Our two pieces to compare and contrast are from the Metropolitan Museum of Art the are: The Royal Acquaintances on Memi and Sabu and Statue of Gudea. Similarities between the two are:
Their function, which is to represent the subjects as actual persons in the real life as well as in the afterlife. The Royal Acquaintances being used to supply a body for the dead to inhabit in the afterlife (Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History The Royal Acquaintances of Memi and Sabu, 2016), and the Statue of Gudea to represent him in the temples he had rebuilt. (Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History Statue of Gudea, 2016)
The body type and design both pieces being relatively crude in depicting the bodies of the subjects but being more exacting on the details of the facial features.
Physicality of the subjects, while neither piece shows the life-like physiology of its subjects they both manage to include some very effective use of body features to make their subjects more realistic. Specifically, I noticed the bone structure in the legs on both male figures, and the subtle contours of the female’s abdomen area are quite suggestive of the real thing.
Sizing of the heads vs, …show more content…
Their likenesses are carved into limestone with paint to provide additional detail. The limestone is durable, scratch resistant, and stain resistant. (Diorite vs Limestone Texture, 2016) Their pose is almost casual, similar to a candid shot of a couple on vacation in today’s world, the casualness also seems to enhance the relationship between the two. Lastly for my contrasting points is the size of the piece at 62cm tall while not life sized it is considerable taller than just a figure, again pointing to its purpose of providing ‘transport’ if you will of the souls of the
Their function, which is to represent the subjects as actual persons in the real life as well as in the afterlife. The Royal Acquaintances being used to supply a body for the dead to inhabit in the afterlife (Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History The Royal Acquaintances of Memi and Sabu, 2016), and the Statue of Gudea to represent him in the temples he had rebuilt. (Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History Statue of Gudea, 2016)
The body type and design both pieces being relatively crude in depicting the bodies of the subjects but being more exacting on the details of the facial features.
Physicality of the subjects, while neither piece shows the life-like physiology of its subjects they both manage to include some very effective use of body features to make their subjects more realistic. Specifically, I noticed the bone structure in the legs on both male figures, and the subtle contours of the female’s abdomen area are quite suggestive of the real thing.
Sizing of the heads vs, …show more content…
Their likenesses are carved into limestone with paint to provide additional detail. The limestone is durable, scratch resistant, and stain resistant. (Diorite vs Limestone Texture, 2016) Their pose is almost casual, similar to a candid shot of a couple on vacation in today’s world, the casualness also seems to enhance the relationship between the two. Lastly for my contrasting points is the size of the piece at 62cm tall while not life sized it is considerable taller than just a figure, again pointing to its purpose of providing ‘transport’ if you will of the souls of the