The Royal Acquaintances Memi and Sabu versus The Statue of Gudea
In the following piece, I will construct a thorough diagnosis (as well as comparison/contrasting) of the appearances and functions of the following statues: The Royal Acquaintances Memi and Sabu and The Statue of Gudea. Memi and Sabu are a light brown sandstone statue in a relaxed and friendly pose while Gudea is a dark diorite statue in a more stiff and formal pose.
Contrasted Appearances of the Statues
Memi and Sabu are well proportioned and given poses that are almost fluid, though not quite dynamic. Memi and Sabu have friendly, inviting expressions on their faces. Memi and Sabu stand arm-in-arm and side-by-side, even without the information provided with the picture of this
…show more content…
There is writing below Memi and Gudea (in the beautiful hieroglyphic style of the Egyptians), and there is writing upon Gudea’s skirts, both inscriptions name their respective subjects (The Royal Acquaintences Memi and Sabu, and Gudea), though the inscription on Gudea’s skirts is far more comprehensive than the one naming Memi and Sabu.
Between the likenesses proposed by these two pieces, it is the likenesses of Memi and Sabu that I would rather meet in person, as they come across far friendlier and more personable in their limestone enshrinement. I believe that the lighter medium of the limestone is part of what makes Memi and Sabu look more inviting. The dark diorite that Gudea is enshrined in is more dismal and immediately less inviting than the limestone, and the stiff set and rough proportioning of his body is possibly partly due to the more dense medium (diorite, to Memi and Sabu’s limestone).
The Appearance and Function of the Royal Acquaintances Memi and
…show more content…
The statue’s pose is described by the MET (n.d.) as “[depicting Gudea] in the seated pose of a ruler (…) [with] hands folded in a traditional gesture of greeting and prayer.” The statue’s inscription, which is in Ancient Sumerian writing, “lists the various temples that he built or renovated in Lagash and names the statue,” (MET, n.d.). The statue is named, according to MET’s (n.d.) article on the topic, "Gudea, the man who built the temple; may his life be long.” This statue would have most likely been housed in a temple rebuilt by
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 Guanyin sculpture depicts a male, interpretable by his male chest, seating in a royal-ease pose. He has a crown, which has a person in the meditative position carved on it. That person could be Buddha. Underneath the crown, the hair looks as though it is nicely braided along the edges of the crown. The eyes are partially closed. There are two pieces of objects, perhaps used to depict jewelry, attached to
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 process by which this particular statue was created involved using a method developed by Kaikei, a Japanese sculptor. It was a groundbreaking process that involved carving different pieces of wood separately and then joining them together (“Amida”). Instead of using a single object for creating a sculpture, multiple parts could be used to make the statue easier to construct and put together. After the parts were all joined together, the statue was covered in a lacquer finish and gilt was added to the face to give it the golden look.
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.
In conclusion, the portrayal of ancient rulers is dependent not only on the style of art popular during the era, but also on the evolution of the political climate. The portrayal of Menkaure, a pharaoh of the Old Kingdom in ancient Egypt, is of complete authority, control and power. His face does not show concern or grief over his people, because he is not challenged politically, the image of control coincides with his sole power over the kingdom. While the depiction of Alexander the Great, in ancient Greek coins is deified. Alexander’s leadership ended with world domination; therefore, his deified portrayal on monetary funds is particularly appropriate. By contrast, Philip the Arab’s portrait sculpture almost resembles a present day photograph with its capture of fleeting expression. This expression of anxiety and sadness is a representation of the political turmoil during the time period of his rule. Taking the progress of ancient cultures into account, how does the art of sculpting improve in the manipulation of the medium used?
The Egyptians created Ramesses’ statue 1279-1212 B.C. using granodiorite. The statue is currently being exhibited at the Museum of Fine Arts Houston. Its dimensions withouts a base are 59 3/4 x 23 1/2 x 30 inches (seems bigger than life-size). One must look at the statue from various sides in order to see its entirety. Ramesses II, known also as Ramesses the Great, ruled Egypt for over sixty years. there are thousands of statues made in his honor to proclaim his power and divinity.
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.
Talking of the Royal Family. London: Routledge, 1992. 173. Print. Blackmore, Simon Augustine.
statue was found in the Hera's Temple. Contained in the Temple of Zeus was one
The sculpture is small, approximately 4 3/8 inches, and is carved of oolitic stone, a porous limestone. Since this particular stone is not found in the area, it is believed that the sculpture was brought from another region. The size and shape of the figurine fit comfortably in the hand, which suggests the figurine was meant to be carried. Witcombe, sec. -.... ... middle of paper ...
middle of paper ... ... The side lighting emphasises the detail and aesthetic qualities of the sculptures and strongly suggests that they should be viewed and compared with works such as 14th and 15th century Italian altar pieces or eastern Orthodox Triptych icons, regarded as stunning art and, therefore, exhibited in national art galleries, even though their original function was routine religious ceremony, as probably was that of the bronzes. This suggests that the best case for the retention of the British Benin sculptures is to accord them the unique status they deserve as exceptional artworks and exhibit them appropriately in a prestigious national art gallery, for everyone to appreciate fully. Works Cited Flinders, P. and Holman, K. and others, (2012) AA100 'Tutorial Forum Book 3, Weeks, 1 and 2' – Benin, online at http://learn.open.ac.uk/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=900850, accessed between 4 and 17 February, 2015.
a shift can be seen from idealized and nearly perfect sculptures to sculptures that had a natural and real feel to them. These newer statues were sculpted with the notion of Realism weighing more than the concept of Idealism. The subjects’ body was not in a state of military attention, they were placed in a more natural, yet still graceful position. Realistic sculptures also did not embellish the muscular physique of the subject; the muscle definition was displayed more subtly and naturally. The weight of Realistic statues is not distributed in a balanced, geometric fashion like the Ideal statues. The Realistic statues balance their weight just as a real person would in motion which gives the sculpture a more graceful and natural