A Review of the Artwork that I Liked

            Ancient art gives you impressions and details into the lives of people that lived so long ago.  I gained knowledge about the different artistic periods, about the symbolisms and different reasons for the artwork, about the wonderful sculptures and paintings that were made, and the amazing architecture that still endure into the present.  I appreciated the art for both its visual details and for their historical content.

One of the most interesting aspects about much of the art that was covered in my art history class was the use of art for political propaganda.  It can be seen in many of the different artistic and historical periods.  Often, it was rulers and leaders, through the use of symbolism and the associations with the divine, that used the art to convey their right to rule and their power and strength to the people that they ruled over and to their enemies.  The “Stele of Naram-Sin” is rich in symbolism and shows different stylistic techniques.  It shows the Akadian ruler Naran-Sin and his victory over a group of mountain people.  The stele uses the hierarchy of scale to show the importance of Naram-Sin by making him the largest figure in the scene, which is seen prominently in Egyptian art as well.  They also show his importance by making him similar in size to the mountain that is seen in the background.  His connection to the divine is made through the symbolisms of the bull’s horns on his head, his well formed and tone body, and the stars in the sky that represents the presence of the gods.  What’s also interesting about this stele, is that the fact that it was not only used by Naram-Sin to promote himself, but that it was also used after his lifetime by another ruler, Shutruk-Nahunte.  He used it for his own propagandistic purposes and tried to draw an association with Naram-Sin.  Other artwork rich in political propaganda included the Babylonian “Stele of Hammurabi”, which contain the written legal codes of Hammurabi and depicts the support of the gods through the offering of the staff, and the Narmer Palette from the early dynastic period in Egypt.

            Architecture was widespread and diverse throughout the ancient civilizations and cultures and throughout time.  The Ishtar gates are a beautiful example of the New Babylonian period.  The blue glazed brick make a dramatic background for the stylized dragons and lions.  I like the repetition of the decorative elements, the stylized plants and palm trees, and how the colors contrast with the background and form interesting lines for the eye to follow.  I think this would have made a wonderful ceremonial visually and I enjoy how it represents the rebirth and the rejuvenation of the Babylonian culture. 

The Great pyramids of Giza are still an impressive feat of architecture.  It’s amazing the precision of the calculations that would have been needed to form a perfect pyramid.  The other Egyptian architecture that I thought was amazing was the Hypostle Hall of the Great Temple of Amuk.  Most of the columns, walls, and cross-beams were decorated with painted pictoral relief and inscriptions.  Visually, the eye is drawn up and down the column with the different registers of relief and hieroglyphs, and the many columns create a sense of being in a forest of trees, or in the case with the Egyptians, a swamp of papyrus.  The amount of work needed to decorate the columns would have required many skilled artists and a lot of time and resources.  It was interesting to learn of the symbolism of the papyrus and lotus shaped columns, and the symbolism of the swamps, which was closely tied into the Egyptian’s religious belief in creationism. 

The Parthenon is an amazing building that gives insight into Greeks’ desire for perfectionism and order.  Iktinos’s treatise on the Parthenon was meant to use optical illusion to create perfectionism.  Some of his methods involved include: the swelling of the columns so that they appeared straight, making the columns on the corner thicker, curving the base of the entablatures to give the impression of a straight horizontal line, and using the ration 4:9 for the relationship of breadth and length and column diameter to the space in between columns.

Based on the use of domes and the basilica plans of the Romans, the Byzantines created a beautiful centrally and longitudinal planned dome called the Church of Hagia Sophia in Istanbul.  The ring of windows around the dome, which lets in light, creates an aura and halo of light that isn’t seen in the Roman Pantheon. The dome and the light represent spirituality and the heavens.  The light and the stylized patterns that decorate the inside of the dome make Hagia Sophia an interesting and beautiful church.

Some of my favorite paintings were the frescoes of the ancient Aegean culture.  I enjoyed the bright use of colors in the landscapes, and with the figures, and the whimsical stylization of the hills and the animals.  The bright colors and the telling of an important event in Aegean culture, the coming into womanhood, can be seen in the “Girl Gathering Saffron”.  The whimsical and stylized animals can be seen in the “Flotilla Frescoe”.  The deer leaping in the background over the hills and the dolphins leaping out of the water, in between the flotilla of boats, lends energy to the scene, and the multi colored hills lend a colorful backdrop to the scene.

I learned a lot about the people and the different cultures of ancient civilizations through their art and architecture.  It gives me a better understanding of their artwork and an understanding of how much influence cultures had on each other, even our own.

Stylization in Byzantine Art

Stylization in two works of art, the mosaic of “ Justinian, Archbishop Maximianus of Ravenna and Attendants in San Vitale” and the “Virgin and Child with Saints and Angels” during the Byzantine period.

           There is a shift to more stylization and a movement away from the naturalism that was seen in ancient Roman art.  Stylization of the figure and the landscape is very prevalent in Byzantine art.  While there are still some aspects of naturalism that are present, such as the use of some mottling, realism becomes less of a focus for Byzantine artists.  Instead, there is a focus on spirituality and the use of icons, which are representations of holy figures and events.  Icons were important to the Byzantines, except to the iconoclasts, and they thought that by honoring an icon of a spiritual figure that honor was then passed on to the actual figure itself.  These icons, along with the artwork found in churches, give a representation of the stylization in artwork produced during the Byzantine era.

            There is a rigid styles that is noticeable in Byzantine art and can be seen in the representation of the figures and by looking at the landscape behind the figures.  Looking at the human front figures in the “Virgin and Child with Saints and Angels” (Stokstad p. 245), they appear stiff and rigid.  Mary is holding her body very upright in her throne and her posture is a very frontal pose.  Both the saints flanking her on both sides, share her same stiff straight posture and frontal view.  The angels behind the frontal figures seem to breaking away from this view, adding a contrast from the main figures in front, and seem to be looking at the hand, or the representation of God, coming from the sky.  The same stiffness in the body can be seen in the figures of Justinian with the bishop, attendants, and soldiers (Stokstad p. 240).  There is a slight suggestion of the contropposto stance with Justinian and the other figures.  We can see one foot is in front of the other and one foot is turned to the side.  The stance can be seen even better in the bent knee of the saints next to Mary.  Even with so much stylization done with the figures, there are still some visible attempts at realism, and Roman influence, but it is no longer the main focus for Byzantine art.

The elongated figures is a stylization found throughout much of the Byzantine art.  In the figure of Justinian, we can see that his body is very long in comparison to the size of his head and his shoulders.  His face along with the other figures in the scene share a long narrow face with long narrow noses.  The hands holding the dish are also elongated unnaturally along with the feet.  This same elongation in the face can be seen in the icon of Mary and in the faces of the saints and angels.  The faces also show a two-dimensional quality that can be seen in the outline of the eyes and the dark eyebrows.  The cheeks on all the figures of Justinian and his attendants are unnaturally pink and flush.  There is some individualization of the faces in both sets of artwork.  We can see a change in hair and the appearance of beards in some figures, but overall the features of eyes and eyebrows remain similar in the different faces.  The robes of that Justinian wears, along with his other attendants, are very much stylized.  There is no longer the interest in the verism and naturalism that was seen in the Roman art, where the garment was a vehichle to show the outline of the figure beneath the clothing, without actually having them the figure be nude, instead, the cloth and the garments are more of a focus than the body underneath.  The emphasis is more on the lavish quality of the material and using it as a symbolism of wealth and/or royalty.  The purple robe of Justinian symbolizes wealth, because it was so expensive to make the dye, and we know he is a royal figure because of the purple robe and his red shoes.  The possibility that the robe Mary is wearing in the iconograh is purple, instead of blue, symbolizes Mary as the veil for Christ and the red shoes proclaim her status as empress.

The mixture of two-dimensional quality and three-dimensional characteristics can be seen in the landscape and the backgrounds.  In the mosaic of Justinian, the ground is suggested by the expanse of green that is mostly one color.  The background is filled in with one solid tone of gold, which is a stylization that is very prominent in many works of art from the Byzantines.  There are only slight hints of naturalism with the pillars in the background, which show some mottling, but overall the affect is of a two-dimensional world, where the figures don’t seem to be quite standing on solid ground.  Gold backgrounds symbolized divinity and spirituality, along with reflecting wealth, status, and prestige.  These backgrounds were not meant to show depth or realism, but instead seem to focus on creating a two-dimensional other worldly realm not of this world.  Gold is also used for the halos around the faces of Mary and the saints, and of Justinian.  They are of a solid color and symbolize the holiness and spirituality of the figures, and the association with royalty.

The Byzantine artists were more focused on the naturalism of their art but instead they were interested in the symbolism and spirituality of their subject matter, and less on trying to create a naturalistic world.  They did use some slight mottling and some shading and the use of the contropposto stance in some figures, but for the most part their figures were kept two dimensional with the outlining of the bodies, around the eyes, and the unnatural positioning of the feet that give the figures the appearance of floating in space.  The two-dimensional aspect is brought into the landscape and the background with the use of a solid gold sky, which has rich symbolism but no depth. 

A comparison of the “Bust of Commodus as Hercules” and the “Portrait Head of Caracalla

The two portraitures, done during the ancient Roman times, promote two types of propagandistic statements and show the values and characteristics that each Emperor wanted to be associated during their separate rules.  One uses youth and an association with the divine as his right to rule, and the other uses the artistic medium to create a face that creates a powerful stare that conveys strength and seriousness.

The stylization of the facial features, the regalia associated with an iconic hero, and the style of the hair and beard, show two very different statements that the busts are trying to make. Commodus was an Emperor of Rome who ruled in 180-192 CE, and liked to represent himself as Hercules.  According to historians, he claimed that he was a reincarnation of Hercules, a legendary hero from Greek mythology, and an incarnation of the Roman god Jupiter.  By creating this association with Hercules through this bust, he wants people to associate him with godliness and strength.  The association with the gods also infers a divine right to rule as well. 

His idealized likeness is represented in the face, which portrays a young man in his prime, wearing and holding the imagery associated with Hercules, the lion head, the club, and the golden apple of Hesperides.  The idealization can be seen in the face and the upper part of the body that can be seen.  The face is without wrinkles or lines of age, and his beard and hair are represented in very detailed tight curls that were drilled.  The shoulders and arms convey a strong muscular body, every muscle is very well defined and show no scars or flaws.  The arms are balance, one bent back holding a club, which draws the eye back to the face, and the other arm is open and reaching away from the body holding an apple.  The perfect body and the balanced arms is a reflection back to the ancient Greek style of idealism.  So, he is also forming an association with the Greek art, which was much revered by the ancient Romans.

The “Portrait head of Caracalla”, makes a very different statement and promotes a view of very different characteristics from the Hercules bust.  The marble head shows a very stern and serious face, which was considered a Roman virtue for males during the time of the Republic rule, and conveyed a strength of character.  There are also lines that can be seen between the brows, the forehead, and around the mouth.  The lines help to show a man who is no longer in his youth, and according to some of the ancient Romans, gave an appearance of a man who has lived life well and “confers a sense of wisdom and purpose”.  The lines on the face and the very forward penetrating stare from the eyes, show a sternness and rigidity and a strong sense of will, a “no-nonsense ruler of iron-fisted determination” (Stokstad 2011).  The deep penetrating eyes also command the viewer’s attention and demand respect while giving the feeling of leadership.  The penetrating stare is emphasized by the artist’s use of deep shadowing under the eyebrows that contrasts with the whiteness of the forehead.  Unlike Commodus who, through his vanity, tries to get respect as a leader by associating himself with the gods and the son of a god and his association with Greek stylization, Caracalla instead demands leadership simply through the power of his stare. 

Another large differences between the two works of art is the hair.  While Commodus’s hair might represent the fashion of the times, Caracalla’s short hair and short, almost shaved, beard show his strong military association and the growing importance of the military with Roman rule.

The differences between the “Bust of Commodus as Hercules” and the “Portrait Head of Caracalla” show different ways that the rulers wanted to represent themselves to the public and their audience.  Commodus wanted to associate himself with gods and Greek heroes, and show his divine right to rule.  He also wanted to convey strength and youthfulness.  Caracalla, instead uses deep penetrating stare and the lines on the face to convey a strength of will and character, a courageous and no-nonsense ruler through the power of his gaze.  His bust also conveys a man who has aged and thus gained wisdom and knowledge.  Both works of art show idealized representation of those characteristics.  One is the idealized perfect body and the sign of youth, and the other is the idealization of a strict and powerful ruler.  

The Painted Sculptures of the Ancient Greeks

Winkelmann was an art historian in the 18^th century who helped to shape our current ideas of art and “good taste”.  He thought that art should be “pure and simple” like the Greeks and that “pure” white marble was the ideal for beauty.  Color according to Winkelmann, was to be used sparingly and “ought to have a minor consideration in the role of beauty”.  Wouldn’t he be surprised to know that the Greeks actually painted some of their marble sculptures?  Scholars have been able to use visual and scientific analysis and modern day tools and technology to study the traces of paintings that remain on the Greek sculpture.

            I think that Winkelmann’s idea of Greek art has portrayed an incorrect image of Greek art and sculpture.  By promoting the idea that Greek art is the ideal for beauty and “good taste” because of its simplicity and use of white, it is ignoring all the other works of art that the Greeks created that were painted or colorful.  It has created misrepresentation and caused a bias away from painted sculpture and favoritism for pure white marble sculptures.  I think it has affected modern day art.  When we look at the Neo Classical period when there was a revitalization of Greek art, the sculptures were made to look white and weren’t painted.  Although it can be said that they were just representing what they could see, why is it then that there aren’t more reconstructions of painted sculpture?  Even most marble statues made today are not painted.  There seems to be this idea that once it has been sculpted and polished that it is the end of the process, the finished product, and that there is no need to go further. 

                        I was surprised when I first saw the reproductions of the “Archer” from the Temple of Aphaia and the “Peplos Kore”.  I had been under the impression, as well, that Greek sculptors had meant for their works of art to be viewed as the plain white marble that we see today.  The paintings seem so bright at first and out of place.  The musculature isn’t as visible and we lose the monotone value of the statue.  From the findings of different scholars, an analysis of the “Archer” reveals that the Greeks actually favored bright colors, such as yellows and reds, made from different minerals and materials.  The artists also painted complicated patterns, such as the diamond pattern, that can be seen on the arms and legs of the archer.  The lines of the patterns draw attention to the legs and the arms, which are both poised in a moment of action.  The left arm is holding a bow and arrow and the left leg is extended out part way to brace the archer while he draws the bow back.  Upon closer inspection of the pattern on the left leg, the viewer will notice that the pattern changes according to where it is on the position of the leg.  It widens at the bulge of the thigh muscle, narrows at the knee, widens again at the bulge of the calf, and narrows again at the ankle.  It is an accurate representation to show how the pattern on a stretchy material would change according to how much stretching was put on the material. 

According to ancient authors, the Greeks painted their sculptures to make them more life like and naturalistic.  The Greeks were interested in naturalism, but they didn’t make their art completely realistic as can be seen with the archaic smile found on the dying warriors from the Temple of Aphaia.  The attempt at naturalism with the painting on the “Archer” shows how much Greek sculptures paid attention to detail.  By just seeing the Greek sculptures without any painting, we can admire the form, and the details in musculature, which are not as noticeable when painted, but we are only seeing a partly finished piece.  We are missing out on the naturalistic detail and artwork and knowledge that can be gained from the paintings.  From the paintings we could get a better idea of what colors the ancient Greeks favored and what style of clothing they may have worn.  I still appreciate and like the white unpainted Greek sculpture, but I also like the detail and the attempt at naturalism of the painted sculpture and the potential information that can be gained from the paintings.  I now think of them as beautiful works of art that are just missing their “clothing”. 

Comparing Egyptian and Minoan works of art

            When we compare the an example of Minoan culture, “Bull Leaping” on fresco, and an example of Egyptian art, “Ti Watching a Hippopotamus Hunt”, they both show the unique styles associated with their respective cultures.  They also show similarities in some of their perspectives and painting styles, which could suggest the possible influence of Egyptian culture Minoan art.

            “Ti Watching a Hippotamus Hunt” is a painted relief found in the tomb of a government official, c. 2450 – 2325 BCE.  The relief depicts Ti watching a hippopotamus hunt while servants are posed in different action shots.  There are different depictions of stylized animals and papyrus that are at the bottom and at the top of the picture.  The fresco of the Minoan “Bull Leaping” depicts two stylized women and an acrobat leaping over a bull and there is a decorative border of abstract shapes surrounding the subjects, c. 1550 – 1450 BCE.

            The stylization of the people and animals are seen in both the fresco and the relief carving.  In the Egyptian relief we can see that the main figure of Ti is rendered following the Egyptian conventional composite pose for people in the upper levels of societal status.  His head is in profile view, along with his feet and arms, while his eye, torso and shoulders are in frontal view.  Hieratical status is shown by the fact that Ti seems to looms larger in size compared to all the other figures in the relief.  The hunters in the scene follow a more naturalistic and realistic viewpoint, which is similar in style to the Minoan figures in the “Bull Leaping” fresco.  The Minoan painters also depicted their figures in profile poses, but they kept the figures with a more naturalistic pose by keeping the rest of the body in profile as well. An unnatural stylizing that is a characteristic of Minoan art is the narrowing and tapering of the waists.  The bull’s legs are also tapered unrealistically.  The Minoan fresco also has a decorative border of geometric shapes.

            The Egyptian relief shows a confusing array of perspectives, while the Minoan fresco shows a lack of grounding of the subjects.  Along with the different perspectives that make up the Egyptian conventional composite pose, we can also see changes in perspective with the water and the animals in the water and in the papyrus.  The artistic depicted the waves in a surface view of the water, and a profile view of the animals within the water.  The animals within the water are all depicted in profile view, but the birds among the papyrus flowers and stalks are portrayed in different naturalistic poses and follows more closely to a natural perspective.  The Minoan fresco doesn’t have the confusing array of perspectives of the Egyptians, but the subjects (the people and the bull) show a lack of any grounding, since there doesn’t appear to be any ground that is represented.  It appears that the subjects are just floating in the air.

            The Egyptian relief was done in limestone.  In relief the picture is drawn and the background is then carved away from the subject matter.  This helps to give emphasis on the subjects, and on the relief of Ti, it gives a repeating pattern in the background that draws the eye to the people in the boat and the animals in the water and connects to the animals in the papyrus above them.  The Minoan fresco is painted on plaster and has a very 2-dimensional feel compared to the Egyptian relief.  The painting style for both the relief and the fresco are very similar.  Both the Egyptian and Minoan artists filled in contours of their work with solid color and without use of shading.  They used a repetition of line work, either painted or carved, to show details, such as the lines of hair on the Minoan bull and the geometric shapes framing the subject matter, and the repeating lines used for the stalks of papyrus in the Egyptian relief.

            The subject matters both show important events occurring and have symbols of power.  In the bull fresco, the bull is a symbol of strength, virility, and fertility and also connected to religion.  The strength of the bull is depicted in its large shoulders and strong neck and the sense of power and movement seen in the pose of the body.   The scene with the woman and the man leaping over the bull could be a depiction of a rite of passage or of an initiation or it could just be showing a form of entertainment. The repetition of the geometric forms on the border could represent the lunar calendar as well.  The Egyptian relief also have symbols of power.  By making Ti the largest form in the picture we see his power over everything in the picture and it symbolizes the power of Ti.  It is more a form of propaganda Ti’s representation of his own power and importance.  The hippopotamus symbolizes the god Seth who represents chaos, so by showing Ti hunting and killing the hippopotami, he is reigning in chaos and restoring order.

            Both works of art, the relief and the fresco show similarities and differences but they both have unique characteristics that separate them from each other and other cultural pieces of art.  The Egyptian and Minoan artists both shared similar painting styles, the technique of filling in contours with solid color and the use of profiles views when depicting the people.  The use of the conventional composite view, hieratical scale, and the use of conventional measurement and proportions for the body are unique to Egyptian art and can be seen in their art for thousands of years.  The Minoans style can be seen in the narrowing and the tapering of the waists, the tapering of the legs on the bull, and the flying gallop pose with the bull and which shows up on other pieces of work.

            

A Comparative Analysis of the ziggurats of Mesopotamia and the Pyramids of Giza

            The culture and the religious beliefs were very different between the Sumerians, the people that built the ziggurats, and the Egyptians, who are well known for building the great pyramids of Giza.  The ziggurats and pyramids had differences in structure and in function, but they did share similarities in the symbolism of the structures.

           

The first ziggurats of Mesopotamia were built by the Sumerians circa. 3300-3000 BCE.  The Anu ziggurat and the white temple is one of the earliest temples built, while the Nanna ziggurat of Ur was built by the Sumerians after they had forced out the Guti and the fall of the Akkadian Empire, circa. 2100-2050 BCE.  The Egyptian Pyramids of Giza were comissioned by three successive Egyptian kings: Khufu, Khafre, and Menkaure in the Fourth Dynasty, 2575-2450 BCE.

The architecture and scales are very different from one another.  The ziggurats were big stepped structures that often had a temple or shrine on top.  The base was rectangle shaped and had three platforms and stairs that converge on the first platform.  The Egyptian pyramids at Giza were massive structures and formed a perfect pyramid shape with a square base and four sloping sides that perfectly meet at a point at the top.  There was also a huge difference in scale.  The Nanna ziggurat at its base was 205 ft. by 141 ft.,  (28,905 square feet) and might have been a 100ft. tall.  The largest pyramid of Khufu takes up an area of 13 acres (566,280 square feet) at its base, and would have been 481 feet tall. 

The ziggurats are solid structures with only the temple at the very top providing an covered structure.  Since there were no burial remains found at the ziggurats it is assumed that were used only for worship and not for burial.  The pyramids were mostly solid but they did have burial chambers and passages.  One important function of the pyramids was as a burial site and tombs for some of the  kings of Egypt.

The structures were made of different materials, but because of the mud bricks used by the Sumerians, it helped to create some of the similar lines seen in the pyramids, but also created difference in the outward appearance as well.  The mud bricks might have been more susceptible to erosion than the limestone and granite that the Egyptians used to create the pyramids.  The platform walls slope outward which might have been to prevent rainwater from eroding the mud brick pavement.  These sloping lines reflect the sloping walls of the pyramids and draw the eye towards the top of the structure. 

Symbolism played a very important role in the ziggurats and the pyramids and they both shared similar meanings to the people and the message the kings were trying to convey.  King Urnammu commissioned the Nanna Ziggurat be dedicated to the moon god Nanna.  Ziggurats provided a place of worship and glorification of a particular god and a way to proclaim a ruler’s wealth, prestige, and stability to its people.  They often rose high above the flat plains around them and were symbols of “the bridges between the earth and the heavens – a meeting place for humans and their gods”.  The pyramids too were the Egyptians claims to wealth and prestige.  They required a huge labor force for the building and construction of the structure, the quarrying and transportation of the 2.5 ton stones, and the skilled designers and overseers of the pyramids who would have needed to do complicated calculations.  It shows a huge wealth that would have been necessary to pay for the workers over the period of time that was needed to build the structure and to pay for the materials, such as the gold to cap at the top of the pyramid.  The angled sides could have been to represent the rays of the sun, and it was believed that deceased kings climbed the rays of the sun to join the god Ra, thus the pyramids too provided a meeting place of man and god like the ziggurats.

 Even with the difference in structure, the Sumerians through their building of the ziggurats and the Egyptians with the pyramids, share a belief that their structures symbols of their kings’ power and prestige and symbols of their gods.

An Analysis of the votive statue of Gudea

The votive statue of Gudea is from Girusu, c. 2090 BCE, depicts a man (Gudea the ruler of Lagash) standing tall and holding a vessel that has water flowing from it. The man wears a circular hat on his head and a robe filled with text that leaves one shoulder bare. The statue is 29 inches tall and made of diorite.

The viewpoint suggested by the statue is one that centers on the front of the body. Even though we assume that the statue was done in the round, the position of the face, the alignment of the body, and the detailed writing gives emphasis to the frontal view. The face is very straight forward, looking directly at the viewer. The body posture also reflects this frontal view. The shoulders and hips are perfectly straight and show no signs of being turned or pivoted in any way. The arms rest in front of the body instead of off to the side and the feet are perfectly aligned to the front. Intricate writing covers the front of the robe from his hands all the way down to his feet, which would force the viewer to look at the front of the figure in order to read the writing.

The lines and the frontal view point do not encourage the viewer to move around the statue to view it from different angles. The composition of the lines are very vertical, even the detailed marks done on the round hat are very straight and vertical. The lines of the water flowing and the vertical columns of writing all encourage the eye to stay on the frontal view of the figure. There are not many lines that are horizontal or that even encourage the eye to move around the figure. The arms and the line of the garment over the one shoulder are some of the few lines that aren't completely vertical. Even those lines force the eye back to the front of the figure. The left arm becomes obscured by the garment and the lines of the flowing water draw the eye down to the writing instead of around the figure. The elbow on the right arm is at a very sharp angle and bends the upper part of the arm up and draws the eye to the vessel being grasped in both hands. Again the the lines of the water draw the eye down to the writing and up to the face.

The arrangement of the body is very static with very little tension created. The body is very straight and erect and seems relaxed. There are no turns or twists to the neck, shoulders, or hips to suggest impending movement. The feet are both firmly planted flat on the ground facing forward and close together. The muscles are well defined on the figures right arm, but they are not bulging in tension, which suggests a relaxed and easy hold of the vessel and that the vessel was not a heavy burden for the man. The hands hold the vessel in both hands and close to the body, in a pose that requires less energy and creates less tension than holding the vessel out from the body. The face shows a very neutral expression with the muscles around the eyes and cheeks looking relaxed. The eyes do create some intensity, though. They appear to be wide open. looking straight ahead, and staring intently at the viewer.

Diorite, a very hard stone, was the material used to make the statue and was very hard to carve. Probably due to the hard nature of the material, the statue is very compact and appears to have been carved from one piece in the round. Even though it was carved in the round it still maintains a very blocky look to it. The shoulders and the body are very square and the shape of the robe is very straight and block like. It is very solid with very little negative space. The only noticeable negative space is created by the feet. There is a rectangular space that has been carved at the hem of the garment and allows the viewer to see the feet. The space does not go all the way through the stone, so instead creates a dark space where only the toes are visible.

The sculpture emphasizes both a sense of flatness and volume. The garment the statue is wearing, the shoulders, and the figures left arm, don't protrude out beyond the ventral, or front, plane of the body. This makes them seem very flat and two-dimensional. The roundness of the hat and the face help add some depth to the statue, along with the roundness of the statue's right arm and the deep groove at the bend in the elbow. The shadow by the elbow and by the deep carving by the feet help lend the statue more of a three dimensional appearance. Even with those shadows, there is little in the sense of drama and the way the light plays over the figure leaves little hidden from view. The face is in full view and we can see the relaxed face and the text on his clothing is fully visible. Only his feet remain in deep shadow but because of the their position being flat to the ground and close together, there is is no expectation of hidden movement.

The color of the statue is a very monotone grey, and adds to the two-dimensional affect. Instead of emphasizing areas that are in higher relief and and lower relief, it causes the statue to appear more flat. The gray doesn't add any contrast between areas and it gives the appearance of less depth.

The lines and grooves of the hat, the water, and the text on the clothes give the otherwise smooth sculpture some texture. Texture is given to the hat by a series of grids, which may have been carved to give the appearance of fleece on the brim of the hat. The grooved lines for the water help to give some texture to the upper part of the body and help to frame the text on the front of the clothing. The main bulk of the texture, though, is added through expanding columns of text that have been scratched or carved on the front of the statue. Unlike the series of parallel lines created on the rest of the statue, the text creates interesting patterns and helps to draw the attention and the eye of the viewer. This could have been the artist's intentions, to have the viewer see the man, but more importantly learn about him through the text.