Anticipated similarities exist between the Roman copy of Doryphorus and Donatello’s David, for the former replicates a product of Classical Greece while the latter is reminiscent of this artistic epoch (The Renaissance was a “re-birth” of this classical form). However, though formal qualities of Classical Greece may be present in David, they are uncharacteristically fashioned; therefore, major degrees of difference are established in terms of characterization. While Doryphorus is a typical example of reconciling idealism and naturalism, Polykleitos does not provide a depth of narrative subtext to this figure. On the other hand, Donatello overtly characterizes David through his effeminate if not androgynous form to deliver a powerful narrative (Duro). From the stance and posture of each sculpture to the use of nudity, Polykleitos’s Doryphorus and Donatello’s David present similarities accountable for in a historical context; however, the obvious structural differences must be …show more content…
explained through an understanding of material and subject matter. As for stance and posture, both figures are positioned in contrapposto with the left leg bent and the head positioned over the engaged right leg. This stance was naturalistic and designed to represent the observed human form. Both David and Doryphorus are also sculpted unclad. Ancient Greece had a positive association with nudity wrought by the frequent athletic competitions between males. During these competitions, “athletes…competed in the nude, and the Greeks considered them embodiments of all that was best in humanity. It was …natural for the Greeks to associate the male nude form with triumph [and] glory…” (Sorabella). What could be more apropos in regards to David’s physical triumph over Goliath and the obvious athleticism of a spear bearer? The nude forms also contain a precise similarity common to Ancient Greek standards and Italy’s reinvention of said standards. Both sculptures “…depict rather small penises…” as a purposeful signaling of superior character, for “… the penis on statues in the past was deliberately reduced in size to make the owners appear more virtuous” (Antony 11). However, while both artists align their sculptures with common nuances of naturalism and present certain orthodox standards concerning nudity, Polykleitos still creates a more idealistic rendering (common of the classical period); whereas, Donatello couples naturalism with a visual representation of character. One can relatively imagine David’s persona and situational predicament (Duro). Polykleitos’s Doryphorus is completely representative of his Canon; paying strict attention to proportional perfection and the ideal male form, he strays from pure naturalism.
Polykleitos’s focus on proportion was mathematical in its exactness and thus created a manikin–like form in its sharp separations between appendages (obvious in the exaggerated indentation between the upper thighs, groin and waste region). This unnatural yet understandably idealistic (perfect abdominals, wide chest region, etc.) rectangular presence leaves Doryphorus appearing rigid and fixed in space. Some say Polykleitos designed his work with a “charm beyond [the] truth” by exceeding/flouting the limits of possible physical form. However, by placing a high degree of artificiality within his work, it lacks the narrative that comes forth when presenting an alternate to the ideal (Polykleitos). Donatello utterly embodies narrative sculpture through his less rigid, more youthful and effeminate rendering of
David. Donatello’s David, unlike Polykleitos’s Doryphorus completely strays from the male ideal. From a jutted out hip and an exaggerated bent knee to the limp wrist on the waist, David carries a pre-pubescent persona if not a feminine one (Schneider). Furthermore, unlike the hair on Polykleitos in which artificiality reigns through the “layers of…S-shaped curls” hugging the scalp, David has long locks flowing down his shoulders and upper back. However, before considering Donatello’s implications in portraying a historically brave and heroic man in such an androgynous manner, material differences must be acknowledged to understand the limits presented when dealing with marble as compared to bronze. The Roman marble copy of Doryphorus is supported by a pillar holding the engaged leg and a small bracket between the left upper thigh and wrist. Because marble was fragile and quite susceptible to damage, these are in place to keep the statue standing. However, aside from needing structural support, marble does not allow for certain freedoms that bronze permits. If a finger was individually pointed or wrapped around a sword as seen with David, it would not endure. This is not to say that every stylistic difference is due to the material limitations; however, it does play a role in the degree of separation that is feasible between appendages (as seen by the closeness of the arms to the torso on Polykleitos). Moreover, marble could not sustain luscious and wavy hair, providing a materialistic justification for the closeness of Doryphorus’s hair to his scalp (as compared to David). However, other than material capability, why would Donatello choose such a stark contrast to the male ideal when portraying a heroic figure? David is portrayed as a youthful figure standing with a rather boyish nonchalance as his foot rests on Goliath’s decapitated head. This is designed to put forth an explicit narrative. Though much debate subsists around Donatello’s effeminate portrayal of David, two theories provide the most foundational evidence; one upholds a degree of biblical relevance while the other relies on accounts of Donatello’s personal life (Williams). Some propose that David’s youth is designed to insinuate divine intervention; his “muscles have barely developed enough to hold the large sword…his victory over his foe is all the more improbable.” Without God’s help, David would have failed so the “victory was God’s rather than man’s” (Donatello’s David). However, Donatello was known to be a homosexual and, some believe, “the way in which the statue’s effeminacy is openly and defiantly exhibited indicates that Donatello consciously desired to display David, and indirectly himself, as a homosexual”(Schneider 215). Whether it be the former biblical reference or the latter character-based theory, David put forth a narrative and a characterization absent in Doryphorus. People look at David and search for a story because it is clear that there is one. Polykleitos and Donatello differ greatly in how they approach their sculptures and their subsequent portrayal of the male form. While Polykleitos focuses on the ideal and applies a system of mathematical proportions to his sculptures, Donatello takes on the character of his piece and designs his sculpture with that said persona in mind. Two different approaches that seem to grow from naturalism yet veer away in antithetical directions. The formal qualities of classical antiquity shine through both sculptures as made evident by the contrapposto stance and the orthodox nudity; however, what makes them similar provides a basis from which differences in structural design, the communicated message, and narrative can manifest.
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.
In conclusion, although Mycerinus and Kha-merer-nebty II and Augustus of Primaporta, do appear very different, come from entirely different geographic regions and were separated by thousands of years, they do have many things in common. When we consider subject, style, and function; perhaps other works of art have more in common than they appear to have.
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...
This semester, in comparing works of visual art and opera and particularly between works of the same time period, many parallels emerge. But beyond the scope of individual time periods (e.g., Renaissance, Romanticism, Modern), there are parallels that transcend the scope of time entirely. Individuals of varied cultures and periods in history seem to be invariably fascinated by the idea of an archetypal character whom they can adapt and reinterpret according to the terms of their own zeitgeist and with whom they can identify. A salient example is the Orpheus figure, who hails from the myths of antiquity and has been remade and adapted in operas by composers including Monteverdi, Schütz, Lully, Fux, Telemann, Rameau, Gluck, Haydn, Offenbach, Debussy (in an unfinished project), Milhaud, Birtwistle, and Philip Glass—and that is really only the tip of the iceberg! We see Oprheus depicted as well in paintings by Gennari in the 17th century and by Redon in the 19th century, Corot (1861), dell’Abbate, and Rubens. I could similarly enumerate artists, writers, or composers who have famously depicted any of the figures we have studied this far: the Norse figures held so dear by Wagner, Saint Sebastian...
Where one is a bronze statue with a singular figure, the other is a painting with a central figure, from which the story is built. However, their contrasts go beyond what they are made of, to their different subjects and their complexity. Donatello’s David shows youthful beauty and strength, which he confidently exudes through his body language. Standing with one foot atop Goliath’s severed head while turning his body to balance his weight to the other leg, this statue is a clear example of Contrapposto, which the Greeks invented and introduced into their sculptures. Donatello’s statue of David stands triumphant and proudly atop his trophy, while telling the audience I am the conqueror of Giants. His expression is stern to match his
The decursio sides are representations of Antoninus Pius’ deification and funerary rites. The depiction consists of the cavalry circling the standing figures, two of whom carry military standards, while the rest are wearing their cuirass. These scenes represent the ceremony that is essential for the deification of the imperial members. The style that is used within these sides is in relief form, yet they also break from the traditional Classical style. The variation of the Classical style is prominent by depicting stocky human forms and using two types of perspective within a single space. The figures also lack the gracefulness of other works during this time that follow the Classical style. The perspective of the piece is unclear where the figures seem to be suspended in space for what seems to be an overhead view while at the same time using a single perspective. Despite the deviation of the Classical style this p...
It is distinguished by progressive survey of movements through space, a fusion of idealistic form and realistic depiction, and the refining of canon of proportion. A famous sculpture from this period is the Kritios Boy, dated 480 B.C. from Athens. It contrasts significantly from Archaic kouroi sculpture in that the Kritios Boy’s weight is shifted creating what we know as the contrapposto. The groundbreaking movement in the body gives the observer the impression that muscles are underneath the exterior of the marble skin, and that a skeleton expresses the whole as a real
A good deal is known about Donatello's life and career, but little is known about his character. Donatello was born in Florence, Italy in 1386 and died in 1466; he was never married and had no children. He was a master of sculpture in bronze and marble and is considered to be one of the greatest Italian Renaissance artists of his time. The first sculpture is of Donatello?s David, 1425-1430. Its material is bronze and stands 5? 2 ¼? and is currently located at Museo Nazionale del Bargello, Florence. The sculpture is a nude and is contrapposto. The scene being depicted is after the clash with Goliath. Donatello?s statue of David was the first large scale, free-standing nude statue of the Renaissance. The sculpture helps to strike a balance between classicism and the realism by presenting a very real image of a boy in the form of a classical nude figure. Although Donatello was inspir...
Painted in Rome in the style of Neo-Classicism, Jacques Louis David’s Oath of the Horatii is one of the better-known examples of art produced by this artist of eclectic styles. This painting was hailed as the manifesto of a new school based on the fervent study of the antique and a return to classical techniques in the late 18th century. In this painting, completed in 1785 as an oil on canvas, David (DA-VEED) successfully coalesces the nascent and confused ideology of the Neo-Classical movement in a dramatic portrayal of the Horatii brothers swearing their allegiance to the state as their father stands with swords held high for them to grasp. An analysis of the painting’s historical background, and an evaluation of the lines, colors, and subject matter, will illustrate why Oath of the Horatii represents the defining characteristics of the Neo-Classical period.
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.
Bernini’s “David” is 5 foot, 7 inches tall and was made in the year 1623. It is from the Baroque period, a time of discovery, exploration and increased trade. Bernini’s “David” is a three-dimensional sculpture that gives the viewer the ability to relate the image with one’s body and not only in one’s mind. Bernini wanted to show the intensity and dramatic tension in the hero David as he prepares to cast the stone from the sling. In contrast to the intensity of Bernini’s David, Michelangelo’s “David” looks much more contemplative, statuesque and less “life-like” than Bernini’s. This marble sculpture, unlike Michelang...
Michelangelo’s David does not react with the surroundings but it stands alone with the little movements disguised behind it. The sculpture brings out David as a soldier preparing for war and not a person engaged in a battle (Miller, Vandome, & McBrewster, 2010). The hands are larger than normal and the arms are longer than his body. This is meant to illustrate the renaissance period. In contrast, the Bernini’s David has aspects of motion, showing that he was already engaged in the battle with Goliath. The idea of movement is enhanced by the loosely flowing robes. In addition, the sculpture demonstrates that unlike Michelangelo’s David that has longer hands, Bernini’s David has contracted muscles. The Michelangelo’s sculpture was created during Renascence period while the Bernini’s sculpture was done during the Baroque period.
The construct of the ‘Roman copy’ in art history has deeply rooted and extensive origins. Whilst this prejudiced was attached to Roman sculpture from an extremely early time in modern archaeology and art history, the construct viewed in a current context reveals issues with both its development and contribution to historical understanding and education. The construct is formed upon several main factors that have recently been called into question by revisionist historians. Firstly, the development of the construct by conservative historians during the 18th century, a context that valued artistic originality and authenticity, lead to it’s popularisation and circulation as a respected model. Secondly, the construct rests entirely on the presumption that Greek art is in fact aesthetically and artistically superior, insinuating a negative predisposition towards Roman artistic workmanship and aesthetics. Lastly, technological advancements aiding historiography have asserted the fact that many conclusions drawn by conservative historians through their methodology are in fact irrefutably incorrect. While the basis for much of the conservative historians argument has been seen as flawed, or otherwise seriously questioned in terms of accurate and reliable history, the construct of ‘Roman copies’ of Greek originals has remained a legitimised understanding and interpretation of Roman art for centuries. The question can then be raised as to whether the attention given to this aspect of history is worth the fact that much of the history being taught is now being heavily questioned.
The masculine and idealized form of the human body is an ever-present characteristic of Michelangelo’s sculpture. Many people over the years have speculated why this may be, but there has never been a definitive answer, and probably never will be. Through all of his sculpture there is a distinct classical influence, with both his subject matter and his inclination to artistically create something beautiful. In most cases, for Michelangelo, this means the idealized human figure, seeping with contraposto. This revival of classical influences is common for a Renaissance artisan, but the new, exaggerated form of the human body is new and unique to Michelangelo’s artistic style.
Here, we will be looking at a rendition of the high marble statue of Augustus Caesar known as “Augustus of Prima Porta.” Originating from 1st Century A.D., it is said that there is a possibility that the original sculpture could have been of greek descent. Upon a general overview of the sculpture, one can see that Augustus fulfils a millitarial role of some kind. From his very stance to the garments portrayed on him, Augustus is draped in a decorative cuirass and a tunic, accompanied by a figure of Cupid clutching on to his right calf. After taking the general themes of the work into account, one can then began to start unraveling the many symbolic elements embedded into the sculpture that allude to godly themes. Starting from the crown of his head, the very chiselment and structure of his face gives the work a youthful element to it, even though some say that Augustus was around 40 years old. A recurring theme within Greek and Roman culture is the matter of godliness and immortality amongst idolized figures themselves. This idea is usually depicted by displaying powerful human being in a younger light. This