Many art works such as statues are placed throughout the world in different settings. The most common setting for statues is found in funerary settings. The importance of statues in funerary settings is that they are use to project the power the person had before his death. The seated statue of Khafre enthroned from Gizeh, Egypt, illustrates the idealized pharaoh. Another sculpture is Kouros, from Anavysos, Greece that depicts the heroism of Kroisos dying in battle. The Kouros and Khafre are similar in the way that they both radiate power and serve the purpose of honoring the dead men, yet Khafre has a greater significance because it illustrates the pharaoh in a flawless form and the audience can tell that he was a great ruler by the perfect cut sculpture.
The statue of Khafre is an example of how pharaohs utilized their wealth to elaborate the power they possessed while they were alive and to utilize while they were dead. They ordered statues to be made in their name to decorate the valley temple. The valley temple is a funerary setting in which Khafre ordered 23 statues to be made for it. In this case, Khafre’s statue was made and place near the
…show more content…
The first difference is that Khafre is seated and is five feet with six inches, while Kroisos is standing and is six feet with four inches tall. Also, they are both made of different materials Kroisos was built of marble, and Khafre of diorite. The material they were made of shows how wealthy they were. For example, diorite is a very expensive and rare stone that had to be imported to Egypt to build Khafre. Therefore, it demonstrates that the Egyptians in a way went to farther extends to build their monuments than the Greeks. Most statues around the world are made from marble, but only a few quantity of diorite. Another major difference is the effect they radiate to the audience. Khafre emits a calm vibrance, while Kouros emits a
The first glance you’ve taken at those two statues, you just see a man standing there. They are not doing anything in particular, just standing there. That was only in the first glance of course. Now take a good look at each one. In the archaic Greek kouros figure, the pose of the figure is very frontal. The entire figure is relatively stiff with the exception of the left leg, which is in front of the body giving it the early contrapposto pose. Even though it does have a much more natural pose to it with the one leg out, the rest of the body is not in a pose as if the weight of the body was put into one leg. The head is stiff with the hair being geometric and with the hair falling back on the body. The physical stature of the body is moderately realistic. The muscles are not quite as well defined but they are still semi-realistic. They are portrayed as if they were tense. The arms are also at the side.
While they might be in the same stiff stance, the Kritios boy is looser and more realistic. The Kouros Youth is thinner and very sharp. If you look at the legs of the Kouros Youth, you can see that the edges of the muscles are sharp in comparison to the very round legs and body of the Kritios boy. The Kritios boy is looking much more realistic and round. The hair between the two statues is also very different. While the Kouros Youth has long, stylized hair, the Kritios boy has shorter, fuller hair. We are getting closer and closer to the idealized Greek body with even the face on the Kritios boy, with the lips showing a Greek ideal. You can tell that the eyes in the Kritios boy would have been inlaid while the Kouros Youth would have
The Ancient Egyptian sculpture, “Statue of Nykara and His Family”, was sculpted during the late fifth dynasty. The sculpture is a depiction of Nykara, his wife, Nubkau, and son, Ankhma-Re. The statue is in poor condition with pieces of limestone missing and chips on the three subject’s faces and bodies. The painted limestone shows the conventional colors for the male and female subjects. There is a clear discoloration among Nykara and his son’s bodies. The brownish red color they once were has eroded to a light yellowish color, which resembles the purposeful color of Nykara’s wife. The hieroglyphs on Nykara’s seat insinuate that the sculpture is meant to be viewed from the front view. This is also evident by the way the three subjects are facing forward in frontal view. There are hieroglyphs on both the chair and base of the statue near Nykara’s wife and son’s feet.
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.
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
The Egyptians created Ramesses’ statue 1279-1212 B.C. using granodiorite. The statue is currently being exhibited at the Museum of Fine Arts Houston. Its dimensions withouts a base are 59 3/4 x 23 1/2 x 30 inches (seems bigger than life-size). One must look at the statue from various sides in order to see its entirety. Ramesses II, known also as Ramesses the Great, ruled Egypt for over sixty years. there are thousands of statues made in his honor to proclaim his power and divinity.
Monumental architecture in Pharaonic Egypt is represented primarily by the funerary complexes of the pharaohs. The principal function of these elaborate complexes was to ensure that the pharaohs, who were exalted as living gods, would attain the afterlife they desired. This required that two basic conditions be fulfilled: the body had to be preserved from disturbance or destruction; and the material needs of the body and the ka had to be met (Edwards 20). Pharaonic burial complexes were also centers of worship for the god-king interred there and were designed to exalt his memory and deeds.
The statue of King Khafre Seated , from the fourth dynasty of the Old Kingdom, 2520 - 2492 BCE, was created by an unknown artist in the smooth permanence of graywacke stone. Although the statue is currently at the Metropolitan Museum of Art as number 56 in the Special Egyptian Exhibition, its true home is at the Egyptian Museum, in Cairo. The man being portrayed, King Khafre, ruled Egypt for approximately thirty years, during which he commissioned the single most recognizable monuments of Egypt, the a fore mentioned Pyramids at Giza and the Sphinx. These monuments of symmetry and solidity characterize the focus of popular architecture and sculpture from the Old Kingdom in Egypt.
Let’s begin with what was going on during the time period for each sculpture. During the 2458-2446 BCE. Userkaf was thriving over his brother Sahure, and he became the new ruler of Egypt. In the start of 2446 BCE, Neferirkare beings his dominant over Egypt. King Sahure and Nome God is a high relief it is still attached to a surface of a stone. The Pharaoh sitting on his thorn wearing a Nemes headdress (it is usually blue and gold striped), fake beard. The king has an emotionless facial expression. It was made for a decoration for the king pyramid complex. The symbol behind this statue could be the gathering of the Nome gods form Upper and Lower Egypt around t...
Over the centuries many statues of the Minoan and Greek empires have been created. Among these statues there are many similarities. The Snake Goddess statue was created in
The kouros was sculpted out of marble and the statue of Menkaure was made out of slate. The kouros is completely nude while the king is clothed in a kilt and a headdress. King Menkaure is making a fist around an object in both hands and the kouros has his hands in a loose fist. The kouros also does not have as much of the stone around him for “support” as the statue of King Menkaure and His Queen do. King Menkaure and His Queen was meant to be viewed from the front and therefore two-dimensional, while the kouros is meant to be viewed from all sides and is a three-dimensional
On Menkaure and Khamerernebty there are negative spaces between the two bodies which were not removed very much like the back of the head of Amun, this was done most likely to add support and structure of the statues. The statues sizes are both small in comparison to a normal person’s height or head size. The head of Amun and the statue of Menkaure and Khamerernebty both made of the similar dark granodiorite stone. The faces on both pieces have a straight forward facing look outward not capturing an action, but to install a sense of immorality. Other comparisons like expressions being plane and the balance of the ears nose and eyes which the carvers delicately etch from the rock.
The light-weighted archaic theriomorphic shrine was constructed using reeds and wickerwoods that was meant to represent a crouching jackal, which is also Anubis’s sacred animal. The artistic sketch of the shrine the author provided depicts a better understanding of the overall structure and representation of this shrine. However, he also suggested in addition to the representation of Anubis, the possibility of the shrine being just an animal where certain rituals taken place in. Similar in reproduction a certain object, the mortunary temple of Pharaoh Neterikhet Djeser at Saqqara has structural elements that tried to imitate reeds and woods by using limestone. By describing the different imitations in different structural components, such as the door resembles ajar, the author provided a vivid overview of the natural environment that the mortunary temple tried to reproduce. Because of its mesmerizing illusion, the concept of “illusionistic copying of plant elements” (Reference) was inherited, with better stylistic illustration, after the 5th dynasty in constructing different temples and funerary
It is clear that tombs and burial rituals were a key element in the Egyptian society and their way of life as it ties into almost all things they did on a daily basis. Whatever a person’s status was when they were alive followed them into the afterlife. Food and luxury goods were buried with a person so that they could have it in the afterlife. The tombs became a person’s new house after they died. Therefore, making it as nice as possible was really important. Art work and clay models were added to a person’s tomb as material goods needed for the afterlife. They were also seen as decorations that kept the tombs looking nice. Throughout the years, Egyptian artworks on the inner parts of the tombs and on the coffins show a development in the Egyptian customs. Each new development was created to better preserve the bodies and comfort of the dead.
Initially, the purpose for the temple’s existence is to worship and bring praise to the male god, Amon-Ra. It is believed by the Egyptians that it is under Amon-Ra’s instructions to build the temple as a religious sanctuary to exhilarate his great power by prayer and making offerings. Each of the temple’s features has a specific association with Amon-Ra. For instance, the bordering ram-headed sphinxes represent Amon, and in-between each of the sphinx’s paws is a statue of Amon, which symbolized protection. Over time, the temple developed a new meaning, which was to serve as a reflection of the pharaohs’ ruling as King by executing an order according to their desirable royal traditions. Some rulers chose to modify the temple while others chose to physically expand its borders.