COMPARISON OF TWO SCULPTURES.   Term Paper ID:30669 Click to get this paper

Essay Subject: Works of art of the Egyptians and Greeks in the Hellenic era.... More...

6 Pages / 1350 Words 4 sources, 15 Citations, APA Format $24.00 Return to List of Papers

Paper Abstract: Works of art of the Egyptians and Greeks in the Hellenic era. Shared characteristics of the two ancient societies. Describes Egyptian statue of "Ranofer," a limestone sculpture of a standing male. Compares it to the Greek "Kouros," a life-sized marble figure of a male youth. Human orientation of Greek art. Paper Introduction: Comparison of Two Sculptures The ancient Egyptians and the Greeks of the Hellenic era shared several important characteristics. Among them were a complex system of gods, each requiring his or her own ritual worship, and a love of the monumental in terms of architecture and selected art forms. As Laurie S. Adams (p. 73) has commented, both groups followed certain canons and conventions in sculpture, leading to creations that were life-sized or larger, monumental and powerful, and firmly rooted within the guiding sociocultural ethos in which they were produced. This report will compare two works of art. The first is an Egyptian statute of Ranofer, a limestone sculpture of a standing male produced in about 2750-2625, B.C. (Gardner, p. 54). The second sculpture to be discussed is known as Kouros, a life-sized figure of a male y Text of the Paper: The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper. New York: McGrawHill. Eachstatute has elaborate hair (or wigs, in the case of the Ranofer). As is the case with Ranofer,traces of color can still be seen in such places as the hair and the pupilsof the eyes. Much more clearly definedmusculature has been introduced into the figure of the nude Greek youth.Though his legs are as muscular and solid as those of the Ranofer, thearticulation of the calf muscles and those of the arms is infinitelysuperior. Thehead of the man is firmly erect and the entire figure is permeated with animmense vitality. The Egyptian carver "hadnever dared to liberate such figures completely from the stone; theyremained immersed in it to some degree, as it were, so that the emptyspaces between the legs and between the arms and the torso always remainedpartially filled" (Janson, p. The similarities between the two figures are as striking as theirdifferences. What is important about Ranofer is that he is presented against asolid backdrop of limestone from which he appears to be striding forward.The large planes are cut generally parallel to the plains of the block ofstone and there is no movement from side to side. One foot placedbefore the other, arms at the sides, facing forward, the Kouroi were basedon received knowledge rather than visual analysis." At the same time,however, there is a much greater sense of freedom and liveliness in theGreek statute than in its Egyptian predecessor. Even the feet of the Kouros, unlike those of theRanofer, do not simply mesh into a solid block. This report will comparetwo works of art. 61). However, in place of the sharply contoured, almost abstractplanes of the older sculpture, we now find swelling curves (Janson, p.113). The individualized traits of this long-dead man tend tobe submerged in his generalized features, but it can be argued that hiserect head and noble bearing identify him as a member of the upper or nobleclasses. (1989). As Sophocles wrote,"although there are many marvels in this world, the greatest marvel of allis man" (Cole and Gealt, p. Art of the Western World. Among them were a complex system ofgods, each requiring his or her own ritual worship, and a love of themonumental in terms of architecture and selected art forms. The comparison of these two works of art serves to illustrate how,over time, a particular style evolves and takes on new beauty and meaningwhile also presenting technological advances that permit greater refinementof the sculptor's art. TheGreek statute has hair that is less static, more dynamic, and moreappropriately described as flowing. 111) maintain "modeled after Egyptiansculptures, the Kouroi followed established conventions. This particular statute (Kouros) is of anude male youth presenting a proud, confident, slightly smiling, butgenerally somewhat stiff sense of self to the viewer. Janson (p. Ranofer, in contrast, is clearlywearing a wig that attaches him to the plinth that serves as his back.Ranofer is more rigid and less approachable than his Greek descendant, whoretains even in his formal pose, a sense of being alive or being present. References Adams, Laurie S. Often, such figures were placed on pedestals outside of temples or set upas memorials on gravesites where they represented gods, Homeric heroes, orwarriors. 112), "goes to great lengths to cut away every bit of deadmaterial (the only exceptions are the tiny bridges between the fists andthighs of the nude youth." Apparently, it was now important for the artist to create a sculpturethat consisted only of stone that has representational meaning within anorganic whole. The Greek carver, saysJanson (p. 13). The final difference between the two works is inthe implicit humanism of the Kouros and it is this humanism that is notfound in Egyptian monumental sculpture of the Old Kingdom. 53) believesthat by simplifying the contour of the figure, the addition of the wig addsto the compactness of a figure that is massive and rather angular. Gardner (p. It is truly free-standing. The Greekcarver was comfortable with the 'holes" created by unpinning the arms fromtheir tightly clenched position on the side of the torso; he was equallycomfortable with allowing "air" to appear between legs that were separatedfrom one another. To a degree, this may also be explained by the fact that the Kouroswas executed in marble rather than limestone. The pose is remarkablysimilar to that used some 21 years later by the Greek sculptor whoproduced the Kouros. History of Art. Ranofer represents sculptural portraiturecharacterized by a quality that Gardner (p. As Cole and Gealt (p. New York: Harry N.Abrams. (1948). This reflects thefundamentally human orientation of Greek art. This clearly represents both atechnological and an ideological or aesthetic movement forward. NewYork: Summit Books. 52) calls "aliveness," orsufficient personality and controlled motion potential to represent a realmodel and not merely an idealized physical being. Comparison of Two Sculptures The ancient Egyptians and the Greeks of the Hellenic era sharedseveral important characteristics. The store itself must be transformed and cannot be allowedto remain inert, neutral matter. Art Through the Ages. (1986). Ranofer is a formal standing figure facing directly forward with leftfoot advanced and arms held closely to the side. Made ofpainted limestone, Ranofer wears a sheer kilt-like garment, a pectoralcollar of office and a formally arranged wig. The first is an Egyptian statute of Ranofer, a limestonesculpture of a standing male produced in about 275 -2625, B.C. New York: Harcourt,Brace, and Company. This Old Kingdom work is a figure that is almost overpowering inits three-dimensional firmness and immobility (Janson, p. A History of Western Art. 112). As Laurie S.Adams (p. In this sculpture, we see a cubic view of the human form in fullforce. The marble allowed thesculptor to create a softer, more opaque sense of skin over muscle than waspossible for the Egyptian sculpture using limestone as his base material. What results, inessence, is an architectural statement as well as a sculptural statement(Gardner, p. There are never any holes to be found in Egyptian sculpture, and theRanofer is no exception. Janson, H.W. This is sculpture partially in the round and whileEgyptian artists of this period did produce fully articulated sculptures inwhich no dependence on a solid stone backing was required, much of thesculptural art of this particular era tends to have been balanced by sometype of rear wall or, in the case of seated figures, a throne (Adams, pp.74-75). 112). The Greek carver, however, have discovered thetechniques which liberated him from the necessity of relying upon what wasessentially "high relief," even in the more monumental statues of thepharaohs and their courtiers such as Ranofer (Janson, p. Both are rendered with characteristic stylizations. As we move to the era of Greece's greatest glory in about 5 , B.C.,we encounter a new approach to the human form that is less angular, lessrigid, somewhat less formal, and much more anatomically intelligent (Coleand Gealt, p. The second sculpture to be discussed is known as Kouros, a life-sizedfigure of a male youth completed around 54 , B.C. 112) identifies the Kouros as placed on a pedestal markedwith an inscription identifying him as a depiction of a man named Kroisoswho had died a hero's death in the frontline of battle. At the same time, thissculpture is permeated with a feeling "of imperturbable calm that conveysthe impression not of an individual but of something greater" (Gardner, p.53). A critical technical difference is that the Kouros is fully carvedfully in the round. This represents not only a new understanding of human anatomy,but also a significant advance of technical mastery and sculptural craft. Gardner, Helen. 52). (Gardner, p.54). 11). During the fifth century in Greece, standing figureschanged appearance and function. (1997). Like all suchstatutes, this one was originally painted. The entire body of the male youth displays a much greater awarenessof massive volumes than was found in earlier Greek art, but also depicts anew elasticity and countless anatomical details that are rendered morefunctionally than ever before. It is likely that a Greek athlete served as the model for the Kouros. 73) has commented, both groups followed certain canons andconventions in sculpture, leading to creations that were life-sized orlarger, monumental and powerful, and firmly rooted within the guidingsociocultural ethos in which they were produced. Cole, Bruce & Gealt, Adelheid. If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again: Search for: or Click here to request an essay written just for you.