Compare And Contrast Sabu And Gudea

We are going to compare and contrast the two comparatively different sculptures originating from ancient kingdoms, a bit contemporary and not so distant from each other – the pair originated from old kingdom of Egypt during 4th dynasty around circa 2575–2465 B.C. and seated Gudea from Neo-Sumerian kingdom of Mesopotamia around circa 2090 B.C. (The Metropolitan Museum of Art, n.d. /n.d.). This analysis would to try to explain how successfully the appearance of the sculptures accomplishes their purpose of creation.
Introductory Review
A feeling of physical roughness and generalness is apparent from the piece of Memi and Sabu implying that they are not from a royal or imperial background, but at the same time the very fact that they were commissioned

and sculptured are indicative of the fact that they must have some descriptive importance in society and mentionable affiliation with the royalty as the title suggests: “The Royal Acquaintances” (The Metropolitan Museum of Art, n.d.),. The Gudea, on the other hand illustrates a feeling of wholesome calmness and authority pointing out towards his authoritative status which is further validated by the ensuing description of the sculpture from the referenced webpage (The Metropolitan Museum of Art, n.d.).
Out-rightly comparing and contracting these two pieces would be like comparing apples with oranges because each of these sculptures were intended to convey entirely different impressions – to glorify the royalty and instill a sense of imperial recognition in the masses in the case of Gudea and to illustrate the physical and social reality of non-royal pair, thus depicting their status due to their social part in Egyptian society of that era. Yes, we can definitely analyze how completely they each meet and justify their respective functions.
Comparison and Contrast
Noble Glorification vs. Descriptive Portrayal
Gudea’s statue was designed and meant to portray the glorification and nobility of the royal character whereas Memi and Sabu’s was most probably an illustration or description of the condition of their social status and royal service. The authoritative splendor with inscriptions of great deeds and achievements along with communication of divine affirmation of power-bestowal can be clearly envisaged in Gudea’s figure. The non-royal splendor of royal comforters and their indirect signaling of royalty’s influence and might on their social status are also visible with inscriptions probably suggesting what it meant to be and act as acquaintances of nobility in case of Memi and Sabu.
Scale and Dimensions
Both the sculptures have comparatively small stature and scale dimensions considering their height, length and depth.

The Gudea’s height and width is relatively short, 17 3/18 and 8 ½ inches respectively as compared to Memi and Sabu’s which is 24.7/16 and 9 5/8 in inches respectively. This seems to be due to the seated nature of Gudea’s statue. In case of physical depth the Gudea’s sculpture takes the lead by 5.7 inches. The depth of Gudea’s statue is not that clearly apparent as is perceived by its line of sight inquiry when compared to Memi and Sabu’s, which seems to be having greater depth due to its extra height and width.
Usage of Color and Materials
The black color of diorite’s extracted Gudea statue is in complete opposition to limestone-sculpted and painted one of Memi and Sabu. The choice of materials also depicts the huge difference in social statuses of both figures. Diorite conveys a symbol of strength, rarity and power whereas limestone, as a choice of material, seems less representative of these characteristics or of any special significance. Both satisfy the peculiar specifications and design requirements of respective statues. It also shows that black colored materials were the prime choice for portraying power and nobility in Mesopotamian culture.
Visual

Properties
The impressively smooth curves, graceful and dotted head cloth, the reverent position with muscular right arm, the inscribed body cloth with impactful demeanor and the rounded hands depict the visual bearings of status, power and ruling authority in the sculpture of Gudea. The normal clothing, the extruded thumbs, the not-so-magnificent head cloth, the apparent leg bones, in case of Memi, and the common facial outlook are the main impressions coming out of Memi and Sabu’s statue.
The three-dimensional figure of Gudea is wholly carved out of the stone as if the material has disappeared into this impressive structure which in case of Memi and Sabu looks as if the male and female figures are separate from limestone material and are loosely attached to the vertical background support. The close hand impressions and their figures’ proximity are illustrative of their intimate relationship. It also shows the collaborative nature of Egypt’s non-royal class and how both genders served the royalty.
Conclusion
Both of these statues beautifully bring out the creators’ mastery in sculpting and seem to be fulfilling their essential elements and functions which could have been intended and imagined. Although the fact that these art pieces have stood the test of time and reached us, could not have been envisaged by their creators in the most reasonable sense.