I am going to compare the Great Lyre with Bull's Head from present day Muqaiyir, Iraq, c. 2600-2500 BCE and Bull's Head Rhyton from Knossos, Crete, c. 1550-1450 BCE.
The Great Lyre bull's head from Iraq is made from wood with gold, silver, and shell among other things. The Rhyton is made from steatite with shell, rock crystal, and red jasper. Rhyton, because it is made from a very solid and indestructible looking stone appears much more intense and tough. It appears very heavy and intimidating. Whereas the other one seems much more soft and child-like. This idea is perpetuated by the crinkling of the gold that the head is made out of, it seems much softer because of this. This one also looks almost innocent, with it's large eyes that seem to be looking upwards without worry or intention. While the Bull's-Head Rhyton is much more intimidating. His long tusks and small eyes that look as if they are squinting in seriousness. He appears very noble and commands respect, in contrast to the one from Iraq looks as if he could be a child's toy.
The Bull's-Head of Rhyton is much more realistically done than the Great Lyre. His ears are shaped with the curve of a natural bulls, his face shape and the long, thickness of his neck allude very much to the characteristics of a bull. The Great Lyre's tusks are very short, his ears are disproportionate, and his beard is obviously not naturalistic in more ways than one. Bulls of course do not have beards and the beard is shaped very stylistically with thick curls and separate pieces that do not fall the way hair would fall in real life. The top of his head is also down with stylistic short curls. The snout of the Great Lyre bull alludes more to a cow's snout (or this is what I see) so it somewhat looks as if a bull's tusks were stuck on a cow's head. The Rhyton bull also has stylistic features such as the carved fur on the top of his head. The viewer gets the idea of the tight-knit curls but it is not completely realistic. His eyes are also very realistic; the shape of the eyes, the surrounding eye area, and the actual eye itself seems quite real. The Great Lyre bull's eye is extremely stylistically done. The shape is somewhat similar of a bulls eye but it is not as realistic, and the artist used materials that did not as closely relate to a mammal's eye as the Rhyton artist did.
The artist of the Bull's-head of Rhyton seemed to want to convey the idea of power and strength in his bull which is mirrored in the strength of the material and the overall commanding appearance of the bull.
The Great Lyre with Bull's head artist did not seem to share the need to convey overwhelming power in his bull but that does not mean it appears any less important.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Egyptian Art
Egyptian art is very interesting in the way that they have very specific proportion rules that all artists were to abide by at this time.
Humans were usually depicted in a composite pose, where their torsos would face the viewer but their heads would be in profile view. This unnaturalistic position would mostly be used by people of higher worth, or higher on the hierarchy of scale. In this scale the people who were of higher ranking would also be larger than the people around them who were of lower ranking. Even if the a slave had been bigger than a pharaoh in real life, they would be portrayed smaller.
People that were of lower ranking in the Egypt social class were usually depicted more realistically as well. As with the piece "The Seated Scribe" (c. 2450-2325 BC) he is seen as extremely realistic. The fat between his midsection is shown, which would be on any person sitting in the same position. His pectorals were not taught, but depicted as if they probably were on this man. He is not toned which means he must have had a somewhat higher ranking job than a salve (see scribe) but he was not of a high enough ranking to be depicted in an idealistic form. The great detail and realism shown in this piece shows that Egyptians were quite aware of the human form and capable of representing it exactly but they just preferred to idealize their pharaohs and gods.
Pharaohs can be seen in Egyptian art looking very youthful and appearing strong. Even if during their lifetime they were not particularly strong physically or were older when they reached death, they were depicted very powerful in the Ka statues (the statues that the soul could return to if the original body of the person had been destroyed). It is interesting that into today's culture it is a mark of artistry if a person can be represented realistically and the artwork is considered more valuable when in comparison during ancient Egypt it was quite the opposite.
The canon of proportions was a vital part of Egyptian art. This was a way of representing a figure by plugging it into a mathematical chart. Basically a square grid would be drawn and the figures would match the correct heights that were commonly used. The head of a figure would reach the top or above the 18th square, the shoulders at 16, and the knees at 6. This would insure that each figure would be the exact same height and around the same width as the one that came before it. The artist would break away from these rules slightly when depicting people of lower class, but they too would be drawn to match specific rules. The canon of proportions does not allow much in the way of creatively showing people, or realistically. Since most of the people were shown in the canon of proportions or idealistically it is hard for art historians to figure out what Egyptians truly looked like. There is some sense of creativity in being allowed to draw someone in how they actually look like and not matching them to these specifications. There is some creativity allowed in this culture, but it seems that they were very mathematically and detail driven in a specific way that was less about freely expressing emotions and more about getting a point across. Whether that be a story of a Pharaoh or of a god, it was very specific. This is not a negative thing at all; it shows what was important for the Egyptian people and what they used art for.
Humans were usually depicted in a composite pose, where their torsos would face the viewer but their heads would be in profile view. This unnaturalistic position would mostly be used by people of higher worth, or higher on the hierarchy of scale. In this scale the people who were of higher ranking would also be larger than the people around them who were of lower ranking. Even if the a slave had been bigger than a pharaoh in real life, they would be portrayed smaller.
People that were of lower ranking in the Egypt social class were usually depicted more realistically as well. As with the piece "The Seated Scribe" (c. 2450-2325 BC) he is seen as extremely realistic. The fat between his midsection is shown, which would be on any person sitting in the same position. His pectorals were not taught, but depicted as if they probably were on this man. He is not toned which means he must have had a somewhat higher ranking job than a salve (see scribe) but he was not of a high enough ranking to be depicted in an idealistic form. The great detail and realism shown in this piece shows that Egyptians were quite aware of the human form and capable of representing it exactly but they just preferred to idealize their pharaohs and gods.
Pharaohs can be seen in Egyptian art looking very youthful and appearing strong. Even if during their lifetime they were not particularly strong physically or were older when they reached death, they were depicted very powerful in the Ka statues (the statues that the soul could return to if the original body of the person had been destroyed). It is interesting that into today's culture it is a mark of artistry if a person can be represented realistically and the artwork is considered more valuable when in comparison during ancient Egypt it was quite the opposite.
The canon of proportions was a vital part of Egyptian art. This was a way of representing a figure by plugging it into a mathematical chart. Basically a square grid would be drawn and the figures would match the correct heights that were commonly used. The head of a figure would reach the top or above the 18th square, the shoulders at 16, and the knees at 6. This would insure that each figure would be the exact same height and around the same width as the one that came before it. The artist would break away from these rules slightly when depicting people of lower class, but they too would be drawn to match specific rules. The canon of proportions does not allow much in the way of creatively showing people, or realistically. Since most of the people were shown in the canon of proportions or idealistically it is hard for art historians to figure out what Egyptians truly looked like. There is some sense of creativity in being allowed to draw someone in how they actually look like and not matching them to these specifications. There is some creativity allowed in this culture, but it seems that they were very mathematically and detail driven in a specific way that was less about freely expressing emotions and more about getting a point across. Whether that be a story of a Pharaoh or of a god, it was very specific. This is not a negative thing at all; it shows what was important for the Egyptian people and what they used art for.
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Head of a Man (Known as Akkadian Ruler)
This sculpture is a bronze, life-sized head of a ruler.
This is a mainly front facing sculpture, perhaps meant for the viewer to see from every side because of the deatil of the hair, but it's main focus was the front. The most detail was in the face, with the high amount of detail in the beard.
The beard is not realistic, but more of a stylized texture. The folds of the beard are not realistic, beards do not actually lay that way and the individual pieces of beard also do lay realistically.
The facial features seem portrayed as a specific person, the nose is long and pointed. The lips are a little less specific, but the cheekbones are extremely high on his face and protruding.
The bronze of the sculpture underlines the regality of the head and the strength of the material depicts the power of the person. The sculpture gives an air of proudness with his straightforward gaze and although his eyes are missing, his gaze seems unfaltering. In the book it was said that the hole on one of the eyes was purposeful, in an attempt to degrade the power of the head, perhaps when the ruler lost power? I wonder how the book knows it was actually purposeful and not accidental. This is more of a block sculpture with no open spaces allowed, except for the smashed in eye.
I believe the damage of the eye does not take away from the power of the form, or the respect the form commands.
The sculpture is life-sized and so may say that it might take away from the power of the form. I disagree, and although it could be considered more intimidating if it was larger I think because of it's realism makes it even more intimidating than a huge head that seems fake.
There is not much play of light in this piece. The most play of light is in between the small folds of the beard which are deep and dark and the protruding pieces which are light. There is also the reflection of light on his high cheek bones which make them stand out even more. It also makes him look as if he is slightly blushing.
There is a sense of 3 dimension in this piece, as seen in the beard and the cheeks and also the hat but it is not an extreme.
This is a mainly front facing sculpture, perhaps meant for the viewer to see from every side because of the deatil of the hair, but it's main focus was the front. The most detail was in the face, with the high amount of detail in the beard.
The beard is not realistic, but more of a stylized texture. The folds of the beard are not realistic, beards do not actually lay that way and the individual pieces of beard also do lay realistically.
The facial features seem portrayed as a specific person, the nose is long and pointed. The lips are a little less specific, but the cheekbones are extremely high on his face and protruding.
The bronze of the sculpture underlines the regality of the head and the strength of the material depicts the power of the person. The sculpture gives an air of proudness with his straightforward gaze and although his eyes are missing, his gaze seems unfaltering. In the book it was said that the hole on one of the eyes was purposeful, in an attempt to degrade the power of the head, perhaps when the ruler lost power? I wonder how the book knows it was actually purposeful and not accidental. This is more of a block sculpture with no open spaces allowed, except for the smashed in eye.
I believe the damage of the eye does not take away from the power of the form, or the respect the form commands.
The sculpture is life-sized and so may say that it might take away from the power of the form. I disagree, and although it could be considered more intimidating if it was larger I think because of it's realism makes it even more intimidating than a huge head that seems fake.
There is not much play of light in this piece. The most play of light is in between the small folds of the beard which are deep and dark and the protruding pieces which are light. There is also the reflection of light on his high cheek bones which make them stand out even more. It also makes him look as if he is slightly blushing.
There is a sense of 3 dimension in this piece, as seen in the beard and the cheeks and also the hat but it is not an extreme.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)