More handpicked essays just for you.
Greek and roman sculpture comparison essay
Compare and contrast of greek and roman artworks
Ap art history greece
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Brindizi Hamblin Compare Contrast Essays “The Seated Boxer” and Laocoon and His Two Sons” In Ancient Greek and Roman times, Romans often made replicas of Greek statues. The Greek were extremely good at art and the Romans wanted to possess the art themselves and thus, created copies of the most famous and beautiful Greek sculptures. However, it seems to be for the better since most Greek statues were created in bronze and were later repurposed for war. The Roman duplicates of these statues remained, due to their stone medium. What there is to ponder, however, is if there are any differences between a Greek and a Roman statue. “The Seated Boxer” is a famous work of Greek sculpture that remained preserved so that we might be able to view it …show more content…
today. Comparing and contrasting it with the Roman copy of “Laocoon and His Two Sons,” we might be able to find something different between the two styles. In Comparison, we know that both “The Seated Boxer” and “Laocoon and His Two Sons” are both in the Hellenistic style. They are also both done by Greek artists, while “Laocoon and His Two Sons” are a Roman copy of the original bronze Greek sculpture. They are similar in style as they are both dramatic and expressing much pain. Both of the sculptures express a great deal of pain in their faces and you can almost feel the pain that can be found. They have the Greek ideal body and form and express it in a very Hellenistic way. They both include the curly Greek hair style along with a bit of landscape. You can definitely tell that these sculptures were originally created close to the same time. Contrasting, the material is different in each sculpture.
“The Seated Boxer” is made of bronze and, although originally made in bronze, “ Laocoon and His Two Sons” are preserved in the marble medium. We do not know for sure if the marble statue possessed some kind of paint, but “The Seated Boxer” has copper and other materials to make the effect of the face having blood from coming out of a boxing match. While both are in the same style, “The Seated Boxer” is by himself while Laocoon is with both of his sons and snakes. “Laocoon and His Two Sons” is based off of a myth from the Trojan war, that Laocoon found out about the Trojan Horse and went to warn Troy that they should not accept it. A God or Goddess didn’t like that he knew so she sent snakes to kill him. However, “The Seated Boxer” was based more off of an event than any particular story. While there is drama, the drama in “The Seated Boxer” is much more subtle and emotional. “Laocoon and His Two Sons” is a much more physically dramatic piece, with snakes and limbs crawling all over the sculpture. 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 …show more content…
yet influence many to come. Kouros Youth Sculpture and Kritios Boy Sculpture During the Archaic age, we find very stiff works of sculpture that somehow transitioned into the loose, dramatic style of the Hellenistic age. Through the comparison of the Kouros Youth sculpture from the Archaic along with the Kritios Boy sculpture from the Transitional Period, we might be able to find the key differences that created the transition from stiff to loose and find the similarities that we can discover how the sculptures can be the same culture at different ages. The Kouros Youth sculpture is extremely tight and stiff. However, we can also see that the Kritios Boy sculpture also has these elements in the design. One leg is moving forward in each of these sculpture and the sculptures are both fairly muscular, but still boy like. They are also nude sculptures with no indication of clothing anywhere. Each sculptures face is fairly stiff and plain. These sculptures are very similar in the sense that they are identical in form, however the style is definitely changing. The differences with the Kouros Youth and the Kritios boy sculptures is that the style is different.
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
not. In conclusion, we can see that the style is transitioning. We are moving from the stiff, sharp Kouros Youth statue to a looser, more realistic (but idealized) looking style. The bodies do look much different, while the form is the same. We can see that through this, the style is changing from the stiff form to a more realistic and looser form. Eventually, we will find ourselves with the dramatic Hellenistic style.
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 durability of clay has brought forth an immense abundance of Greek pottery, a craft mastered by Athenian artists. Archeologists have found hundreds of varieties in creation, shape, function, style, and artwork in Archaic vases. The museum has been blessed with one of these priceless artifacts; it is the duty of this establishment to accumulate as much data as possible surrounding the vase. In first identifying technique, dimensions, and condition, as well as describing shape, ornament, and figural scenery, one may then begin to analyze the vase. This serves the general purpose of understanding where the artifact stands in Greek culture and history. Through the examination and research of figural scenes, it is then possible to compare these to other scenes and styles of the same and other painters. Finally, one can then hypothesize where, why, and how this piece was used.
There are many similarities between the sculpture of the kouros and King Menkaure and His Queen. Since the Greeks used the same technique as the Egyptians, the statue of the kouros is posed stiffly with his arms straight down at his sides in the same manner that Egyptian pharaohs were often depicted. His left foot is slightly in front of the right, just as King Menkaure’s left foot is. Both figures are looking straight ahead, have their feet planted on the ground, and have long hair. The kouros represented the ideal form of a young male to the Greeks, just as the figures of King Menkaure and his queen depict the ideal notion of beauty to the Egyptians. The kouros emulates the stiff pose
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.
There are several differences between the sculpture of Menkaure and Khamerernebty, and the sculpture of Akhenaten and Nefertiti.
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 modern society, both the abstract and concrete representations of children are intertwined with the themes associated with happiness, innocence, ignorance, gullibility, and the allure of youth. But, if I may for a moment mimic Caroline Vout’s presentation of her arguments by asking, how does today’s current view of children differ from the non-linguistic representations of children in ancient times? If one was to rewind time while focusing solely on the exemplification of children in ancient Greek and Rome, they would discover that presumably there is a degradation of the importance of the child in society. The previously mentioned Caroline Vout supplies the fact that the great philosopher Aristotle believed that “[children were] virtually denied human status on the grounds of their diminished faculty of deliberation.” This thought process is obviously contradictory to the widely accepted opinion of children in today’s modern society. With the assistance of multiple sculptures, frescos, and drawings, Vout utilizes rhetorical questions to engage the reader in her arguments concerning the portrayal of children during the Hellenistic period.
Both figures are in a very traditional, standing pose for the time period in which they were created. The sculpture of Augustus is based on the Greek classical statue of the Spear Bearer or Doryphoros by Polykleitos. He is standing in contrapposto, a very classical standing pose wherein the weight of the body is shifted naturally so the figure’s weight is more on one leg, with the other leg slightly bent behind and the hips tilted. Mycerinus and Kha-merer-nebty II are both in the standard Egyptian canon standing pose, in which the figures are rigidly frontal with the pharaoh’s arms down at his sides and fists clenched. Like Augustus, one leg is slightly ahead and one is behind, but there is no contrapposto, the figure’s weight is shared equally by both legs and the hips are squared and level.
Sculpture is a medium that artists in ancient Greek commonly used to express spoken truths in an unspoken form. Every piece of ancient Greek sculpture has more than what the eye sees to explain the story behind the [in this case] marble.
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.
...os because he is taller and that 's what caught my attention. Dionysos is also taking up more space than the female figure. The texture of this marble piece had a smooth finish even the intricate detail in the folds on Dionysos cloak and tunic is smoothly sculpted into soft, careful folds.
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.
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.
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
Even the few sculptor’s names known to us, usually by chance, from the imperial period are Greek names and seem to confirm the assumption that these artists’ work should be regarded simply as a late phase of Greek art” (Hanfmann, 12). The Greeks were the first western culture to figure out how to accurately depict the human form which they did through the use of geometric ratios. It is also widely accepted that it was even Greek artists who first made marble portraits for the Romans as the Romans originally had no skill with the stone. “It was certainly at first Greek artists who were entrusted by eminent Romans with the execution of portraits of themselves and of important personalities in the Roman state, just as it was Greeks who depicted Aemilius Paulus victory at Pydna and later were largely responsible for the portraits of the emperors” (Kahler 16). The Romans mainly used terracotta for their sculptures and it was only when Augustus reigned that the marble quarries at Carrara were opened and marble was used on a large scale. The Romans inherited the use of realistic proportions, the sense of movement (contrapposto), and the overall beauty of Greek sculptures. A great example of Roman sculpture that was clearly carved by a Greek artist who was familiar with the Hellenistic styles of Greece, is the Relief of the Wedding of Amphitrite and Neptune. It “shows a mythological