Comparing the Statue of the Royal Scribe Yuni and the Statue of St. John of Patmos
Upon viewing the statue of the Royal Scribe Yuni (33.2.1) and the “Gothic stone” statue of St. John of Patmos (17.120.4), I noticed the few similarities and many differences they possessed when compared with one another. Both works reflexed the style of artwork done during it’s period.
The statue of the Royal Scribe Yuni was found in the tomb of his father, Amenhotep. In this sculpture Yuni is shown kneeling and holding a highly decorative carved shrine. Within this shrine is a miniature figure of Osirus, the god of the underworld. Yuni is dressed in what is considered to be costume for persons of high status at the time, such as a curled wig and papyrus sandals. He wears a double-strand necklace of large lenticular beads known as the “gold of valor”. Two holes located at either side of his neck may have been for the placement of the “real garlands”. The statue of Yuni once had eyes of semi-precious stone in metal sockets. On either side of the back pillar lies a relief of Rennutet, Yuni’s wi...
The difference between an archaic statue such as Kroisos (fig. 5-11) and a classical statue such as Doryphoros (fig. 5-42) may not seem very great in a single glance. In fact, you may not notice any differences in that one glance. Yet, if you were to look at them closely, you can see that these two statues actually have very little in common.
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
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.
A sense of royal dignity, composure, and stability are created by the facial expression, the fixed pose, and the rectangular throne and high base from which the proportioned and frontal figure emerges. Cracks in the face, neck, and torso indicate ancient damage sustained by the sculpture.
Also, the sculpture named Kroisos (Kouros from Anavysos). ca. 540-525 BCE. Compare with the Kouros, both of them are freestanding, painted sculpture. Kroisos has a greater body than Kouros, and I can image that the flesh, sinew and bones inside the stone. And as for Kroisos’s facial expression is more naturalistic than Kouros. His lips are drawn up that becomes an artificial smile, I mean the archaic smile, but not reflect in his
In the following essay, I will be comparing the Hagia Sophia in the City of Istanbul, and the Suleymaniye Mosque of Istanbul. Both of these pieces of art are very significant to the in modern-day Turkey. The art pieces will be covered in more detail further on in this comparative essay, and finally, I will be judging the pieces at the end of this essay
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.
Description: A coffin. It is normally two pieces, a top and bottom, but it is now contrived to look like one cohesive piece. The coffin has a realistic face that is uniquely colored green with a beard that is plaited (braided) and turns upward. These attributes are done in homage to Osiris – who is said to be the Lord of the Underworld and the god of resurrection. The head of the coffin has been adorned with a traditionally worn Egyptian nemes headdress and a traditional collar necklace trimmed in tear drops is placed around the neck area. The bodily outlines are subtle, but in close examination, you can see the meticulous efforts added by the sculptor. This coffin is lucid, but uses line in remarkable patterns for detail. The base of the coffin has a prayer to Osiris along with the name of the deceased inscribed. This artifact represents Horankh’s coffin for his bodily remains.
The painting was so popular, that he made its numerous versions with sightliest differences. The version presented in Metropolitan Museum, descended through the famil...
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.
Both statues are double portrait with two figures standing side by side. They are joined together to create one single unit with a frontal pose. Both statues are reliefs that are united to their wife as a symbolic gesture of embrace. Yuny and Renenutet medium is limestone and paint, meanwhile Menkaure and his wife medium is greywacke. Menkaure and his wife is wearing a royal traditional custom emphasizing power through headdress, beard, and royal knit. However, Yuny and Renenutet is wearing a less traditional custom, but more fashionable emphasizing the importance and power through head gear and clothing only. Individually Yuny and Renenutet and Menkaure and his wife has many similarities and
The artists of the Baroque had a remarkably different style than artists of the Renaissance due to their different approach to form, space, and composition. This extreme differentiation in style resulted in a very different treatment of narrative. Perhaps this drastic stylistic difference between the Renaissance and Baroque in their treatment of form, space, and composition and how these characteristics effect the narrative of a painting cannot be seen more than in comparing Perugino’s Christ Delivering the Keys of the Kingdom to St. Peter from the Early Renaissance to Caravaggio’s Conversion of St. Paul from the Baroque.Perugino was one of the greatest masters of the Early Renaissance whose style ischaracterized by the Renaissance ideals of purity, simplicity, and exceptional symmetry of composition. His approach to form in Christ Delivering the Keys of the Kingdom to St.Peter was very linear. He outlined all the figures with a black line giving them a sense of stability, permanence, and power in their environment, but restricting the figures’ sense of movement. In fact, the figures seem to not move at all, but rather are merely locked at a specific moment in time by their rigid outline. Perugino’s approach to the figures’themselves is extremely humanistic and classical. He shines light on the figures in a clear, even way, keeping with the rational and uncluttered meaning of the work. His figures are all locked in a contrapposto pose engaging in intellectual conversation with their neighbor, giving a strong sense of classical rationality. The figures are repeated over and over such as this to convey a rational response and to show the viewer clarity. Perugino’s approach to space was also very rational and simple. He organizes space along three simple planes: foreground, middle ground, and background. Christ and Saint Peter occupy the center foreground and solemn choruses of saints and citizens occupy the rest of the foreground. The middle distance is filled with miscellaneous figures, which complement the front group, emphasizing its density and order, by their scattered arrangement. Buildings from the Renaissance and triumphal arches from Roman antiquity occupy the background, reinforcing the overall classical message to the
The “Sacred Tree,” (fig. 1) was originally positioned behind the king’s throne. The scene shows two genii, sometimes with birds’ heads and sometimes with men’s heads and the horned hats of gods. Each of the winged figures holds a bucket and reaches out with an oval object toward a stylized “tree.” The composition has been read as being based on bilateral symmetry, with the vertical stalk-like structure crowned by a palmette. A meticulous examination reveals that although balanced, it has many discrepancies on both sides that deviate from perfect mirror symmetry. Ashurnasirpal appears twice, shown from two sides, dressed in ceremonial robes and holding a mace connoting his authority. The figure of the king on the right makes an invocative gesture a god in a winged disk in the top center of the relief. Ashur, the national god or Shamash, the god of the sun and justice, may be identified as the god who confers the king divine right. On the left, the king holds a ring, an ancient Mesopotamian symbol of divine kingship, in one...
The city of Rome delivers rich culture, influential architecture, and beautiful scenery that collectively demonstrate a course of great history and a prominent civilization. There are various structures from Imperial Rome that are highly recognized and mentioned within artistic research. Some examples include the Pantheon, Basilica Ulpia, Flavian Amphitheater, Arch of Titus, and Column of Trajan. Also referred to as Trajan’s Column, the iconic sculpture retains a prestigious appearance as it’s shown with characteristics of empowering height and intricate detail (Fig. 1). When analyzing such a remarkable piece of artwork one should consider the different elements that pertain to the subject matter and historical context. With that in mind, this paper presents the argument that the column is not only a portrayal of the Dacian Wars but also a funerary monument, paradigm of military inspiration, and tribute to Trajan’s reign.