Jon Ellison Wrote:

> If there's a space.. Fill it! The graffiti artists
> canvas.
> An act of appropriation. A marking of ownership
> and territory.
> The glyph carvers certainly had zero understanding
> of negative space. A visual-spatial concept that
> the statue carvers were clearly very well aware
> of.
>
> Anyway, there has to be good reason for the
> enormous "discrepancy" in artistic skill
> demonstrated across the spectrum of fine statuary
> and the very primitive attempts at two dimensional
> representation seen within the royal tomb wall
> paintings.
> Simply ignoring the "discrepancies" won't make
> them go away.
> They're there for all to see.
> It just needed someone to point them out.
> Something that certainly should not be ignored in
> our attempts to understand the desire to make
> art.
> So the question is..
> How do you make a beautifully proportioned three
> dimensional representation when you have the
> drafting ability of a
> modern day child. That's not an insult either, it
> was after all the early bronze age. Perfectly
> understandable.

The statues of kings are royal. Done for the King by the finest artists. The tomb paintings I believe that you have referenced are not "royal" . The proper comparison would be the pieces of the causeways and temples built for the kings which also show the finest craftsmanship.

But see here for wonderful work by talented artists:

[www.metmuseum.org]
especially : [www.metmuseum.org]
[www.metmuseum.org]
[www.metmuseum.org]