More handpicked essays just for you.
How art played a role in history
Essays explaining artwork as historical
Essays explaining artwork as historical
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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.
The Statue of a kouros represents a Greek male. With one foot forward, the statue at the same time, represents movement and is able to stand on it own. This also gives the over life size figure, visible weight. In this early figure, geometric forms seem to predominate, and anatomical details, such as the chest muscles and pelvic arch, are presented with somewhat of exaggerated lines. Although the exaggerated lines show where these muscles belong, the detail is still missing. Looking up and down this nude body, at this miss proportioned and lacking of detail body, the hair is what grabs my attention. The hair is carved with detail not noticeable in the rest of the body. As well, although the fists are clinched and still bonded to the body, the legs and elbows are separated. The ability to move around and inspect the statue makes a big difference than if it was up against a wall, or just looking at its picture. The legs, which support the weight of the statue, have a visible strength which is seen in the knees. The head is what carried the most detail, the ears although to far back, are intricately designed. It is the ability to walk around the entire statue that allows me to see the different aspects and places where attention to detail was placed. However, he does not expand into three dimensional space; he has a closed-off, column-like appearance
The Statue of a kouros depicts a Greek man in the nude. Although he looks like a man, the large scale, and the miss proportioned features makes it unnaturalistic. The toes are too long, the genetalia is unrealistically small, and the joint lines are exaggerated.
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 Apollo statue consists of a garment that is shown in a pattern like manner. The robe does not display realism but symbolism due to its lack of variation in the folds. The Aule Metele however, shows a great deal of realism in the drooping folds and twisted shoulder strap. It looks as though the material is in fact freely moving and could be manipulated. The muscle structure of the Apollo statue also displays a great deal of generalization. The limbs are robust and irregularly plump in areas as can be seen in the calf area of the right leg. The Aule Metele displays a great deal of understanding of muscle as well as bone structure in the limbs as can be seen in the edges created in the extended right arm of the figure.
There are several differences between the sculpture of Menkaure and Khamerernebty, and the sculpture of Akhenaten and Nefertiti.
The statue of Hatshepsut seated down is made with the material limestone. This limestone is lightly colored, which created a larger contrast with the other statues nearby. Her face was carved bringing out her eyes, eyebrows and other facial features. Her eyebrows also come slightly together towards the middle. Her lips forming a slight archaic smile. The dimensions are larger than an average female size. The statue is of great size, yet still in proportion. The body and head fit well with each other overall. However, it is greatly exaggerated in size.
The subject does not accurately depict the human anatomy. In fact, while studying this figure, one may notice that geometric shapes make up many of the limbs. For example, the artist uses ovals to represent the palm of the hands, the shoulders and the knees. The man's chest is in the form of squares with rounded edges and with perfect little white circles as nipples. This...
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
Aegean art is very simple and plain but very beautiful. Their sculpture has very little detail carved into the art but that maybe because originally their statue was painted in very bright colors. The female figures are plainer and more compact the arms and legs are folded in there no gap in between their arms and legs. While the male figures like the “male harp player from keros, c. 260—2300 B.C.E., Early Cycladic period, marble, 22.5 cm high”, are more detailed but not by much. They are more rounded they aren’t as straight and stiff looking, like the female sculpture, the male statues head is tilted back like is he is singing along to the music he plays with his harp, the leg and arm are open and apart unlike in the female sculpture who is compacted into a rectangle like shape. But they must have looked much different and more alive when they were painted than they do now. But even without the paint they still look beautiful.
This sculpture has heavy influences from ancient Greek. Nudity and the emphasis in human musculature is one of the easiest ways to recognize Greek artwork other than its characteristic mythology. Contrapposto is present in both characters, Theseus and Bianor. As mentioned before this piece of artwork is an illustration from the Book XII of Ovid’s
Both Man Without Ties and Diskobolos , as mentioned, portray a vigorous, athletic figure, dancing theatrically in dramatic actions and gestures. Whereas Diskobolos is rendered in sculptural, life-size, three-dimensional form, Man Without Ties is rendered in a two-dimensional, black-and-white photograph. Nevertheless, both mediums further express Greek High Classical and Hellenistic arts' concern for a more expressionistic figure, one that conveys and appeals directly to the senses through this lustrous glistening of surfaces and emotions.
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.
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
He discusses that Roman statues appear greatly similar to those of Ancient Greece, both in material and in style. The statues both from Greece and Roman Republic were made from slabs of marble and bronze. In both cultures, portraits were used as expressions of honor to both the living and the dead. They were often used in funerary spaces and sanctuaries. Stewart supports the same principle that the other critics have stated, that portraits and statues were used primarily by the wealthy and elite members of the republic. They decorated the public spaces of the people, as a reminder of leadership within the community and as a way to honor the authority’s power. Imperial portraits were used as a symbol of devotion and established the presence of a powerful empire, bringing the devotion towards the emperor
The primary focus of ancient Greek sculptures was that of the human body. Almost all Greek sculptures are of nude subjects. As the first society to focus on nude subjects, Greek sculptors attempted to "depict man in what they believed was the image of the gods and so would come to celebrate the body by striving for verisimilitude or true – likeness (realism and naturalism!)."(Riffert) Not only did the Greeks celebrate the human form in their art but also in everyday life. (Riffert) One of the favorite topics for sculptors was that of the athlete. In Greek culture athletes were described as "hero–athletes". (Riffert) This shows that athletes were revered and looked upon as heroes. The influence of athleticism is evident in many famous sculptures. I will attempt to show how the human form influenced Greek art. It is important to note that many of the Greek sculptures discussed do not exist in their original form but rather in Roman copies of the original bronze sculptures. (Riffert)
The Romans have adopted many features from the Greek style of art and architecture during the third and second centuries B.C. During that time period the Romans discovered that they have taking a liking to Greek statues, which they placed in many different places. The Roman sculptors then decided to also start making statues alongside the Greeks. The statues that the Romans created were realistic looking with, sometime, unpleasant details of the body. The Greeks made statues with, what they thought of, ideal appearances in the statues figure. Sculpture was possibly considered the highest form of art by the Romans, but figure painting was very high considered as well. Very little of Roman painting has survived the tests of time.