Jon Ellison Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> sfbey Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > 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]
>
> > m
> > especially :
> >
> [www.metmuseum.org]
>
> > /
> >
> [www.metmuseum.org]
>
> > 894
> >
> [www.metmuseum.org]
>
> > 369
>
> I'm not talking about craftsmanship.
> All the links are of line drawings/carvings.
> None of which convey spatial depth through the use
> of tone in order to replicate the play of light
> upon a contour, and thus the illusion of three
> dimensions contained within a two dimensional flat
> plane.
> Something which the AE seem to have ignored
> altogether or had no knowledge or understanding
> of.
> They being entirely dependant on the most obvious
> outline/profile and field colour.
> For example in figurative work, heads being
> positioned at 90 degrees to the body.
> The most recognisable angle of view in terms of
> outline for a human head is the profile.
> The most recognisable angle of view in terms of
> outline for a human body is frontal.
> Primitive two dimensional artwork.
> Perfectly understandable during the early bronze
> age and late stone age.


Your discourse re 2 and 3 dimensions would be right on the money if it wasn't ignoring the difference between reliefs and statuary....according to their beliefs.

The Old Kingdom statues were not created for anyone's viewing pleasure. They were vehicles for the manifestation of the King's Divine interventions. as such they were as lifelike as possible.

The statue was carved with great skill

the glyphs were added at the time of dedication

.....according to our/my understanding of their Beliefs


The various connections between art and beliefs throughout time cannot be ignored when discussing the AE or any culture.

Warwick


Warwick