Comparison between Hatshepsut and Hamburg Monument - Essay Example

Task Comparison between Hatshepsut and Hamburg monument Hatshepsut's obelisk The obelisk was constructed in 1457BC by the Egyptian people of the time as part of the royal artifacts. It is the second tallest of all obelisks in Egypt and constituents comprises pink granite standing 28.58 meters tall, weighing about 342 tons (Blyth, 57). It finds its location in the famous temple of Amon situated in Karnak (Brand, 82). The monument was built as a dwelling of the Egyptian sun god, Amon Ra and its construction relayed this concept through its unique structural composition. The obelisk’s upper part is in the shape of a pyramid and has a different structural composition of metal alloys like gold to shine when light reflected upon the region. The pharaohs erected the monuments to depict their reign showing a form of stability and continuity of the kingdom. The pyramid shaped top, pyramidion reflected the light to indicate the power of their ancient god, Ra to make a reflection to the land. Ancient Egyptians were intensely religious and believed in connection with the supernatural erecting symbols to honor the presence of the gods. In their efforts to create continuity of their rule, the pharaohs erected their personalized obelisk to glorify specific events. In the individual faces of the monolith, there were inscriptions that were made to glorify the pharaoh that erected the obelisk. In this monument, Hatshepsut features the story of her fathers that she honors Thutmose and Amun, dedicating the inscriptions to their memories (Seawright). This structure had been erected to indicate the strong belief in the traditions and honor outstanding societal members that acted as peace symbols. The monuments acted as unifying figures for the ancient Egyptian reminding them the value of upholding respect and discipline (Strouhal, 180). With the rule of the pharaohs, there was the order in the society as the people believed in serving their rulers and the gods would offer them blessings in turn. Today, fragments of the fallen obelisk are found at the MFA, Boston. The monument depicts a king carrying out a momentous event in the Egyptian culture that involved appeasing the gods through offering sacrifice. The female pharaoh of Egypt carried the routine of the society and the entire kingdom by honoring the religious entity of the tribe and ensured continuity of this meaning incised in the famous structure (Brand, 160). The piece, made out of graphite represent an inscription in the obelisk that relayed the god Amun and the figure of the head can be clearly seen. This had been one side of the fallen obelisk that Hatshepsut had erected in honor of their religion and to establish her rule as a dominant female pharaoh who managed to rule the Egyptians during her time. Today, the monument represents a rich tradition and symbol of the grand Egyptian kingdom that unified its individuals to uphold religion and authority. This particular monument is notable because it was erected by a famous personality of the ancient Egypt. The pharaoh ensured that the memory of the famed events in the Egyptian calendar are upheld and remembered through precise inscriptions to deliver the memories of her rule. Egyptian art was not only beautifully precise in nature, but the inscriptions had a meaning and purpose in this case religion and culture. Through visiting museums like MFA and the actual site to view the obelisk, an individual is able to revisit the ancient Egyptian history and be informed of the principal unifying figure. Image retrieved from: http://womenshistory.about.com/od/hatshepsut/ig/Hatshepsut-Female-Pharaoh/Obelisk-of-Hatshepsut.htm Hamburg Monument in Germany German artists Jochen Gerz and Esther Shalev were accorded the responsibility to erect a monument that upheld the societal values of peace and anti-fascism to be introduced to the German society. The monument was initially intended to be placed in a fancy park to be viewed by the citizens, an attribute that the two refused erecting their piece in a pedestrian shopping mall. This move had been favored by their desire to reach the entire public influencing individuals to participate entirely in the fight. The accessibility to this pillar was directed to the working –class suburb of the capital Hamburg placing it centrally to symbolize the desire of the country to eliminate the vices that the previous regime had created (Young, 267). The country was embracing change and a step to depict this move was necessary to inform the public of the changes that could now be articulated to the new society. The pillar stands twelve meters high and about one meter in width. The constituents composed of aluminum plated with dark lead gives it its unique feature with a hollow inside that can be felt on the scene (Shelev-Gerz & Gerz). There is an inscription at the base of the pillar that bears the message it had been erected to represent. In several languages, the message invites the German residents and visitors to depict their fight against these vices and contribute to the fight (Young, 26). The German government had the desire to fight fascism and establish a form of confidence among its citizens and contracted the artists to erect a pillar to help create the image among its civilians. As more names were inscribed in the 12 meter monument, it was lowered into the ground to disappear completely. The monument will have served its purpose to remind the individuals of the fight against forms of injustice in the society as the virtue would have been curved within the individuals (Crownshaw, 220)). The monument filled with estimated 70,000 signatures saw its lowering to the ground within the site to be viewed only through a viewing window accessed at the venue of the monument. Image retrieved from: http://genocidestudies.wordpress.com/2008/06/21/jochen-gerz-monument-against-fascism/ Similarities The two monuments shared a similarity in structure because they both stood tall having a towering image. They were both created as symbols of their existing environments and presented more meaning than the beautification of the environment. Works of art and architecture are meant to add beauty in the environment expressing the talent of the creator. The two structures had inscriptions that explained the purposes of erecting and explaining the events to the individuals that failed to witness the regime under scrutiny. A crucial aspect of the structure’s erection lied in the authority because they participated indirectly in making the figures successful. The pharaoh influenced the construction of the obelisk while the German government apprenticed the construction of the Hamburg monument. There is the desire to create continuity of policies in the society because there is a realization that ideas last longer in structures and their demise would be impossible. Differences The differences lie in the material of construction and the obelisks’ pyramidion nature covered in precious metal. The construction of the Egyptian monument was conducted by groups of individual while Hamburg’s construction saw only two artists complete its design. Though they held cultural aspects of the society, Egyptian obelisk upheld the religious aspect of its society promoting the belief in the supernatural as can be witnesses in the remains found at MFA. Hamburg monument, in turn, upheld social values and communicated on the importance of eradicating injustice. On close inspection, the Egyptian designs were systematically and strategically placed depicting particular images of the events in he ancient society, but Hamburg’s inscriptions consisted purely of random additions by the general public on their quest to eradicate injustice forms. The Hamburg tower was intentionally lowered into the ground to preserve its meaning while the obelisk was destroyed with natural components over time. Work cited Brand, Peter. The monuments of Seti I: epigraphic, historical, and art historical analysis. Boston. BRILL, 2000. Brand, Peter. Causing his name to live: studies in Egyptian epigraphy and history in memory of William J. Murnane. Boston. BRILL, 2000. Blyth, Elizabeth. Karnak: evolution of a temple. New York. Taylor & Francis, 2006. Crownshaw, Richard. The German Countermonument: Conceptual Indeterminacies and the Retheorisation of the Arts of Vicarious Memory. Forum For Modern Language Studies. Vol. 44 (2): pp. 212-227. DOI: 10.1093/fmls/cqn004. 2008. Shelev-Gerz, Esther and Gerz, Jochen. Monument against Fascism. Jochen Gerz. 1986. Web. January 26, 2012. Available at: Seawright, Caroline. Hatshepsut, Female Pharaoh of Egypt. The keep. 2000. Web. January 26, 2012. Available at: Strouhal, Evzen. Life of the ancient Egyptians. Oklahoma. University of Oklahoma Press, 1992. Young, James. The Counter-Monument: Memory against Itself in Germany Today. Critical Inquiry. Vol. 18 (2): pp. 267-296. 1343784. 1996. Young, James. “The Countermonument: Memory against itself in Germany.” In The Texture of Memory: Holocaust Memorials and Meaning. New Haven. Yale University Press, 1993. Read More