The article is from 2014, so I'm not sure why it is doing the rounds now, but it's worth a look. It starts with an 'in' to the Assyrians, through a stele with a curse inscription on it. It then spends the rest of the column explaining why the BM does not need more Assyrian art.
'Assyrian art is monstrously impressive'

A strange choice of words, possibly describing the size of the monuments in the BM? Maybe also the subject choice of many of these monuments (more on that below).

But you get the feel of the article: Assyria=monstrous
'The empire was cruel and savage, and its art chronicles its brutal ways with unblushing honesty'

Like, I guess so on some of it - but so do most empires? Take a look at the honesty on display on Trajan's Column for instance
'For fun, the emperors are shown killing lions at close quarters with arrows'

Really? Their hunting scenes are unique here? ... REALLY?!!

Assyrians liked hunting; Egyptians liked hunting; Greeks liked hunting - they also all depicted it. Is it because of the lions?
'the style of its art is fearsome and unforgiving: Its harsh muscular lines intentionally communicate power without mercy'

A lot to unpack here - but a good example for why art history should be more widely taught!
'It is scarcely surprising, then, that such a fierce culture was free with its curses.'

Fierce culture=cursing culture=non-civilised=Assyria . . .

What happens when he learns about Greek curse tablets?!
'[Most reliefs are] inscribed with repetitive, relentless boasts about the Assyrian ruler's authority and might'

Clearly he has never had to translate any Athenian inscriptions - or forced to read Augustus' humble brag the Res Gestae (I really hate that inscription)
'The hybrid monsters that once guarded such palace gateways loom up, magical and inhuman'

Like sure, they are cool right? But not unique to Assyria - sphinxes, centaurs, satyrs, seen in Egypt and/or Greece too.

Not really sure how this feeds into his main point.
'Assyrian art is certainly awe-inspiring – but perhaps not civilised'

I don't even know what that means. Is it not pretty to you? Is it the topics they cover?

I'd take another look at Greek art before throwing that claim around - or define what the hell civilised means here
'the graceful grandeur of ancient Egypt or the Greek gods exhibited nearby'

Why? What is the source of the grandeur?

Ahhh, hold on. Without defining it, the grandeur must be the civilised-ness. Which is based on a selective choosing of . . . wait a second
'Perhaps Assyrian art is indeed "cursed" by the blood and gore it celebrates . . . But Assyrian art itself casts an evil spell'

Yes, that's what this is! This is orientalist drivel!

We got there.
tl:dr Assyrian art is amazing, this article should be a case study in Orientalism #ClassicsTwitter #assyrian #museum
You can follow @reeshistory.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled:

By continuing to use the site, you are consenting to the use of cookies as explained in our Cookie Policy to improve your experience.