The Statues of Rahotep and Nefert
The first thing that strikes an observer of these two statues is the excellent condition they are in. The paint on the two figures, Rahotep and Nefert, is extremely well preserved and there is only a miniscule amount of perceptible damage. Rahotep, who is seated on the left, retains the air of nobility and grandeur that a king’s son and high priest would have undoubtedly enjoyed during his lifetime. His wife, Nefert, sits adorned with an intricate wig and headband that match her bright jewelry and indicate her elevated social status. Together, the figures complement each other perfectly and provide a valuable glimpse into the world of non-royal funerary art of Ancient
…show more content…
Rahotep wears a very plain kilt and a small amulet around his neck. He has close-cropped hair and his face is adorned with a thin mustache. He has broad shoulders and muscular arms and it is worth noting that his right arm is held across his chest while his left rests on his thigh. In this respect he resembles Djoser, but the horizontally held arm goes out of fashion later in the Fourth Dynasty. The biggest contrast between Rahotep and his wife is the color of his skin, which is almost the color of clay. In the majority of limestone statues, the husband is portrayed as having much darker skin than his wife has. This is probably due to the fact that men spent more time outside and wore less than women. A similar style is apparent in ancient wall paintings from Thera, Greece that are housed in the Athens Archaeological Museum. In them, the men are portrayed as either red or brown while the women are snow white.
Nefert wears a shoulder-length wig and ornate headband decorated with symmetrical designs. The sculptor paid great attention to details, as her real hair and the straps from her dress can be told apart from the wig and her robe. Nefert’s nipples also protrude from her bosom and only one of her hands is visible. The other hand, much like most of Nefert’s body, seems to mold with the dress which itself molds with the chair. Contrasting with the very
The seated statue of Hatshepsut is dated around ca. 1473-1458 B.C. around the 18th dynasty in Deir el-Bahri, Upper Egypt. This statue is made entirely out of indurated limestone and has a height of 195 cm, width of 49 cm, and diameter of 114 cm. Many statues like this were found in her mortuary temple that has been ransacked and destroyed by bandits and pharaohs. I consider this statue to be in very bad condition because of its age and the history behind it. From first glance I noticed the statue has significant damage in many places. There are noticeable chips in the headdress, nose, and left eyebrow. The left hand placed upon left knee has completely fallen off while half of her right arm is missing. The
Each artist was influenced by the culture and location in which they created the artwork. For example, Nefertiti was the queen of Egypt with Akhenaton her husband. The style of this sculpture is Egyptian because of its location. Because Neffertiti was queen, the culture changed how the artist portrayed her. In fact, Fred Kleiner a well-known author of multiple art history articles and books says that “The sculptor seems to have adjusted the likeness of his subject to meet the era’s standard of spiritual beauty” (76). She likely would have taken offence if the artist did not change her appearance biased on the cultures ideal. This artwork was commissioned, which also played a role in the influence of this piece. Not to mention that the king commissioned this piece, and obviously no one wants to get on his bad side.
Examining the Ancient Egyptian civilization reveals much about the nature of its art. The art was mainly religious in content and purpose and, as the “religious dogma” remained unchanged for nearly 3000 years, so did the art (Piper, 1991: 24). Because Isis and Horus are divine beings, they had to be portrayed “with limited human expression” according to “strict formal conventions, in keeping with their divinity” (Mason, 2007:13). The sculpture is fairly flat on the back side of the throne, for the sake of functionality. It was not “intended to be seen in the round”, but was most probably placed against the wall of a tomb (Ancient Egypt – Myth & History, 2002: 439). In fact, this sculpture was not made
It is important to first begin with the basics of each piece of artwork. The graywacke statue of Menkaure and a Queen was made between c. 2490-2472 BCE during the Old Kingdom period in Giza, Egypt. Although the artist is unknown, it is understood that the time during which this artwork was made was during the Old Kingdom period, which lasted from c. 2575-2150 BCE. This statue is smaller in height than the average human being, being 51 ½ inches tall, which is a little over four and a quarter feet tall (Stokstad and Cothren: 60). The stone that it is made from is a rocky, rough stone, that took a considerable amount of sanding to get the statue to look as smooth as it is. The second set of statues I will be comparing and contrasting to the Menkaure and Queen are the limestone statues, Anavysos Kouros and the Peplos Kore. Both were made in c. 530 BCE during the Archaic period in Athens, Greece. Similar to Menkaure and a Queen, the Anavysos Kouros and the Peplos Kore do not have a known artist, however it is known that the time period in which the statues were made was during the Archaic Period, which lasted from c. 600-480 BCE. These statues are more life-like in size. The Kouros statue is around the size of a tall male, six feet four inches tall. On the other hand, the Kore statue is smaller in stature, about four foot tall . Both statues were made from carved marble, although some of the other kouros and kore statues that were made were from terra cotta, wood, or limestone
Hatshepsut was the first woman pharaoh ever recorded in history. Although there are a few obvious breaks, this granite sculpture was put back together nicely. Because this piece is so important, the Metropolitan Museum of Art has to be careful of what to light up on the sculpture. This does not look easy because the statue is so massive, but the Met did a good job capturing the face with light, and the top of the orbs. The shadows also reflect how angular this statue really is, and the unrealistic body of the woman pharaoh Hatshepsut.
Looking at the Stele of Iku and Mer-imat causes some questions to arise. Which class did the man and woman on the stele fall in? Was it made during the time of the Old Kingdom, Middle Kingdom, or New Kingdom? Did the two love each other? We can answer or infer the answers to the questions by finding out more about the work. The Old Kingdom lasted from about 2686-2055 BCE and this piece was made by about 2100 BCE, which explains why the polychrome on the limestone has faded so much and the edges are chipped and damaged very badly. The man and the woman were probably in the upper class, seeing as they could afford to have a funerary stele made of them and they are painted wearing expensive outfits. As for whether or not the two were in love, it is obvious that they cared for each other deeply. The woman, Mer-imat, outstretches her arm and wraps it around his upper body, placing it on his shoulder. She is facing in his direction, ready to follow him wherever he may venture. Although he is not caressing her or even looking at her, he wanted her to be shown in the stele with him. In fact, it was very common for Egyptian men to have their arms to their sides, balling their hands in to fists to hold pegs. He is just showing his power, and the whole work is very similar to the statue of King Menkaure and his Queen.
The statue of King Sahure and a Nome god is an interesting piece of Ancient Egyptian art ( c. 2500 BC ) that shows signs of Ancient Egyptian culture and beliefs. The statue is a small relief sculpture, meaning the sculptural elements are attached to the solid background of the sculpture and appears to be emerging from the material. The piece clearly depicts two figures side by side, one standing on the left and one sitting on the right (facing foreward). The purpose of this piece was probably to depict a certain symbolic interaction between the two characters.
The main purpose of this paper is to describe the visual analysis of the artwork. This paper examines an Egyptian half nude portrait art which is taken from Metropolitan Museum of Art (Fig.1). The statue characterized both male and female seated figure with a Braid hair. In this essay, I will present a complete visual description of this artwork (its preservation, costume and iconography), and then I will compare it to another artwork which is chosen from Textbook that is Akhenaten and his Family (Fig. 2).
The statues, Heyl Aphrodite and Capitoline Gaul, both contain human-like features, but only one shows the ideal woman figure. By observing Heyl Aphrodite, viewers notice her soft, curvaceous figure. Her body is proportional creating balance and harmony. Fabric hugs the goddess’s body, draping over her right breast, while exposing the left, conveying a sense of sexuality. Her lack of eye contact expresses weakness, while her body posture, with the aid of the fabric, shows movement. Merker compares the artwork in her book, when she writes, “The raised right shoulder gives a sense of movement; although there is no torsion, one feels there ought to be and is reminded of the unstable, twisting movement of the Heyl Aphrodite in
The reliefs of Ankh-neb-ef are limestone panels with paint that originated from the Old Kingdom of Egypt in 2150 BC during the reign of Pharaoh Pepy II. The delicate carving of the panels in the sunken relief presents a magnificent image. They portray Ankh-neb-ef, an ancient Egyptian priest whose name translates to “may his lord live.” In the reliefs, Ankh-neb-ef holds a Kherep-sceptor and a walking stick, which were symbols of authority in ancient Egypt. Egyptian civilization was extremely religious and most ancient Egyptian artworks involved the portrayal of gods, goddesses, and Pharaoh, as well. Moreover, the Egyptian reverence for order and conservative ideals led to the institution of intricate rules that governed how artists represented both humans and gods (Saylor.org 4). For instance, the apparel worn by Ankh-neb-ef in the painting is not a simple fashion statement. The priest is wearing a prestigious sarong and ornamentation, bracelets, and a wide collar. The jewelry kept their owner safe in a dangerous passage to the afterlife. This formula for representing the human figure in a painting remained popular over several centuries (Robins 24).
In the late 19th century, the Seated Statue of Ramesses II was uncovered in the Temple of Harsaphes, Heracleopolis, by Sir William Flinders Petrie (Horne 1985, 22). Currently, it rests in the Mummies Gallery in the Egyptian section of the Penn Museum. The king sits heroically with his hands resting on his lap and wears the nemes headdress on his head. Made of quartzite sandstone, the statue sits at an impressive height of 226 cm, with a width of 74 cm and length of 149 cm. On his arms, there are faint traces of red and the nemes headdress has touches of blue and yellow. When it was originally crafted, the statue’s colors would have been more prominent than they currently are; there also would have been a false beard inset that has been lost to history.
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.
There have been many staues of David sculpted by famous artists like Donatello, Verrocchio, and Michelangelo. Bernini’s version of David and is about to begin his attack on Goliath, as he appears posing. The statue seems to be moving through space and the action suggests that the action of flinging the stone requires a lot of room around David. The statue forces the observer to look past the actual subject and focus more on the surroundings. He seems to have very muscular legs, and appears to be ready to turn and throw a stone from his sling. This is the most dramatic pose that Bernini could have picked and was chosen because it shows a sudden burst of energy and a moment of suspense as well. Bernini’s David is different from that of
Discovery of Statues in Lagash Lagash was one of the oldest cities in Sumer and Babylonia. Today it is represented by a long line of ruin mounds, which are rather low, now known as Tello al-Hiba in Iraq. Located northwest of the junction of the Euphrates and Tigris rivers, and east of the ancient city of Uruk, it is positioned on the dry bed of an ancient canal, approximately 10 miles north of the modern town of Shatra. # The ruins of Lagash were discovered in 1877 by Ernest de Sarzec, a Frenchman, who was allowed by the Montefich chief, Nasir Pasha, to excavate the site at his pleasure in the territories under the governing of Nasir Pasha.
Concerning color, there is a stark contrast between the figure on the painting and the background. More specifically, the figure of the woman is predominantly delineated in white color, especially pale, ashen white, as far her apparel and facial complexion are concerned, while there are also various hues of grey, with respect to her hair and accessory feather. These white and grey shades are vividly contrasted with the prevailing red and crimson hues of the background (viz. the drape, armchair, and table). Moreover, one can detect colors of dark green (jewelry), some beige on the left (pillar), and darker or lighter shades of blue on the right side of the canvas (sky), which all in concert and in addition to the subtle purple hue forming the sun or moon exude a certain dramatic sentiment. Also, there is brown, which often easily segues into gold (viz. books and attire details respectively). The main contrast of colors between white and red would be interpreted as serving the purpose of rendering the figure of the woman, and especially her face, the focal point of the work, despite, paradoxically enough, the lush red shades at the background. Bearing that in mind, the significance of the woman’s face will be enlarged upon later, when discussing aspects of her identity.