Felipe Guaman Poma de Ayala created his drawing, Execution of Atahualpa, to depict his idea of what actually happened during the execution of the famous Incan ruler, Atahualpa. Poma de Ayala uses the concept of a foreground, mid ground and background to give a sense of depth in the drawing. In the foreground, a man in armor is shown holding the body of Atahualpa on the table. Resting on a table in the mid ground of the drawing is Atahualpa himself, holding a cross. Two more men stand in the background of the drawing. One of the men, dressed in armor holding a large knife and a mallet, appears to be beheading the Incan ruler. The other man in the background is shown holding the legs of Atahualpa and is dressed in intricate clothing with a feather …show more content…
By drawing small, thin lines close together, Poma de Ayala is able to depict shadow behind the body of Atahualpa and in the background. This use of line gives the drawing an overall sense of space. Pattern and line are also used to add detail and three-dimensionality to the men depicted and their clothing. While the lines in the drawing are not completely straight, and the bodies of the men not proportionally correct, Poma de Ayala successfully depicts his understanding of the story of Atahualpa’s execution.
Poma de Ayala’s drawing of the execution is only somewhat accurate. He includes some elements in his drawing that exactly match the narrative. However, Poma de Ayala changes the story slightly to match his personal idea of what occurred during the execution and to make a statement regarding the Spanish.
As noted in the narrative the men in the drawing can be identified as Friar Vicente, Juan de Porras and Captain Salcedo (“Pedro De Cieza De Leon” 256). The cross that Atahualpa holds is another element that Poma de Ayala includes in his drawing that matches the narrative. Before Atahualpa was executed, he begged to know why he was going to be killed. Friar Vicente responded by recommending that the Incan ruler become baptized. Atahualpa then asked for Friar Vicente to baptize him ("Pedro De Cieza De Leon" 256). The cross represents Christianity and shows that Atahualpa
Two of the most extensively analyzed works of art are Diego Velasquez's Las Meninas and Jan Van Eyck's Arnolfini Double Portrait. Both of these artist's talent won them recognition not only during their lifetime but after as well. Both Velasquez and Van Eyck have a justly earned title as the most talented artists of their respective times. A detailed examination of the details and intricacies of these artist's respective masterpieces, their similarities, and what sets them apart not just from each other but from other paintings from their time period and style, will lead the viewer to a better understanding of the mentalities of these gifted artists and how they transcend their respective genres and contemporaries to create their own artistic identities.
Large and medium sizes of the forms dominate over small in the painting. The arrangement of the objects in this art piece is mostly centric. However, even though it is central, it is not symmetrical. The painter also touched the left edge of the burlap and the right bottom corner of it; this helps viewer’s eye to enter the painting smoothly, move around and escape from it. The asymmetry of the arrangement creates the sense of imbalance. Lam uses basic lines and shapes in the composition. Nevertheless, the painter creates wonderful light movement inside the figure with wavy shapes, which directs viewer’s eye from the top to the
Felipe Guaman Poma de Ayala was an ethnic Andean, deeply inspired by the injustice of the colonial regime, he wrote a massive manuscript in 1615 about the history of the Inca Empire to the King of Spain. His masterpiece includes 1,200 pages, of which 398 were images full of details, that are clearly considered by the artist to be the most direct and effective way of communicating his ideas to the audience. Felipe de Ayala focused on the conflicts between the settlers and the natives to reveal, in his powerful drawings, his wider purpose of a desire for a colonial reformation that will bring stability and justice to the Andean people. Two major reasons that motivated Ayala to write the manuscript are broadly seen in his drawings: the first is the mistreatment towards him and the second is a more direct discrimination of the native Andeans.
A man named Sengbe Pieh, commonly known in the United States as Jose Cinque, was born around 1813 in Mende Country. He was rumored to be the son of a local chief and lived his days as a farmer working the fields. He was a devoted husband with two sons and a daughter. One day he woke up, kissed his wife and kids good-bye not knowing that day in late January 1839 would be different. As he entered the fields, four men jumped him and tied his right hand to his neck. When they were done beating him they dragged him to an area where they held the other slaves that were from Kono, Sherbro, Temne, Kissi, Gbandi and Loma. A man named Mayagilalo, that helped kidnap Pieh, was indebted to a man named Vai King Manna Siaka. To ensure his safety he used Sengbe Pieh to pay off his debts. Pieh stayed in Siaka's village for a month then was taken to Lomboko where he was sold to Pedro Blanco, who was a scumbag slave trader. In March the slaves boarded a schooner called Tecora and was brought to Havana in June. While there he was sold at the slave auction to Jose Ruiz, a Spanish plantation owner, for $450. Ruiz had a sugar plantation in Puerto Principe and decided to go with Pedro Montez, because he was headed in the same area. Ruiz with his forty-nine adult slaves and Montez with his four children slaves boarded the schooner c...
In the 16th century, iridescent green feathers, gold, and gemstones were gathered to create a symbolic gesture, a headdress, which would help transform the Aztec ruler into the incarnation of the God Quetzalcoatl. The headdress is believed to once belong to Moctezuma II. He was the Aztec emperor when Spanish conquistador Hernán Cortés took siege of Tenochtitlan in 1521, and effectively destroyed the once great empire of Mesoamerica. Moctezuma’s unquestioning spiritual beliefs allowed for this easy invasion, and the once symbol of godliness, fertility, and freedom, became a trophy and one of the countless artifacts sent to Europe. Today, this spiritual piece is once again at the center of a controversy between two countries.
Throughout the narrative, there were a few things that stood out to me personally. For instance, on page 2, he mentioned that the Spaniards, “begin to exercise their bloody Butcheries and Strategems, and overrunning their Cities and Towns, spar'd no Age, or Sex, nay not so much as Women with Child, but
It is believed that Atahualpa was born for the year 1500, in Cajamarca, now knows as Peru. His parents were Huayna Capac and Tocto Coca. Atahualpa was a respectful person, because to his very early age, he showed the people to be a very intelligent and bravely person. His father and Willac Umu who was the great priest of the Sol died around the year 1525, Atahualpa´s dad delivered the red mascaypacha to Huáscar, who got Cuzco's kingdom and to Atahualpa the kingdom of Quito. Initially there was peace between both kings, but in the king of Huascar there were people that didn´t want him and Atahualpa expanded his kingdom, making big battles and a big loosing of life between those kingdoms.
My friends, after traveling through the Asian continent and Japan, I continued on to the Americas. The art in the Americas has three regions, North America, Central America, and South America. Each region has a very distinct aspect to their forms of art. All cultures have some kind of art. Being curious about art, I have collected samples from five different areas. The following works of art are very different from European art, but there are still some similarities. The similarities of the human spirit are evident in the following images.
...and the obsidian blades were replaced with feathers. The captive was forced to fight against a total of five Aztec warriors: two jaguar warriors, two eagle warriors, and a left-handed warrior. The captives would obviously be put at a disadvantage that resulted in them losing the battle and being sacrificed. Priests would pull out the hearts of such captives as offerings to Xipe Totec. Yet during the reign of Moctezuma Xocoyotzin a war captive whose name was Tlahuicole survived the ceremonial battle. Tlahuicole accomplished to prove he was a strong and skillful warrior and was granted his freedom by the emperor. However, he insisted in wanting to be gloriously sacrificed and refused to walk away. This particular style of sacrifice was held outside of Yopico and marked the end of the Tlacaxipehualiztli festival in honor of Xipe Totec.
These interpretations were molded by what the historians believed to be most important from Poma’s manuscripts. In order to gain better attention of the reader, Dilke first eliminated passages which seemed to be of no conceivable interest to the reader”… and “omitting a lot of redundant passages” (Dilke, 14). Since the translation was able to effectively translate and organize the passage, readers were able to keep an interest since they experienced texts with new ways to understand it. Guaman Poma’s bringing of “attention to the Spanish Court the great merits and sufferings under Spanish rule of the Peruvian people”, is revealed by Dilke’s attempt “to throw nothing of value away” from the text (Dilke, 15). The abridged Mills and Taylor translation is less like Dilke’s, except there is a resolution presented for the problem with the Spanish Priests. Some of these resolutions encouraged that the Spanish Priests “should be proven and tested for academic preparation as well as for humility, charity, love, and fear of God and justice” (Mills & Taylor, 163). Contrastingly, Frye’s facsimile does not present ant solutions for the Spanish Priest’s corruption and primarily focusses on making it more ‘accessible’. While the Frye translation’s intent is to be more accessible to a broader audience, Mills
Pizarro’s former partner, Diego de Almagro, were in a position with another where all three would share the profits of the expedition. However, just before the expedition, Pizarro went back on the deal and became knighted by the king and made a deal to share the profits with the Spanish government. This is arguably to get more gold, as now Pizarro would only have the share the gold with one as opposed to two others 1, 2. Manco Incan, a leader after Atahualpa’s death, said numerous times that greed had blinded Pizarro and that Pizarro was more motivated by greed than heroism 3, 4. This shows some potential selfish motives; however, as is true for much of this trial, this is speculation. Pizarro also took a notable statue from the Island of Coyata; a statue made of half gold and half silver. Pizarro then melted this statue down, which shows some selfish motives, as Pizarro could have done this for the gold. Later Pizarro ransomed Atahualpa for a room of gold and two rooms of silver, then killed Atahualpa after receiving the ransom5. If Atahualpa had truly been a threat to expedition, Pizarro could simply have killed him, but the ransom shows form of greed for gold, which shows a selfish
We are left with Castillo symbolically describing the events at the great Cue. Montezuma sent priests to help Cortés ascend the 114 stairs to the top but Cortés would not allow them to even come near him. At the top Montezuma tells Cortés that he and his men must be very tired from ascending the great Cue. Cortés promptly and firmly replies: "…that he and his companions were never tired by anything" (World History: Castillo, 252). This symbolizes and affirms Cortés intentions that we were only able to infer before. Castillo says that they "…stood so high that from it [the temple] one could see over everything very well, and we saw the three causeways which led into Mexico" (World History: Castillo, 252). Cortés is observing the future and destiny that awaits him and the great city of Mexico.
Diaz’s account is more believable because the objective tone of his account compared to the others. That was noticeable when he describes the events with many details without his emotions. Even, it is difficult to recognize his opinion about the event. For example, when he said “he placed it round the neck of the Great Montezuma and when he had so placed it he was going to embrace him, and those great Princes who accompanied Montezuma held back Cortés by the arm so that he should not embrace him, for they considered it an indignity” (Diaz, P. 2). On the other hand, the embellishing tone of Cortez’s letter makes it subjective in some parts when he explained the event. According to Cortez, he attacked two villages before it was dawn, but he d...
In the two different depictions of the scene Betrayal of Christ, Duccio and Giotto show their different styles on how they compose their paintings. The first decision into the composure of the painting would be the comparison of the size of surface they chose to paint on. Duccio in comparison to Giotto chooses to work on a wooden panel no wider than a foot, and Giotto went with a plaster surface with a width of ten feet. This detail alone lets the viewer know that Giotto’s artwork is embedded in detail and visual consumption. The size difference is the factor between who see’s it and what they see; the fine details and symbolism of the narrative will be better understood if the viewer can see every detail.
The formal analysis of The 3rd of May, 1808, Francisco Goya, 1814, oil on canvas. In the following written composition I will examine The 3rd of May, 1808 in a context which will allow me to identify formal elements that Goya manipulated to influence the viewers with a specific outlining message. This work was completed in 1814 using oil on canvas medium. This piece of art stands at approximately 266 by 345cm. This was common for historical paintings to be substantially grander in size. Goya’s goal in this specific painting is to depict the sorrow and heartache connected with the Peninsular war. In this specific work The 3rd of May 1808 he highlights the honor of the massacred Spanish rebellions opposed to the savage French troops. This formal analysis will examine the important technique used by Goya to organize societies depiction of the visual information. Within this work I will concentrate on these elements of color, texture, shape, lines, space, and the value to bring about my own opinion of Goya’s work. Using this strategy applied to The 3rd of May, 1808 work I hope to demonstrate a comprehension how to translate what I see into written words.