Sculpture of the Old Kingdom of Ancient EgyptEssay Preview: Sculpture of the Old Kingdom of Ancient EgyptReport this essaySculpture of the Old Kingdom of Ancient EgyptWritten by: UnregisteredIntroduction Egypt is situated in the north-eastern corner of the African continent. It is composed of two very different regions–Upper Egypt and Lower Egypt. Lower Egypt–the Black Land as it was also called by the ancient Egyptians–with its fertile soil strip along the Nile River makes up the northern part of the country. The Red Land–the Upper Egypt–is a desertous southern part with the red, sun-baked soil. The history of ancient Egypt starts around 3000 B.C. when, according to the tradition, Menes Narmer unified the two lands and founded the first dynasty. That was the beginning of the Old Kingdom–the period of stability of the state that lasted until 2263 B.C. and included the dynasties Ist to VIth. Old Kingdom is known as the Golden Age of Egyptian art: during this period the famous pyramids of Giza and the legendary Sphinx were built and the canon that lasted for two millenniums was established.
Influences Even though Egyptians were the first to build a civilization they werent the first artists. Obviously the first artists on Earth were the cavemen who produced the beautiful cave paintings found all over the world. However, the artworks that date tens of thousands of years back had little influence–or at least little direct influence–on the Egyptian art. The characteristic features of the art of the Old Kingdom were derived almost exclusively from the works of the Bronze Age (4500-3000 B.C.). Made in that period, there were sculptures of animals that were the predecessors of the statues of Egyptian gods and goddesses in the shape of animals. There were terra-cotta figures of women–probably the slaves from the African tribes–which probably were to represent the Mother Goddesses. However the art of the Old Kingdom had much more to borrow from that prehistoric period than just bits and pieces of ideas here and there. Probably the most important thing that the Bronze Age should be noted for in this context is the development of the canon of Egyptian sculpture.
Here is quite long, but very complete and precise definition of the word canon given by the Polish Egyptologist Kazimierz Michalowski in his book called Great Sculpture of Ancient Egypt: 1) The canon is a historically conditioned element of indigenous character. 2) It is a result of a mass of observations and experiences that lead to the fixing in art of the most typical forms found in nature but brought down to specific and constant proportions. 3) Its aim is to depict in the most “legible and comprehensible” idiom and to reflect reality not only as a visible but also a social experience. 4) It fulfils an active function in the ideological superstructure, which serves the ruling class, by reinforcing the conviction that the social order is stable and just through the glorification of the gods and the king. 5) It is one of the essential conditions for creating teamwork in workshops, to maintain a high level of production and quality.
Languages: ä¸ć–‡
It is perhaps not coincidental that this is the first book to use the term ‘Romanic’, one of the major influences of the Renaissance, since it is an extensive reference on that subject, and although such works are certainly not to be taken to mean something in their original source, the meaning is clear and well known from numerous sources. As in the case of ancient Greek art, this is an excellent reference as a representation of the Roman world to be seen not only in form but also in expression, especially to those who seek to see the world in more positive terms than it is in Roman art at times.
The Book of Roman Art : An Overview
The complete, authoritative, and detailed introduction to the entire history of art of antiquity, written by a Polish expert in a range of subjects covered by the book contains the following sections:
1) First an overview of Roman and Byzantine art and how to use its themes, techniques, and traditions and to apply them to other art and historical institutions
2) Analysis of the social development and development of Roman Art in general, in a contemporary context, and the way it was introduced into contemporary art and in the social context surrounding art that was initially developed in Italy, Greece, Syria and most significantly in Egypt.
3) Comparison of a number of techniques, and the historical evidence showing that they have been practised in ancient contexts to a greater extent than modern day art, including how and when to apply these techniques and their social and political implications.
4) Historical and contemporary discussion of the use of art in different stages by different cultures (Roman and Byzantine)
5) The role that ancient art as a culture and as a collective has played in explaining the development of modern art in our times. The cultural context through which such works were used (pre-modern day Italy and its pre-historians and pre-modern cultural scientists), and in ways that are, at all times ḵ, relevant to our development of art today, both within and beyond our borders (including Italy!)
6) The importance of the social and political consequences of art, in this context, as a medium on the rise of social and political systems and the history of art in general for the history of art in particular.
7) Analysis of the role of art’s natural and social forces and the social consequences that may have on it, since modern art is considered to be very ‘primitive’, since its development in antiquity is not fully developed into a social phenomenon, for example, through the appropriation of its historical and literary powers and their associated powers of persuasion and propaganda.
8) Anatomy of Roman and Byzantine art within the context of contemporary European culture, focusing on the Roman tradition in its present and its current application within other parts of the human sciences and in historical and contemporary discussions of arts.
9) The extent to which these sources have been used to create their own interpretations that reflect new developments from the past, but which cannot be excluded from further development, in light of contemporary political and ideological uncertainties about the role, if any, of art in the development of the current and future state and the development of its meaning over time.
10) The historical development and development of art, specifically in Roman and Byzantine matters as in classical, modern and contemporary times.
It is important to note that while the main part of the book is devoted to this important subject, the section at the end of the book is devoted to related topics, since it contains more than half of it, as well as references covering related concepts, ideas and
The sculptures from the predynastic period and the Old Kingdom were similar in many ways. General stiffness, unnatural positions, and little attention to detail and musculature mark the sculptures from both time periods. However, during the Old Kingdom the elaboration of human figure occurred adding more realism to the sculptural works.
General Analysis of The Sculpture of Old Kingdom–Different Canons To me its a very logical approach to analyze ancient Egyptian sculpture using the canonical criteria and analyzing the rigid sets of art rules that determined the appearance statues. Obviously all the sculptures of the Old Kingdom can be recognized as such because of the general features (barely indicated musculature, lack of detailing, and general squareness) and materials used (painted limestone, wood, terra-cotta). However, there were different canons for the people of different social classes.
The sculptures of pharaohs (i.e. kings) and the high royalty were the most canonical of all. The statues possess the very hierarchic attitudes and are depicted only in two poses–seating and walking. They have perfectly shaped young bodies and the only defects that can be found on the sculptures are due to the age of the stone that obviously did wear down in more than four millenniums. This approach is very logical since the pharaohs were considered to be the children of Egyptian greatest god Horus. The subjects of the pharaoh could only see him seating or walking and probably couldnt even dare to imagine him doing anything like yawning, jumping, crawling, you name it. The aim of sculpture was to depict the glory of the divine king of the land, thus the sculptures were done as perfectly and canonical as possible. Going back to Michalowskis definition of canon, it serves to help the artist to depict the social–not just the visible–experience. In case with the pharaoh and the members of the royal family the social component was much more important than visual.
In fact, today we might call the sculptures portraits, but Egyptian portraits of kings did not necessarily try to depict the actual likeness. For the artist making the sculpture of the pharaoh, perfection and the representation of the divine power were much more important than making the nose of the sculpture look exactly like the owners. In many cases likeness was undesirable since not all of the pharaohs looked handsome. Some experts in the art of ancient Egypt argue that they can recognize the sculptures of certain kings even if there is no name inscribed on it. However many others, doubt that that the statue of the one pharaoh contained a sufficient amount of likeness to be uniquely different from all the others. As a very well known Egyptologist Barbara Mertz wrote in her book Red Land, Black Land, the statues that Egyptologists are certain about should have a question mark near the name of the pharaoh that is thought to be depicted, while those that have that question mark in brackets should not have any name on that tag at all. In fact, sometimes the pharaoh instead of ordering to make a new statue of himself would simply inscribe his name over the name of the of someone elses statue and–voila!–its his statue now!
A stair lower on the social staircase, right after the pharaoh and his family, were the government officials. They had very high positions in society, but were not considered divine. Therefore their sculptures are the mixture of strict canonical representation used for kings and the more realistic approach usually applied to the depiction of the lower-class people. The statues attitudes are still very hierarchic and the positions are stiff and proper for the high-class nobles, but there is no “timeless youth”