Most historians are quite fond of dates and eras, while Feldman is concerned with the objects, their ultimate purpose, and what they say about the culture as a whole, above all else. As with many cultures, symbolism is highly important in much of the Ugarit artworks, and the descriptions of the many figurines showed religious and cultural overtones. It was interesting that ivory was such a prevalent medium for the work, and indicates the detail of the work and the craftspeople, because ivory is a relatively soft medium and can be broken or chipped if it is not crafted with care. Throughout the article, the idea of "International Style" comes through as the author uses illustrations of Ugarit works with those of other cultures. She proves her point by doing this, and makes the article a bit more interesting, too. It seems many items may have been created in one place, and spread out throughout the country, which also backs up Feldman's theory of "International Style." Ultimately, her assessment shows that the items created during this time throughout the Mediterranean had many commonalities, and it seems that they are telling a story of cohesiveness rather than diversity. Each civilization was different, but shared more commonalities than we might think today. It shows that people are more alike than different, and art can transcend differences to unite cultures in harmony and beauty.

My assessment of this article is that it is extremely scholarly and a bit intimidating at first. Some...

At first, I wondered why she chose Ugarit to study, because it was unfamiliar to me, and it seems unfamiliar to many others, too. "She did say it was a "microcosm of multiple artistic forms, making it a particularly informative case study of artistic internationalism" (Feldman, pg. 1). It took several pages until she finally revealed how important Ugarit was in trade and prosperity. However, it would seem that some of the larger civilizations, such as Greece or Rome, might yield even more diverse results, as they were centers for the arts, trade, and commerce. It is clear the author knows her material, and that she is writing for a specific, quite scholarly audience. The article would have been far more interesting to the lay reader had she toned down her vocabulary and bit and made it clearer what she really meant. The article required several readings and a dictionary for final understanding, and it seems Feldman is a fine art historian, but is unable to communicate with anyone other than her scholarly peers. I enjoy reading about history, and truly appreciated learning more about the culture and art of this area, but the article was so difficult to slog through, it took quite a bit out of the enjoyment of the piece.