When comparing the head of Akhenaten and the relief of Seti I there are some very obvious differences. For starters the technique that the two are made from are different. The head of Akhenaten is a sunken relief while the Relief of Seti I is a raised relief. The appearance of the two figures is different in many of ways. The head of Akhenaten facial features is exaggerated. For example, his ear is larger than his eye. His chin is larger and rounder compared to the chin of Seti I. Akhenaten lips and nose are largely proportioned as well. The relief of Seti I is created in a more realistic way. The facial features of Seti I are more rounded and natural looking. His chin almost lines up with his pressed lips. His nose is less prominent compares to the head of Akhenaten. The two crowns both of these reliefs have are also different in shape and style. …show more content…
There are slightly less obvious differences when comparing the statue of Akhenaten and the statue of Tuthmosis III.
One of the more obvious differences would be the crown that the two are wearing. The crown that Akhenaten is wearing is shaped in an oblong type of way while his crown sits straight up on his head. The Statue of Tuthmosis II crown sits flat on his head and is shaped differently. The positions that the arms are in are different for both statues. The statue of Tuthmosis II has his arms placed beside him and his hands balled into a fist. For the statue of Akhenaten, his arms are crossed over his chest with his hands balled into a fist. Even though one of his arms is missing you can still see this detail because his hand still remains on his chest. The shape of the lower sections of their bodies is also not the same. The figure of the statue of Akhenaten has a rounder figure compared to the one of Tuthmosis II which is
squarer. One of the more noticeable differences when comparing the relief of Akhenaten and his family standing under Aten and the relief of King Mereneptah in front of Ra-Horakhty is the shapes of their heads. The heads in the relief of Akhenaten and his family are not that realistic, they are abnormally egged shaped. The head in the relief of King Mereneptah is not. Another difference would be the representation of the Gods. In Akhenaten and his family relief, the God Aten is represented as only a disk in the sky. In the relief of King Mereneptah Ra is presented as a figure. The shapes of the bodies on both sets of reliefs are different as well. The figures in Akhenaten relief are shaped smoothly while the ones in King Mereneptah relief are a tad bit boxier. When comparing the reliefs of the Akhenaten and his family and the Non-royal couple one might see the differences right away. The facial features of the Non-royal couple are subtler compared to the ones of Akhenaten and his family. The eyes and eyebrows of the Non-royal couple are outlined in a thick black line which makes them more prominent. The eyes of Akhenaten and his family are not as prominent as the ones of the Non-royal couple because of the lack of the thick dark line. Another aspect that differs would be the design of the chairs they are seated upon. The seats of Akhenaten and his family looked to have a cushion placed on top of the seat. While the seats of the Non-royal couple do not have that type of feature.
These two statues are famous to the Egyptian art era. They represent the woman’s position and the man’s position at that day and age. Traditionally, the rulers of Egypt were male. So, when Hatshepsut, Dynasty 18, ca. 1473-1458 B.C., assumed the titles and functions of king she was portrayed in royal male costumes. Such representations were more for a political statement, rather than a reflection of the way she actually looked. In this sculpture, she sits upon a throne and wears the royal kilt and the striped nemes (NEM-iss) headdress with the uraeus (cobra) and is bare chested like a man. However, she does not wear the royal beard, and the proportions of her body are delicate and feminine.
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 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
The emotion in the figures is also very different. In the archaic figure, the face contains emotion other than the archaic smile. The eyes are closed with no facial expression. The classical statue on the other hand does not have any facial expressions but has open eyes and no smile.
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 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 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 pieces of sculpture are both carved using the subtractive method of sculpting from stone. However, the types of stone used were very different. The sculpture of Mycerinus and Kha-merer-nebty II was carved from a stone called greywacke, a dark colored, very hard stone the Egyptians prized for sculpture despite the fact t...
Both pieces to me seem to represent godlike features. For example, in the palette the king is shown as larger than his enemies and in the stele the king is standing over the people and is much higher than them. As rulers, they are both depicted as strong and heroic and as humans, they are depicted as
Though the figures are not far from each other is height comparison, they seem to contain a distinct amount of difference in other aspects. First of all, they were made from different materials. While the Apollo statue is terracotta, the Aule Metele is of bronze. Generally speaking, the Apollo statue appears in a very symbolical manner in that his features are not well defined in detail while the Aule Metele displays a type of inspiring complexity with detail.
A piece of art can leave distinct impressions with the viewer. The Assyrian Winged Protective Deity provides a plethora of stimulants for the eye. The relief emulates brute strength and power through the overall stature of the figure. The cuneiform writing above the relief greatly influenced the impression a viewer can receive through its narration about the figure. Other than Gilgamesh and the Assyrian Winged Protective Deity both being from Mesopotamia, they have numerous similarities.
The pieces of art I will be comparing and contrasting are the three statues of David, by Donatello (Donato di Niccolò di Betto Bardi), Michelangelo (Michelangelo di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni), and Bernini (Gian Lorenzo Bernini). The statues are modeled after the biblical David, who was destined to become the second king of Israel. Also most famously known as the slayer of the Philistine giant Goliath with a stone and a sling. The sculptures are all based on the same biblical hero, but differ from one another. Each David is unique in its own certain way.
This is a copy of the sculpture of Athena Parthenos, dressed in battle attire, that was originally created by Phidias during the period of 447-39 B.C. The statue of Athena Parthenos was to be constructed, not of bronze, but of gold and ivory. The face, arms, and feet of the statue were to be made of ivory and the clothing, of thickly plated gold. The statue was an enormous size that towered thirty-three feet tall. The costly nature of the materials out of which it was designed was intended to overwhelm the viewer, creating a sense of religious awe.
The ability of police to exercise discretion was originally designed to allow officers to maintain the peace by allowing certain types of crime to remain unpunished in certain circumstances. This essay will aim to explore the issue of police discretion that suggests that the application of discretion works against the interests of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. In drawing this conclusion, this essay will examine the relationship between policing ideals and the use of discretionary powers and the relationship between policing attitudes and the use of discretionary powers. A discussion regarding the use of police discretion towards Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples can scarcely be mentioned without making reference to arguably the greatest failing by a police officer since indigenous Australians were formally recognised as citizens. Further to this, the case of Mulrunji Doomadgee (Cameron) will be examined from the point of view of officer discretionary powers. The penultimate point to be made will involve the Anglo Australian response to this case as well as the ongoing relationship between indigenous Australians and the institutions that govern them. As mentioned, the first point will involve policing ideals and their relationship to discretionary powers.
These two gods have different effects on the story: Poseidon is trying to cause pain and suffering for Odysseus, while Athena is trying to help Telemachus and give him hope that his father will return soon. The role of these gods is important to both journeys as Odysseus and Telemachus try to reunite their family.