Aegean Art - Comparative

         The Cyclades people of the Bronze Age in the Aegean Era, like many other cultures around that time, had a particular style about their works. The “Figure of a Woman” statuette from approximately 2500 BCE very much resembles the “Venus of Willendorf from the Paleolithic Era about 20,000 years earlier. These figures each hold a distinct style from the periods in which they were carved.

         The Cycladic figure is carved out of marble, which is not surprising, due to their ample supply of it. This contrasts with the limestone Venus. The figure stands 24 ¾” tall, but like the Willendorf figure, standing 4 3/8^th,” it does not stand on its own. If they do not stand, then perhaps they were meant to be carried. This could mean that the people of these cultures did large amounts of traveling or maybe the statues were used for rituals of some sort. The marble stone makes for a smooth texture on the Cycladic figure, whereas the limestone looks to have been worn a bit more, and leaves a rougher texture. Both figures are obviously of women, and it is likely that women also carved them.

         The artists of each figure left their pieces faceless, so they do not appear to represent anyone in particular. The only features that appear are a nose on the Cycladic woman and what looks to be braided hair or a knitted hat on the Venus. The body of the Willendorf statue is thought to represent fertility through an emphasis on the female reproductive parts and the belly. Even though the Cycladic figure is not represented in such a way, they have the same symmetrical pose with small arms carved folding across the torso. Also, there is evidence of an original painted design on the Cycladic woman, including multiple eyes on the head. This is thought to be another way of depicting fertility or pregnancy, so they could have had the same function in each culture.

The Palette of Narmer & Egyptian Conventions

         The artistic conventions utilized by the Ancient Egyptians were extremely unique in regards to representing the form of humans, animals, or objects during their era. The human form is depicted in a composite view in typical Ancient Egyptian style art, generally with a profile of the face with a front view of the eye, both shoulders and a frontal view of the torso, and both legs in profile view as well. They were very specific with the arrangements of their works and used a grid known as “Canon of Proportions” to craft with mathematical precision and get the same form and style every time. If a human figure were to stand approximately 18 units high on the grid, the knees would start at the 6^th unit, and the shoulders would be at the height of the 16^th row and about 6 units wide. The Canon of Proportions allows the same style to be reflected over in this way with the same ratios. The Egyptians based their work off of this grid for nearly three millennia.

         The Palette of Narmer is a prime example of the repetition of style in the art of Ancient Egypt. The piece stands 25 inches tall and is made of green schist, with the main focus of the front being King Narmer preparing to execute what is labeled by a hieroglyph as an enemy of comparable size. The slab has registers dividing the depictions of other scenes with many smaller figures, including Narmer’s sandal bearer to his left, other enemies running in fear and defeat underneath, and the falcon god Horus bringing Narmer a decapitated head attached to some papyrus (a symbol of Lower Egypt), indicating that Narmer was clearly the ruler of the area. The backside introduces a scene where enemies lie decapitated with their heads between their legs, awaiting inspection by the royal procession, including Narmer wearing the Red Crown of Lower Egypt. Below this is a circular indentation between the elongated and intertwined necks of lions in which makeup might have been prepared. Finally, at the bottom is a bull (representing the power of the king) striking down another enemy. The majority of the figures on the tablet were created in the stylized Egyptian method, using the Canon of Proportions mentioned before.
         The Egyptians were creative, even though their art was made mostly to serve a function. I believe the worst art on the planet still had to have some sort of creativity that inspired it to come into being. Their creativeness is supported by the fact that they invented a system to work by, and the elements of art reach a fine equilibrium in their pictorial reliefs, statues, and paintings. Their composite forms are more descriptive and still recognizable, whereas they might not be—if depicted how they would actually appear to the eye.

I do not think that the Egyptians were much concerned with their degree of creativity. It did not seem as important to them as the messages they were conveying with their art. However, creativity can be found in it everywhere. Even if it lacked ingenuity, it would still be valued today for how long it has survived and for the study of its purpose.

Reconstruction Drawing of Babylon

The Reconstruction Drawing of Babylon in the 6th Century BCE has much to offer in terms of presenting various formal elements of art. The great Ishtar Gate is centered in the frame, with what appears to be soldiers marching through it toward the Processional Way vanishing lengthwise behind it. The Palace of Nebuchadnezzar II and its Hanging Gardens are in the background to the right and the Marduk Ziggurat behind that. Since it is an aerial view of dominant structures, this piece has a sense of power to it. However, being able to relate to the individuals so small at the foot of one of these structures also gives a feeling of insignificance.

Much of the composition has already been spoken about, but it is fair to say that it is well balanced. The Ishtar Gate is undoubtedly the focal point of the entire work, being a drastically different color and placed in the center next to another building colored white (another color unseen elsewhere in the piece). The green shrubbery to the right reaches equilibrium with the white building and the other greenery on the left. This makes the drawing orderly with a centered and grounded visual weight.

A particular style of preciseness can also be detected throughout due to the geometric shapes and straight lines. I think that this gives the buildings the sharp edges they need and keeps the entire framework structurally sound.
         The lines, as mentioned before, are very active in the drawing. As I look at the composition, my eyes are lead from the towers in the foreground, about midway back to the intersecting wall for a pause at the focal point (Ishtar Gate), beyond to the very engaging Processional Way all the way to the vanishing point, brought from the horizon line to the Marduk Ziggurat and Hanging Gardens, and finally down a connection of shadows on the buildings where the cycle starts again. The lines holster the kinetic energy that makes the whole piece visually dynamic.

As for the colors, the palette chosen embraces a peaceful feeling. To me, the combination of very light yellowish/tan creates warmness and the right amount of blues and greens gives it the cool kick it needs. These colors remind me of the ones you would see in a tropical oasis, thus leaving me in a cozy and satisfied mood.

Another point to bring up is that this drawing takes place on a small scale. It packs a lot of business in the content, but the context is representing real life objects that we know to be larger than depicted, especially when referring to the people walking under the gate. If the proportions are correct in relation to each other (and I believe they are), then these buildings are quite sizeable. This especially gives the Marduk Ziggurat a looming sensation from a distance, since it is extremely in-depth.

After analyzing this drawing in reference to many of these aspects essential to art, I react with a pleasant sense of awe at its harmonious colors, the powerful but feigned size of the buildings, and the smoothness of its visual intricacy.