The Comparison of Two Art Pieces; “Portrait of Augustus as general”, and “Khafre enthroned” Baillie Oberther Genesee Community College ABSTRACT In this paper I am exploring “Portrait of Augustus as general” and “Khafre enthroned”. From exploring and getting to know the Statues in my Art History Book I have compared these statues (Kleiner, 2013). The first and most obvious similarity between the two is in the artists’ idealization and immortalization of their subjects. Both Khafre and Augustus are portrayed in an idealized manner, designed to give the impression of nobility, timelessness, and divinity. The two statues were the political advertisements of their times that showed the public images of reliable leaders who one …show more content…
After the defeat of Carthage and the Gaul the Roman generals began to vie for power. Even after the murder of Cesar was retaliated the fighting would not end. It was only after Anthony and Cleopatra were defeated that a certain peace settled over the Roman provinces. The man responsible for this peace is Octavian, who is later known as Augustus (Roman Empire, 2002). To honor his many achievements a statue of him was made after his death. Using the contrapposto pose, the all-around relief, various symbolic shapes Polykleitos, the artist of this statue, creates an inspiring image of the great …show more content…
The pharaoh named Khafre was an ancient Egyptian king of the 4th dynasty during the old kingdom. Khafre enthroned shows the pharaoh is shown in a seated potion on a throne with a look of deep serenity in his face. The king is sitting rigidly upright with one of his hands on his knee and the other one making a fist on his thigh. Khafre is also wearing a headdress as well as a strapped on beard. Khafres’ face and body are both idealized with the help of bilateral symmetry. Khafre is perfectly symmetrical on both sides; his pose is also both frontal and ridged. The Sculptor shows all movement, however, still showing eternal stillness (Kleiner, 2013). The statue of Khafre is an image of unbridled power. This work, life-sized and carved from diorite (an extremely hard and difficult-to-work stone) portrays the Pharaoh Khafre, sitting immobile. This piece of art uses the Egyptian canon of proportions, creating a very idealized figure (Kleiner,
The difference between an archaic statue such as Kroisos (fig. 5-11) and a classical statue such as Doryphoros (fig. 5-42) may not seem very great in a single glance. In fact, you may not notice any differences in that one glance. Yet, if you were to look at them closely, you can see that these two statues actually have very little in common.
We find that, in conclusion, that these pieces are very similar in many ways. They are both originally created in the same style and time period. They are Hellenistic and dramatic, although in their own, individualistic way. Each sculpture was created in different mediums and have different stories. These are both very individualistic pieces of Greco/Roman sculpture that has influenced many artists throughout time and will
The Statue of a kouros and the Portrait statue of a boy both depict similar subjects, however are greatly different in how they accomplish this task. Through detail, or lack there of, the Greeks and Romans are able to display a certain value they have in its members. These two statues were made about 500 years apart and approach the sculpting process quit differently. The Greek statue seems to use geometric exaggerated lines to form the body while the Romans use a more realistic approach and sculpt the body with a more rounded finish. Statue of a kouros, from about 590 B.C and Portrait of a boy, from about the first century, do not share any great technical aspects and are basically nothing alike.
Each Roman portrait is an imperial commemorative relief and are representations of each subject’s ideology in ruling. The Roman portraits allegorically communicate these ideologies through the veristic image of the ruler. The portrayals of their emotions are also pragmatic. The way the leader’s image is portrayed, (i.e. by the way they choose to wear their hair and beard), depicts how their leadership will be perceived.
In conclusion, the portrayal of ancient rulers is dependent not only on the style of art popular during the era, but also on the evolution of the political climate. The portrayal of Menkaure, a pharaoh of the Old Kingdom in ancient Egypt, is of complete authority, control and power. His face does not show concern or grief over his people, because he is not challenged politically, the image of control coincides with his sole power over the kingdom. While the depiction of Alexander the Great, in ancient Greek coins is deified. Alexander’s leadership ended with world domination; therefore, his deified portrayal on monetary funds is particularly appropriate. By contrast, Philip the Arab’s portrait sculpture almost resembles a present day photograph with its capture of fleeting expression. This expression of anxiety and sadness is a representation of the political turmoil during the time period of his rule. Taking the progress of ancient cultures into account, how does the art of sculpting improve in the manipulation of the medium used?
...ars after Khafre’s reign, the fourth dynasty was just the beginning. Monumental Egypt, although it existed in burial tombs before Khafre’s reign, truly became a traditional pattern in the fourth dynasty. Khafre’s seated ka statues were numerous and perhaps the beginning of the formulaic sculpting of Egyptian ka statues. The King Khafre Seated that is at the Metropolitan Museum of Art now is not only the best ka statue of Khafre in existence, but perhaps one of the best examples of classic Egyptian sculpture from the Old Kingdom.
Both of these pieces of art have much in common. Their functions are almost identical. Both were used to mark burial sites and to honor the deceased buried there. The body language of both the pieces’ figures are similar, with one seated and several others standing around them. Neither has color, but unlike the grave stele, the funerary banquet does show some degree of emotion. The figures in the banquet scene have slight smiles. These pieces played an important role in their times, honoring those who had passed on to the afterlife. For both of these people, it was important to memorialize them very similar to our practices today.
For my final project I chose to compare two works of art from ancient Mesopotamia. A visual work of art and a literary one. The visual work of art I chose was the Statuettes of Worshipers which were created around 2900 to 2350 BCE at the Square Temple at Eshnunna, a city in ancient Mesopotamia. The literary artwork I have chosen is the Epic of Gilgamesh written roughly around 2800 BCE by author or authors unknown. It was set in Uruk, another city in ancient Mesopotamia. Both of these works of art share a common theme; the theme of immortality. It is my hopes that within this paper I can accurately show how each of these works of art express this theme, and how it relates to modern society.
Octavian enabled the long, nonviolent time of the Pax Romana, (Latin for Roman peace) by changing Rome from a frail, collapsing republican government to a powerful empire. He is known as the first, and one of the greatest, Roman Emperors ever. Octavian was born on September 23, 63 BC, and died in 14 AD. Born with the name Gaius Octavius Thurinus, he was adopted posthumously by his great-uncle Gaius Julius Caesar via his will, and then was named Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus. This happened in 44 BC when his great uncle, Julius Caesar, was assassinated by a group of conspirators. Additionally, he received the name “Augustus” a term meaning “the revered one” from the Roman Senate in 27 BC. Because of the various names he had, it is common to call him Octavius while referring to the events that between 63 and 44 BC, Octavian when referring to events between 44 and 27 BC, and Augustus when referring to events after 27 BC. Octavian is arguably the single most important figure in Roman history. Ever since he was a young boy, he was destined to become the next great leader. For example, Octavian along with his friend Marcus Agrippa went to visit the Sibyl of Cumae (oracle). When the Sibyl saw him, she bowed at his feet and said that he would be the next great leader. He did not believe her at the time, but just a few years later Julius Caesar would be dead and he would have power. Over the course of his long and spectacular career as “Principate,” he put an end to the collapse of the Republic, and established a system that would stand in the Roman government for three centuries.
The trip to the metropolitan museum was a great trip to learn and to study art. What is art you may ask, well art is an expression you use to show a visual picture. It can be through painting or through sculptures. Some other example of art is music, literature and dancing. For today 's paper we will be talking about art as a sculpture. The two sculptures in this photo are King Sahure and a Nome God and Marble Statue of Dionysos leaning on archaistic female figure (Hope Dionysos). You can find these statues in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. King Sahure and a Nome God is an Egyptian art that was made in 2458-2446 BCE. The artist is unknown. It was during the 5th dynasty and it also belong to the old kingdom. The Marble statue of Dionysos Leaning in the archaistic female figure is a Greco-Roman art. Belonging to the Roman imperial period of the late first century A.D. Augustan or Julio-Claudian period 27 B.C., to 68 AD. It is classified as a stone sculpture and it is made out of marble. The height of the statues is 82 ¾ inches. There is no evidence who was the original artist.
The human form transcends throughout time persistently present in art. Dating all the way back to Paleolithic human beings our renderings of idealized forms have served many purposes. Though the Neolithic and Paleolithic purpose of these renderings is widely speculative the range of reason for these depictions ranges from idolization and worship to assertion of aristocratic and economic status even to simply serving as statements of self-expression. Amongst ruins and artifacts, sculptures of ancient cultures demonstrate the ways in which humans perceptions of what is aesthetically desirable have progressed. Two idealized sculptures the Woman from Willendorf and the Khafre statue with approximately 21,500 years separating their individual gestations this demonstrate the stylistic progression of idealized imagery through time.
...o understanding and appreciating Greek art is significant, but as seen through the writings of Gazda, Marvin and Ellen, the practice of appreciating Greek sculpture as presented by the conservative historians is of detriment to the writings and perceptions of historians, as well as the general education of the public. Unfortunately, due to the popularity of the abovementioned historians during their times of writings, methodology including Kopienkritik has remained a valued and prevalent approach to judging and analysing of both Greek and Roman sculpture, despite increased criticism. All of these factors serve to undermine the validity of the construct, and show that while the construct may have suited and served the purposes of those who created it, it does nothing to legitimately further proper and rational history of Greek and more specifically, Roman sculpture.
An analysis of Mycerinus and Kha-merer-nebty II and Augustus of Primaporta, reveals that there are many similarities, but also many differences between these two pieces of sculpture. These similarities and differences are found in the subject, style, and function of both works of art.
Here, we will be looking at a rendition of the high marble statue of Augustus Caesar known as “Augustus of Prima Porta.” Originating from 1st Century A.D., it is said that there is a possibility that the original sculpture could have been of greek descent. Upon a general overview of the sculpture, one can see that Augustus fulfils a millitarial role of some kind. From his very stance to the garments portrayed on him, Augustus is draped in a decorative cuirass and a tunic, accompanied by a figure of Cupid clutching on to his right calf. After taking the general themes of the work into account, one can then began to start unraveling the many symbolic elements embedded into the sculpture that allude to godly themes. Starting from the crown of his head, the very chiselment and structure of his face gives the work a youthful element to it, even though some say that Augustus was around 40 years old. A recurring theme within Greek and Roman culture is the matter of godliness and immortality amongst idolized figures themselves. This idea is usually depicted by displaying powerful human being in a younger light. This
Zanker, Paul. The power of images in the Age of Augustus. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1988. (P. 158 ~ 159)