> Jon Ellison Wrote:
> > I said the embellishments were not part of the
> > original design. Effectively graffiti.
> > You said they were original.
> Again Jon, can you quote me where I said they were
> "original" as in the person who built the pylons
> also added the reliefs?
> Let me quote myself again:
> Temple construction was begun by Ptolemy III in
> 237BC and completed nearly 200yrs later in 57BC by
> Ptolemy XII, who is also your "graffiti artist".
> The scenes relate how Ptolemy XII defeated his
> enemies for Horus.
> This was the first time I mentioned it. Where in
> this statement does it say the reliefs "were
> original"? Does it not say that "temple
> construction" was completed by Ptolemy XII nearly
> 200yrs later and that he is your "graffiti
> artist"? Where does it say that "completing the
> temple construction" included building the pylons?
> And does not saying that Ptolemy XII is your
> "graffiti artist" imply that in fact I am agreeing
> that he added these after the fact considering I
> just said construction began nearly 200yrs before
> and make no mention of what it was he completed or
> not the least of which the pylons that he put the
> reliefs on?
> And yet you have the gall to dishonestly
> say of me: "There you go with that crystal
> ball again. Your self styled ability to see into
> the mind of another." despite the fact anyone can
> read what I actually said? If I have a crystal
> ball, apparently you have a magic 8 ball.
> And to make what I said before even clearer, which
> you'll note if you read through what we said we
> did not specifically speak of when the pylons were
> built, I said in the next relevant response:
> "I have already said how the Ptolemies built
> this structure in phases over a nearly 200yr
> period with the reliefs in question having been
> carved by Ptolemy XII nearly 100yrs after the
> front pylons (the facade) were completed."
> So again, where did I say, as you claim, that the
> reliefs were original to the construction of the
> pylons? Are you just lying right now or did you
> not understand and/or read what was said despite
> the fact I have quoted it back to you multiple
> > If there was a disagreement, I said we will
> > to agree to disagree. Fair enough?
> Again Jon, you really need to be honest. You do
> understand that we can read what was written,
> This is what you actually said:
> "Your inability to recognise the design
> disparity will go along way to explain your why
> you fail to recognise the primitive nature of the
> architectural embellishment relative to the
> overall architectural design..
Do you recognise (see) the design disparity?
> For that reason we'll have to agree to
> Ya know, that sure sounds like an insult to me. If
> you were so interested in "agreeing to disagree"
> then why did you take it upon yourself to insult
> me with for no reason?
"Agreeing to disagree" is not an insult, it's a gentleman's solution to differing opinions.
> > You said that I was an "idiot",
> You said: "Now I'm being presumptuous."
> [emphasis mine]
> Which I replied: "No, just an idiot." I said, in
> context, that you were "being" an idiot Jon, not
> that you are an idiot. Though I have to say
> you are making quite the case for the latter all
> by yourself.
> > presumably because
> > I'd stated that the embellishments were not
> > of the original design.
> If you read what was said then why do you need to
> presume? Your argument is not that they were just
> "not part of the original design", as we can read
> for ourselves nowhere did I disagree with this and
> explained why this was the case more than once,
> but that to you because this "graffiti" was added
> later then this means the temple itself was not
> built in the period it is ascribed. Are you
> honestly going to tell us that this is not what
> you are driving at? Origyptian has made his
> opinion on the matter quite clear seeing as many
> as "3 different cultures" at work here with some
> being mere "adapters" from the LC and yet nowhere
> do you dispute this and if anything seem to be
> agreeing with him. Just be honest Jon.
> > Which you disagreed with, which is also fair
> > enough.
> See above.
> > You then stated that the embellishments were
> > 100- 200 or whatever years later.
> So let me get this straight-first you claim I said
> they were "original", which again we can clearly
> see I did not, yet here you are paraphrasing me
> actually further explaining the point that the
> reliefs were added "100-200 or whatever years
> later"? And the fact you have to say "whatever"
> when I clearly state what it was-is this really a
> ringing endorsement of your power of reading
> > By a "Dick". Is
> > that correct?
> > So we are in agreement.
> Can you quote me anywhere saying that we were not
> in agreement that the reliefs were added after the
> fact? If you keep saying this there must be at
> least one thing you can quote, right?
> > The embellishments were not part of the
> > design. As I originally stated.
> > They were added some time later.
> > By a according to you a "Dick".
> > Which is what Ori found so hilarious.
> This is what Origyptian found "hilarious":
> "You [Jon]agreed that the drawings were
> basically graffiti, and he [Thanos] essentially
> acknowledges it was done by the rogue XII who
> adapted the structure for his own purpose two
> centuries later, but then uses that to argue that
> you're wrong?"
> Which I replied to him:
What is your malfunction? Can you quote me
> where I said they weren't? In fact, was it not I
> that explained why this is when you brought it up
> in the first place:
> Sweet Jeezus. Are you retarded?
> Lets parse this:
> You [Jon] agreed that the drawings were
> basically graffiti
> Jon was the one who brought it up in the first
> place. I "agreed" in principle and
> explained why this was.
> ...and he [Thanos] essentially acknowledges it
> was done...
> "Essentially acknowledges"? WTF? I am the one
> making the statement in no uncertain terms in the
> first place to explain why and when they were
> added later in relation to the original
> ...by the rogue XII...
> I said he was a dick, not a "rogue". If you look
> inside the temple and all the others of the
> period, they are covered with reliefs and writing
> from the previous Ptolemaic pharaohs including
> detailed building texts. He just put his on the
> pylons which if all the walls were covered and no
> one had yet written on them.....Hmmm.
> ...who adapted the structure for his own
> Who said it was used for any other purpose than it
> already was? Instead of writing on the inside of
> the temple, Ptolemy XII thought it was cool to put
> them right on the front pylons. Otherwise, it
> served the same function as it always had.
Cultural adaptation. Which is what graffiti is. To take ownership of to take possession of.
For example converting a church into mosque.
> ...two centuries later
> Who said "two centuries later"? I said, if I
> recall at least twice, that it was less than
> 100yrs later as this is when the pylons were
I said 100 200 or whatever, meaning X period of time. However I would expect it to be more than one cultural generation so yes 100 should be fine.
> In conclusion, literally every word you just
> said bullshit. Not so "hilarious" to
> It was only once. My bad.
> So first we have you misrepresenting what I said
> then him reading what you say and repeating the
> same misrepresentation. Bravo fellas.
> > There you go with that crystal ball again. Your
> > self styled ability to see into the mind of
> > another.
> So be honest and just answer the question
> then Jon-were you or were you not implying because
> of the later addition of the reliefs that the
> Temple was built by someone other than the Greeks
> or Egyptians, i.e. long before either by an as yet
> unknown culture? I know you were. You know you
> were. Origyptian knows you were which he
> wholeheartedly agrees.
Crystal ball again or voices in your head??
You are creating your own narrative and then arguing against your own narrative.
As does anyone else
> following along with this drivel. I do not need a
> crystal ball as I am a student of history, even
> yours here on these boards. And neither do I need
> to see in your mind as your words lay it bare with
> no special powers of mine.
> > Had it ever occurred to you that this
> > was about analyses through design and
> To what end?
Because that's what art analyses is. The analyses of an artwork/architecture without prior knowledge of said artwork.
We don't always have documentary evidence.
According to you, in this case I was correct. The artwork was applied by a culture divorced from the original construction culture.
To simply show that the reliefs were
> added later regardless of when it was originally
> constructed or to show the structure was not built
> by the people it is ascribed to? Be honest now.
> Much occurs to me, I have a crystal ball and can
> read minds remember?
It seem so.
> And would not part of this discussion be to
> explain why this is? Or do we just make the
> observation and not care about the history behind
> it, the who, when and why, and make up whatever
> comes to our minds to fill in the gaps?
In the case of no documentary or little historical evidence we have no option. In this case visual analyses worked.
I'm trained to do it. I'm qualified to do it at post graduate level, It's what I do.
> You saw the picture posted by Origpyptian and
> thought "hmm, that's odd". Your next thought was
> to downloaded the photo and study it which you
> came to the conclusion, rightly so, that the
> reliefs were added after the fact which you imply
> means that the temple was made by a culture other
> than the ones who made the reliefs namely one that
> existed before the AE themselves let alone the
> Ptolemies. Please don't tell me I am wrong.
Crystal ball again. Take it to the shop for a re-tune. Or make an appointment to see a psychiatrist.
> Did it ever occur to you to research what the
> reliefs they meant and/or said? Who made them?
> When? Why?
It was an exercise in visual analyses. Which worked beautifully.
Which can also be applied to structures and artworks for which there is no known documentation.
Before carrying out an analyses of any art work it beneficial to clear your mind in as far as possible of any pre-conceived notions or data.
If data does exist then it can be compared with the analyses and if in agreement then fine, if not then further discussion takes place.
When was the temple built? Who built
> it? Apparently not. It must be nice knowing all
> the answers before the questions are even asked.
So are we in agreement that this would have been close to the original designed and intended appearance of the facade as opposed to what we see today?