period, they made their vessels more square-shaped compared to the variety of different-shaped vessels seen during the Shang Dynasty. Although this would rapidly start to shift going into the middle to late periods. During the Middle Western Zhou period, they started to form their own artistic patterns. They kept the square shape but it wasn’t very prominent, and they stopped using the taotie motif. This shifted again during the Late Western Zhou period, which transitioned them fully into their own unique art style. They dropped the square-shaped objects, no longer used the taotie, and started to curate their own motifs, which led them to design in a more creative style as they moved further from the traditional Shang style.

We see a very diverse shift between the early, middle, and late Western Zhou periods, so they had to be characterized differently rather than lumping them all into “Western Zhou art.” Next, we move on to Eastern Zhou art, which is vastly different from the Western Zhou style. We will see similarities such as the use of the dragon motif, the use of interlace, and continuous bands of decoration which would all be adopted from the Western Zhou art style. The Eastern Zhou was split into two periods: the Spring/Autumn (770-476 BCE) and the Warring States (475-221 BCE). During the Spring/Autumn period, the Jin which was in the North of the Eastern Zhou, and the Chu, who were in the South, were very different culturally. The Jin were more conservative with their art style while the Chu were more innovative and creative. They both made different art during their time, with the Jin using new techniques to produce their bronzes. This technique was used to mold a variety of different vessels. They did this by laying patterns on bronze molds so they didn’t have to individually design each mold. Although this was a faster method, some of the bronzes would end up looking sloppy. Animal and animal combat motifs were seen at this time, which showed trade between the Jin and the Steppe Nomads. We also see the use of the taotie motif from the Shang style, which they would add with interlacing dragon motifs.

The Chu was a very innovative civilization; for example, they discovered a new way of casting bronze, which we now know as the “lost wax technique.” This method was used to create a cast coated with wax, then they would melt the wax out of the cast. This allowed the Chu to create a new use for bronze, such as open work. Another new object found in Chu's tombs was the Antler and tongue sculptures which were lacquer wood sculptures with real antlers attached. They were believed to be creatures that would protect the dead, and some even believed that they were placed in the tombs to scare the souls from leaving the tomb. They did this because the Chu believed in the division of the soul, which means when you die, your soul would become two different entities, those being the Hun and Po. One of the souls would leave the tomb and travel into the afterlife, while the other would stay in the tomb and remain there.

From these examples of different cultures living through these 800 years, it would be hard to characterize it all as “Zhou art.” The art, culture, and political beliefs changed rapidly, and they all deserve an individual title to be separated rather than generalized. I would fear if it was all combined into one generalized term that some of the cultures would be overlooked.