Arrest and Movement. An essay on space and time in the representational art of the ancient Near East. By H. A. Groenewegen-Frankfort. Pp. xxi + 222, with 94 plates and 47 text figures. London: Faber and Faber, 1951. 50s.

1953 ◽  
Vol 73 ◽  
pp. 179-180
Author(s):  
G. R. Levy
1955 ◽  
Vol 59 (4) ◽  
pp. 325
Author(s):  
William Kelly Simpson ◽  
H. A. Groenewegen-Frankfort

2007 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 133-161 ◽  
Author(s):  
IAIN STANNARD

AbstractThe terms ‘arrest’ and ‘movement’, deployed by Tippett in his Third Symphony (1970–2) as part of what Kemp defines as a ‘dialectic of strong contrasts’, were in fact significant at an earlier stage of the composer’s output. Some ten years previously Arrest and Movement appears as a possible title for his Second Piano Sonata in the pencil manuscript of the work. Tippett’s notebooks further reveal how these two categories determined the formation of two distinct types of temporality in the piece: one halting or stuttering, the other flowing. Art critic Henriette Groenewegen-Frankfort’s book Arrest and Movement: an Essay on Space and Time in the Representational Art of the Ancient Near East, which was published in 1951 and which Tippett is known to have read, uses these terms to explore the relationship between spatial and temporal representation. This prompts investigation of the arrest–movement dialectic in Tippett’s Sonata along analogous lines, analysing structure, balance, and use of quasi-spatial proportions. The two threads converge by means of the criterion of ‘monumentality’, a term Groenewegen-Frankfort uses to describe works of particularly effective balance. While critical evaluation of the Sonata might suggest that this work itself falls short of ‘monumental’ stature, it is arguable that Tippett was able to carry forward lessons learned to works of his later œuvre (such as his Fourth Symphony), which do indeed approach this status.


1972 ◽  
Vol 22 ◽  
pp. 179-186 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles Burney

If there is one aspect of life in the ancient Near East which may be taken as a common factor between lands and cities so far removed in space and time as Sumer and Urartu, Eridu and Van, it is irrigation. This is a subject crying out for more research, especially on the ground. Here too is a link between Seton Lloyd's excavations at Eridu and in the Diyala region, his publication of Sennacherib's acqueduct and his later interest in Urartu. The writer can claim first-hand knowledge only of the last. Without Seton Lloyd's encouragement in the Institute at Ankara and likewise during the weeks spent as an assistant during the first season's excavations at Beycesultan, the writer would scarcely have set out on his first archaeological survey in northern Anatolia, followed by that in the Pontic region of Tokat and Amasya (1955). These two surveys were but the prelude to those of 1956 and 1957 in eastern Anatolia. These, undertaken initially in the expectation of discovering mounds of the Bronze Age and earlier periods, became instead largely a revelation of the great number of Urartian sites, including numerous fortresses recognizable as such from their surface remains.


Leonardo ◽  
1974 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 274
Author(s):  
Gerhard Charles Rump ◽  
H. A. Groenewegen-Frankfort

1953 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 57
Author(s):  
J. P. Hodin ◽  
H. A. Groenewegen-Frankfort

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document