A Greek Kouros statue,a Roman Venus and a Flavian marble statue of the Diadoumemos - Essay Example

? Time and A Greek Kouros statue, a Roman Venus and a Flavian marble statue of the Diadoumemos: Three passive nudes that are of Greekorigin, with two having Roman interpretation Two of the statutes that will be presented in the final report are from the Getty Villa Museum with the third being from the Metropolitan Museum of Art. The first statue is a Kouros, which is a statue that is designed as a grave marker. The statue dates back to approximately 530 BCE and is typical of this type of utilitarian work. The statue is in room 211 of the Getty Villa Museum under the title Athletes and Competition. The statue is not designed to have dynamic movement, but is fairly passive as the left foot is stepping forward in a relaxed manner. The Roman sculpture of Venus is also fairly passive although she is in the process of wrapping herself in fabric. The statue is in room 110 under the title Stories of the Trojan War. The statue originates in approximately from between 100-200AD, but is a copy of a piece done by Praxiteles which was done approximately from between 375-340BCE. The third statue is of the Diadoumemos from the Metropolitan Museum of Art and is also a Roman copy of a Greek statue that was done by Polykleitos in 430 BCE. All three of the statutes are designed from the same period, but in comparing the first original Greek statue to the two copies, there are changes in the way in which realism is interpreted. As the three statues are in motion, but are not showing signs of engaged activity. Thus, the three statues show that movement does not require tension or dynamic motion. As well, the three pieces can be compared for their Greek origins, the Kouros acting as an original from which to compare the two Roman copies of Greek works. The two Roman works have a very different type of approach to their dimension than does the original Greek work. The utility of the Kouros may be to blame for the less realistic sculpture of the dimensional space, but when comparing the three, this element is the most striking difference between the three works. The three works will also be compared for their study of the human body. The Kouros male is thin and athletic, representing a fairly average body type with the head being somewhat exaggerated and the hair sculpted in a far less realistic manner. The Venus is classically androgynous, with her body typical of the female representations of the period. She appears fleshy and her body is soft, without harsh musculature. Her hair, while fantastically coifed, is a bit more realistic. The last sculpture, the sculpture from the Metropolitan Museum of Art that is a Roman, Flavian period copy of a Greek sculpture portrays a young man who is overtly muscled with a perfected physique. Even in his relaxed state, his muscles are thick and flexed in his movement. Where the Kouros is passive not only in stance, but in the use of muscle, the Diadoumemos is flexed even though his movement is not dynamic. The three pieces can be compared because they are all of Greek origin, but with two being copies of Greek works. They can be compared for their exploration of the nude human body. They can also be compared for the composition and composure, the relaxed stance without the feeling of energy in their movement. In an exploration of these three pieces, the nation of origin, the mimicry of the Romans of the Greeks, their human subject matter and its raw content, as well as the way in which they are presented for movement can be compared and contrasted in order to fully explore these three works. In the essay that will be the final result of this exploration, the intention will be to explore the way in which the three works express the human experience. Name Class Time and Date A Greek Kouros statue, a Roman Venus and a Flavian marble statue of the Diadoumemos: Three passive nudes that are of Greek origin, with two having Roman interpretation The Getty Villa Museum is filled with wonderful works of art that present both an historic and period oriented set of groupings of work that can help to put Art History into perspective. Two statues represent the works of the Greek and Roman periods and the way in which Roman works often are copies of Greek classical works. The first piece is a Kouros, which is a statue that is used to mark a grave. There are a few Kouros still in existence, many of which have come from where they were originally placed. The piece was created in approximately 530 BCE and resided in the Getty Villa Museum in room 210 that is titled Athletes and Competition. The second piece, which is also in the Getty Villa Museum, is the Venus, which is within room 110 which is titled Stories of the Trojan War. The statue is a Roman copy of a Greek work by Praxiteles done in 375-340 BCE. The Roman copy was done sometime between 100 and 200 AD. The final piece of work to be examined is Fragment of a marble statue of the Diadoumemos at the Metropolitian Museum of Art. This piece is also a copy of a Greek work for Romans during the Flavian period of a piece that was originally sculpted by Polykleitos in 430 BCE. According to Gardner and Kleiner, the Kouros is one of the first examples of life sized figural statuary that comes from the Ancient Greek period. It stands in a classic stance that is derived from the Egyptian aesthetic with the left foot forward, his arms down at his sides. It is a passive stance with the muscles relaxed and a calm demeanor apparent through the serenity of his presence. He is intended to stand over a grave, his presence mirroring the peaceful nature of death that is universal. The Kouros that is in the Getty is one that was over the grave of Kroisos, a Greek warrior who died in battle. The body shoes a more rounded form than many of the other Kouroi that have been found and expresses a naturalism that is not as accessible in earlier works (Garnder and Kleiner 93). According to the information found near the statue of Venus as it sits in the Getty, this Venus has the image of a dolphin near her feet symbolizing her rise from the ocean at her birth as a fully formed woman. She is presented in the room with the Stories of the Trojan War in reference to the place that Aphrodite (which is the Greek name for Venus) held within the mythological history of the war (The Getty Villa Museum). History suggests that there were two sculptures of Venus made by Praxiteles, with this one being sold to the people of Cos who preferred it because it portrayed Venus as more modest with the drape. This is gathered from the writings of Pliny who suggested while this one was the preferred of the two, the Knidos people who took the other one acquired a great deal of fame for the statue that they took and their acquisition was of high value for those people (Squire 91). The Greeks saw the female body as a canvas upon which decoration would be applied. Squire states that “The feminine resembled an empty canvas that had to be ordered, clothed and adorned” (92). In this way, this representation is distinct from the two male figures. The pieces in the Getty are displayed in such a way as to allow the viewer to move around the full circumference of the pieces, the full depth of the dimensional space readily available for viewing. Each was lit in such a way as to eliminate most of the shadows, the pieces being vibrant and almost surreal because of the knowledge of their age and the impression of beauty that they both embodied. The walls were blackened, the feeling in the rooms drawing the eye to the large sculptural pieces as the walls faded away to obscurity during the viewing. The lightened color of the floor in contrast to the black stands under each of the pieces further allowed the focus to remain on the light stone of each of the sculptures. While all three of the works were made of stone, the differences between the highly textured Kouros and the smoother and more defined Venus was a bit startling, the Kouros creating a greater sense of the age than the Venus. The third figure is in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. This work is fragmented, the head, arms, and legs from the knees and tree trunk from the ancient original, but the rest of the figure has been reconstructed from a cast that was taken from a marble copy which was discovered in Delos, but now stands in the Nation Museum, Athens. The action of the statue is that of a young man who is putting a fillet, which is a head band, on after he has been victorious in an athletic competition. The figure is a Roman copy of the Greek work of Polykleitos which was originally created in about 430 BCE. Polykleitos was attentive to bodily proportions. The information on the website of the Metropolitan Museum of Art suggests that “The figures thorax and pelvis tilt in opposite directions, setting up rhythmic contrasts in the torso that create an impression of organic vitality”. The feet look as if they are about to walk, the beginning of movement suggested in the way in which he stands. This formula of “rigorously calculated pose” became a standard in Graeco-Roman and Western European art. The three pieces all suggest the beginnings of movement, the passivity of stillness combined with intension. There is no dynamic sense of muscle tension, except for the bicep on the piece at the Met. The Kouros suggests the intension of movement, the step forward that is in contrast to the passivity of the rest of his body stance. The Venus is wrapping herself in fabric, but she could almost be paused, listening to an actor outside of the sculpture space. Her musculature is not engaged in the act and she holds onto the fabric lightly, without a feeling that she is anxious or in a hurry to complete her action. The fragment of the Diadoumemos reveals a man that the Met has interpreted as about to take a step, but he can also be seen as balanced in his stance, his movement about to casually shift to the opposing hip. The passivity of the form with the contrast of the engaged movement is similar in all three pieces, bringing them into the standard of Graeco-Roman sculpture in regard to stance. All three pieces are represented of a sense of realism, although there is some diversion from a realistic representation in both the Kouros and the Venus. The Kouros has some problems where the hair is concerned. The hair is geometrically developed with a grid pattern falling straight down the back. The top is rowed in such a manner as to suggest braids or some kind of weaving, but it is representative of some sort of intentional hair design. The face is damaged, but still seems to be representative of reality rather than realistic. The face of the Venus, on the other hand, is a representation of the androgyny that was revered in Graeco-Roman work, but the body holds the softness that is undeniably female. As expressed by Squire, there is a clear sense of ornamentation that is represented by the drape, the dolphin, and the sense of flow that those two aspects of the work present. The realism that is achieved in the stance and form of the body is beyond that of the Kouros, the Venus being detailed in such a way to successfully represent the body in a three –dimensional space. The third piece both represents and exaggerates the perfection of the male form. The male is an athlete, but his body is proportioned large and detailed with ripples of muscles. It might be said that the male figure is too perfectly rendered in the piece, the specimen of the male figure almost unbelievable. The sculpture uses the dimensional space without hesitation, the rounded muscles fleshed out. The slight departure that is seen in this work is that it can almost be seen as a modern perspective on the perfected male figure. It is interesting to think that perhaps the perfected figure of the female form is not as important as the realistic form as seen through the Venus, but the male figure, representing strength, virility, and athleticism, is more potent and perhaps over enhanced in this last work. An interesting observation is that while the three sculptures come from relatively the same period in relationship to the original work which was copied by the Roman’s in two of the works, the first work that is original to the period is a bit flatter and without the fleshed out details of the copies. There are several reasons that this might be the case. The copies are copied from artists whose names have survived the ravages of time, their names still known to modern scholars. Therefore, it is possible that the quality of these two pieces were originally higher in relationship to dimension than the first piece which was a piece of work that was done as a common type of funerary piece. Although most likely for those of higher wealth, it was not a specialized or unusual piece as would be expected from an artist. The piece is reflective of the culture of Egypt, thus it was retro in the same way that the Roman copies of sculptures were reflected back in history. The flat nature is reflective of Egyptian statuary, but the beginning of the rounded muscles, especially as seen in the legs, shows that a progression in tradition and philosophy about sculpture was emerging. The three pieces are all of a similar nature in that they are representative of the nude human body. Two of them represent athletically built men, but one is thin and the other seems to be an enhanced example of the male form. The female representation is different than the male, her body seeming to be the canvas that is described by Squire (92). Her softness embellished by the drape and the dolphin to imbue her with symbolism. The pieces are defined by the nature of the philosophies of the time period, the Greek reflecting the Egyptian aesthetics with the Roman reflecting the Greek aesthetics. The differences in the sculptures can be explained by a number of reasons, but all are representative of the human experience in the way in which they capture a moment. Movement is still available to the viewer, even in their passivity as the sculptures represent their subjects through activity. Works Cited Early Flavian Period Fragment of a marble statue of the Diadoumemos. Metropolitan Museum of Art. 2011. Web. 10 January 2011. Gardner, Helen and Fred S. Kleiner. Gardner's Art through the Ages: The Western Perspective. Australia: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning, 2010. Greek Kouros from approximately 530 BCE, Getty Villa Museum Online. 2011. Web. 10 January 2011. Squire, Michael. The Art of the Body: Antiquity and its Legacy. London: I.B. Tauris, 2011. The Getty Villa Museum. Malibu, California. Roman Venus 100-200 AD. Getty Villa Museum Online. 2011. Web. 10 January 2011. Read More