posted
I have heard time and again, people claiming that each and every sculpture and paintings of subjects is symbolic. Yes, various depictions of rulers and gods, are symbolic. Common sense should allow one to be able to see that. For instance, we ought to know that a blue or a literally yellow person cannot be a realistic expression of someone. But various portraits or busts, and sculptures of lively subjects, with careful analysis show certain expressions that are unique to a particular individual. This is an indication that the artist was trying to capture the full expression of the subject.
Example:
"The group was not finished, since the lower part has not been fully smoothed. Paint was applied, as seen in the traces of red on the king's ears, and sheet gold may once have covered the woman's wig and the king's headdress. The coverings would have incorporated a cobra above the king's forehead and, possibly, a vulture headdress above the queen's wig. For the first time in Egyptian art, both royal heads are not images of idealized royalty but portraits of specific holders of the offices. The king's bulbous eyes, hanging flesh on the cheeks, and drooping lower lip are unmistakably features of an individual, as are the queen's long full neck and small mouth. While the king's body is ideally youthful and athletic, one might see hints of maturity in the woman's breasts." - metmuseum
Like I stated elsewhere, each timeframe had its own peculiarities in art. For instance, as the above example shows, attempts to capture unique expressions of the real subject were made, which clearly distinguishes him from other subjects, while the body muscle and youthfulness *might* be a little exaggerated. This was the trend in the old kingdom.
Of course, other sculptures maybe wholly idealistic, further highlighting the need to examine each art carefully on case by case basis. For instance, this bust of Khafre:
"Head of King Khafre. Giza; Fourth Dynasty, reign of Khafre (ca. 2520–2494 B.C.E.).
This face is broader than most representations of Khafre and the features are idealized and distant. Alabaster, often slightly translucent, sometimes with warm tones, was popular during the reigns of Khafre and Menkaure." - metmuseum
Contrast this with:
King Khafre Seated. Giza; Fourth Dynasty, reign of Khafre (ca. 2520–2494 B.C.E.). - metmuseum
...Which is more lifelike, and in tune with many of the other available portraiture of this ruler.
Similarly this Tutankhamun, it appears that attempts were made to capture his individual traits, including the color.
The following limestone sculpture clearly indicates a relatively older Akhenaten and Nefertiti
Various sculptures are idealized, but not every one is.
[This message has been edited by Super car (edited 18 March 2005).]
posted
No, not all art is idealized or symbolic. Most of the art of commoners in tomb scenes represent realistic colors. That is when you have a person particpating in a regular activity like farming or any other daily activity then the color is not symoblic.
Color only becomes symbolic when you have a ka,khat,or ba statue. In some cases the reddish-brown for males and yellowish color for female is symoblic. When we get into the eighteenth dyansty people begin to be depicted with more realism.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What he means is that it is OK to ignore brown skin coloring in order to JUSTIFY making them look like WHITE people in modern reconstructions and paintings.
Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: What he means is that it is OK to ignore brown skin coloring in order to JUSTIFY making them look like WHITE people in modern reconstructions and paintings.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: What he means is that it is OK to ignore brown skin coloring in order to JUSTIFY making them look like WHITE people in modern reconstructions and paintings.
??
you know
Posts: 1473 | From: France | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^LOL I think what Doug means is that some people will ignore the dark skin coloring and dismiss them as "symbolic" when they are in denial of the FACTS! Posts: 26381 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry supe, but this topic has been discussed several times before.
Everything you said about Egyptian art is correct.
Take Tiye for example:
Notice how consistent the features are. It's unlikely that all three pieces were done by the same artist but rather various artists. Obviously the artist wanted to capture the realism that was Tiye.
This whole nonsense about "symbolism" is only used by folks who are in DENIAL. Anyone with common sense can spot real symbolism such as the color disparage between men and women with women being much lighter but especially the depiction of gods as being blue or green.
It's really all a matter of common sense.
Posts: 26381 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
This whole nonsense about "symbolism" is only used by folks who are in DENIAL.
Rahotep, in color scheme alone, isn't unique. The authenticity of the sculpture lies elsewhere in details, i.e., general codes of artistic expression of royalty or ruling elite figures, as opposed to what the figure merely looks like.
-------------------- Truth - a liar penetrating device! Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: Art history people classify most egyptian art as symbolic. Some of it is naturalistic (i.e. Rahotep) but most is not.
Why am I not surprised that Hore would use Rahotep again!
He's right about one thing. Rahotep is naturalistic, despite most of the paint being worn off, especially on his wife.
But surely, he can't be serious about "most" Egyptian art being symbolic?!
Posts: 26381 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most of them have to be "symbolic", when they don't fit Eurocentered images represented by Hollywood. Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Besides when "symbolism" is referred to Egyptian art, this doesn't merely pertain to the general facial characteristics of the figures, but more in line with "youthfulness" of royalty, since many have "usually", up until the new Kingdom, been depicted in their young age, and rarely in their old age...AND...color schemes [Yellow or blue for example] associated with the Neter or "past" kings associated with divinity [like Ausar], and the vast disparity between females and males in color scheme [dark brown for males, and Yellow for females]. Even for the latter, in varous other depictions and in figurines, they are represented in the same tones as their male counterpart; I've already shown this elsewhere. Nonesense about males and females being different "races" or that women stayed indoors, while males got "baked" in the sun, have nothing to do with these color schemes. As in many cultures around the globe, artistic expressions of figures or characters, if not a portrait per se, is often done so, in images or caricatures or "stereotypes" that a given people associate with or see themselves. This is no rocket science stuff. Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
Here is a woman who is not depicted in the symbolic yellowish color:
In fact, here is an example of a woman who is even darker than her husband:
But perhaps it is all symbolic, including the color of the animals-- cat, fish, birds LOLPosts: 26381 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There have always been differing artistic expressions throughout history; the most familiar ones to those of us steeped in Western culture would be: Expressionism, Art Deco, Cubism, etc...
In Ancient Egypt, one of the most famous and revolutionary artistic movements was the Amarna. It was a clear break from the staid and static style of earlier artistic expressions.
Ethnic Art There has always been a consistency of ethnic self-portrayals throughout the history of art; --East Indian (Hindu) art portrays the ideal Indian with a white complexion. --Arab art (insofar as they depict people) also portrays Arabs with a white complexion. --Chinese and Japanese portray themselves as white or sallow --Native American artists portray themselves as either red or brown or white --Africans portray themselves as either brown or black. (There's a remarkable similarity in the iconography, for example, between Amharic and Ancient Egyptian use of color to depict Black people.) The Ancient Egyptians always depicted themselves, and especially royalty as being brown - the ideal African. The only instance in which the Egyptian male was painted white was if the individual was a corpse. Thus, Ancient Egyptian artistic expression was Natural as well as Symbolic and very Black.
posted
^^Wally, when considering the histories of both peoples, do you think the Hindu and Arab artistic ideal of 'white' was a later influece??..
Posts: 26381 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: Those portraits of Tiye, are interesting though, in that none of them exhibit a smile on the face.
Strange that the only ones that show Tiye with a smile are the monumental statues, but then again such statues also do not show the personal features attributed to Tiye:
Posts: 26381 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Wally I already know what you are talking about but my question stands...
quote:Wally, when considering the histories of both peoples, do you think the Hindu and Arab artistic ideal of 'white' was a later influece??..
We know darker-skinned populations existed/still exists among the people groups labeled 'Indan' and 'Arab', but especially back then.
Although there were no painted images left behind by Arabs and Indians in ancient times like in Harapa, it can be inferred that these peoples no where near resembled the light/bright images we see today.
With all of this said, don't you find it plausible that the more recent idealistic depictions in art come from later influence?
Btw, While it's true that the Chinese often depicted themselves as very light they also depicted neighboring East Asians like the Mongols and even southern Chinese in darker tones.
Posts: 26381 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
We therefore know what it does show, and what it doesn't, just through casual observation. With that said, let's examine the blown up version of the aforementioned wall painting, courtesy of a poster here user-named "akhenaten2",...
Note that distinctiveness of all personalities involved here, and special attention to the person, who appears to be an "Asiatic". The nasal bridge of this person appears to be highly convex/hooked [for lack of a better term], while that of Rameses is nothing of the sort. Was this Kemetian artist attempting to capture...
a) "realism" here, showing the distinctive features of **all** the individuals in question,
b)or going off by caricature "stereotypes" of a people - if so, were such artistic "stereotypes" consistent within a given dynasty, or between multiple dynasties?...notwithstanding that individual artists have their own individual expressions/styles, and trends in depictions of royalty have varied/changed from old Kingdom depictions to the New Kingdom. Still, there appears to have been some artistic codes that individual artists had to adhere to at the least, when dealing with depictions of royal figures.
c)capture "realism" with the captives, but being idealistic about Rameses. If so, does that make sense? Again, do we have precedence for such, in Kemetian art?
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^^Wally I already know what you are talking about but my question stands...
quote:Wally, when considering the histories of both peoples, do you think the Hindu and Arab artistic ideal of 'white' was a later influece??..
We know darker-skinned populations existed/still exists among the people groups labeled 'Indan' and 'Arab', but especially back then.
Although there were no painted images left behind by Arabs and Indians in ancient times like in Harapa, it can be inferred that these peoples no where near resembled the light/bright images we see today.
With all of this said, don't you find it plausible that the more recent idealistic depictions in art come from later influence?
Btw, While it's true that the Chinese often depicted themselves as very light they also depicted neighboring East Asians like the Mongols and even southern Chinese in darker tones.
Hey DJ
I would definitely say that your presumption is correct. The Ancient peoples of India and the Indus Valley definitely depicted themselves in a manner much different then their offshoots. Moreover, there are a succession of books written that talk about how white skin aryans came into the Indus valley and took the indigenous populace by storm instilling elements of their own culture which later begot Hinduism. Now, supposedly Hinduism was the start of the people of the Indus valley depicting themselves in much lighter skin shades and more indo-european like features. If you look at the oldest depictions of Buddha (prior to the flourishing of Hinduism) you'll see a much more broader faced, flatter nose, fuller lipped depiction nothing like what is seen now. Haven't yet mastered the ability to put images on this website, but if you are interested in pics please let me know and I will send to you.
Posts: 142 | From: University Height, NJ, USA | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic