Art and Propaganda in the Ancient World - Essay Example

Art and Propaganda in the Ancient World Introduction Art has been traditionally been used as a means for individuals to immortalize themselves; they used art as a means to communicate a particular propagandistic message to the audience. In terms of the aristocracy, furthermore, without the assistance of contemporary mass media to broadcast a monarch’s authority and absolute power, political icons resorted to art to communicate their propagandistic messages (Orwell 2008). The biggest challenge of ancient propagandistic art in relation to contemporary propaganda art was extent of message; the effectiveness of an individual work of art depends on how powerfully the message is conveyed. It was essential for propagandistic art of the ancient world to communicate a message to an expansive range of audience of differing levels of literacy in a manner in which all people in the targeted audience would appreciate and understand (Orwell 2008). The objective of this paper is to analyze three propagandistic arts of the ancient world, specifically those of ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia and Imperial Rome. Statue of Amenhotep II Offering (Ancient Egypt) Amenhotep II depended on traditional strategies for portraying himself through visual art. The ‘Statue of Amenhotep II Offering’ is comparable to several offering sculptures because it holds on to the accepted principles instituted by Egyptian craftsmen. Amenhotep II specifically wanted to protect conventional techniques and practices; Tuthmosis III, his father, attempted to eradicate several masterpieces for Hatshepsut, and it could be probable that Amenhotep II also thought that women ought not to rule again (Tiradritti 1999). By depending on long-established conventional techniques and practices in making statues, Amenhotep II is reminiscing past monarchs indirectly, assuming his position in the domain of pharaohs by following artistic models used by those before him to immortalize and depict themselves (Smith 1958). The artistic decision to be depicted like those of the pharaohs not merely reveals that Amenhotep II intends to be classified along with his majestic forerunners, but the artistic form of the statue itself suggests that Amenhotep II’s wide-ranging, evident message to his targeted audience is that his supremacy as pharaoh is conventional, adhering to long-established guidelines (Smith 1958). Upon examining the ‘Statue of Amenhotep II Offering’, components of the statue also indicate more powerfully Amenhotep II’s connection to the conventional and the sort of pharaoh he is publicizing himself to be. He depends on markers that have previously been created by former pharaohs and are hence already recognizable to the targeted audience (Smith 1958). His beard, garments, and crown are blatant and apparent indications to all that this is a monarch’s statue. Moreover, the proportion of the sculpture and how decisively balanced Amenhotep II is, with his physique evenly crafted on both sides, indicates that his empire is secure and stable, and that his supremacy over his subjects, and his adversaries, is not weakening. The kneeling facade of Amenhotep II can be regarded a marker, the indication that he is deferential to the gods; normally pharaohs’ statues are seated or standing to summon the presence of their people (Tiradritti 1999). Nevertheless, offering statues illustrate deference to the gods as manifested by their kneeling poses together with the offering jars. This reveals that the pharaoh is not just deferential to the gods, but that he is great and supreme enough to serve as a mediator and communicate with them (Smith 1958). Amenhotep II does not merely exploit his statue as a means to depict himself as a conventional pharaoh, but the statue itself is composed of several different markers that refer to the conventional monarch he aims to publicize himself as, together with his avowal that he is a mediator between the human dimension and of the gods. Statue of Amenhotep II Offering: 18th dynasty Egypt in the Temple of Amun at Thebes Trajan’s Column (Ancient Rome) A number of art scholars examined the Column of Trajan with regard to other funerary shrine so as to better appreciated and understand its function for its ordinary audience in Imperial Rome. Some art scholars compared Trajan’s Column to the Mausolea of Augustus and Hadrian and the extent these three architectures influenced the audience into active involvement with the monument so as to sustain interest in the emperors and their achievements and therefore immortalize them (Bennett 1997). This involvement, which in the three tombstones involves enclosing the remnants of the rulers, also compelled the audience into a recreation of the rites of honor for the departed (Bennett 1997). There are some scholars who analyzed the tombstone with regard to its surroundings and interior. The tower at the pinnacle of the column served as a platform so as to further involve the audience and as a position from which the audience may view all that Trajan had constructed and acknowledge him as a grand patron of Imperial Rome. The courtyard that encloses the column was founded on military camp’s ground plan and the statue on the column showed the victories of Trajan and his soldiers in order that the entire complex can be viewed as a triumph testament (Adams & Laurence 2001). This was a vital message that Trajan wanted to communicate since the Empire had suffered financial problems and Trajan aimed to solve the problem through the possession of more territory and land, while multitudes of people believed warfare would merely speed up the depletion of resources (Bennett 1997). Trajan constructed the courtyard so as to demonstrate that all the pillage he had acquired from his military victories was adequate to build a new urban hub for the citizens and to show the supremacy of Rome. The column’s reliefs deemphasize the atrocious reality of warfare and depict nonviolent, positive panoramas with the Roman military absolutely in control (Adams & Laurence 2001). Therefore, the column and the complex wherein it is positioned functioned together to form an arena within which the emperor was enthusiastically immortalized and celebrated after his demise and that throughout his rule functions as a type of political propaganda to reinforce his military activities. Trajan’s Column: Completed in 113 AD in Trajan’s Forum Livia’s Portraits (Ancient Rome) Livia had a portrait completed by 35 BCE at the age of twenty-three. She was married to Claudius Nero at that time and had a son named Tiberius who will eventually become an emperor. She remarried to Octavian and was proclaimed sacred. Art scholars until now do not have an idea what the 35 BCE portrait of Livia looked like, but according to a cameo that was traced back to the late Augustan era that shows her with a more sophisticated traditional hair style, art scholars assume that Livia was intentionally using the old-fashioned hair style so as to depict herself as the ideal matron (Barrett 2004). Augustus adopted Tiberius, Livia’s son, as his successor. This resulted in a change of hair style for Livia as the emperor’s mother. This style illustrates Livia with fuller qualities that suit perfectly with her image as a mother. This particular portrait, similar to most of her other portraits, was definitely intended to be viewed as fragment of an entirety (Wood 2000). As stated by the imperial political propaganda Livia occupied a distinctive position in an imperial group portrait, at this point perhaps that of a devout mother icon, as did her husband and son (Wood 2000). After the death of her husband the hairstyle of Livia changed once more, this time to endorse her position as Augustus’s priestess. This fashion was a reproduction of the Greek goddesses’ images, which was fitting considering her latest position would equate her to that of Ceres, a Roman goddess, and would show the Roman citizens of Rome’s fertility. The subsequent important image modification of the iconography of Livia took place when Claudius proclaimed her a ‘diva’ and her statuette were positioned alongside Divine Augustus on Palatine hill (Barrett 2004). Even though a number of art scholars think that Livia’s portraits heavily influenced the image construction of succeeding empresses, her portrait forms were not, actually, very much imitated. The most famous style appears to be the newest one that equated her most apparently with goddesses (Barrett 2004). Portrait of Livia: Augustus’s Wife Portrait of Livia: Mother of an Emperor Roman Empress Motherly Image Portrait of Livia: Image of a Goddess Completed after Augustus’s death The Ishtar Gate (Ancient Mesopotamia) A magnificent symbol of the power and wealth of Nebuchadnezzar of ancient Mesopotamia was the massive Ishtar Gate, the eighth gateway to the interior level of the city. The Ishtar Gate was constructed from blue glazed tiles ornamented with the different pictograms of Babylon. The Ishtar Gate was fully covered with superbly tinted glazed elements. Its projections of bulls and dragons represented the gods Adad and Marduk (Williams 2009). Not a ruler of humility, Nebuchadnezzar filled the Ishtar Gate with propaganda symbols of his power and military prowess. He carved the gate with a chain of propaganda statements, such as: “I (Nebuchadnezzar) laid the foundation of the gates down to the ground water level and had them built out of pure blue stone. Upon the walls in the inner room of the gate are bulls and dragons and thus I magnificently adorned them with luxurious splendor for all mankind to behold in awe” (Williams 2009, para 9). The Ishtar Gate (Front View) An Ishtar Symbol Conclusions Political propaganda was undoubtedly a vital component of the ancient world. It is through it that we witness how art was used by the aristocracy to amuse, to revitalize long-established values and beliefs, to promote harmony and unity, to gain advocacy for military activities, and most importantly to depict not just the ruler, but the ruler’s family as powerful, moral aristocrats that are devoted to their subjects. References Adams, Colin & Ray Laurence, eds. Travel and Geography in the Roman Empire. London: Routledge, 2001. Barrett, Anthony. Livia: First Lady of Imperial Rome. Pennysylvania: Yale University Press, 2004. Bennett, Julian. Trajan: Optimus Princeps A Life and Times. London: Routledge, 1997. Evans, Jane DeRose. The Art of Persuasion: Political Propaganda from Aeneas to Brutus. USA: University of Michigan Press, 1992. Orwell, George. All Art is Propaganda: Critical Essays. Ed. George Packer. Orlando, Florida: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2008. Smith, W. Stevenson. The Art and Architecture of Ancient Egypt. Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books, 1958. Tiradritti, Francesco, ed. Egyptian Treasures from the Egyptian Museum in Cairo. New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1999. Williams, Sean. "Nebuchadnezzar's Babylonian Legacy." Heritage Key (2009). http://heritage-key.com/world/nebuchadnezzars-babylonian-legacy Wood, Susan E. Imperial Women: A Study in Public Images, 40BC-AD68. Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV, 2000. Read More