Comparing Artwork - Essay Example

Comparing Artwork For many artists, the inspiration for their works stems from the things that they know or have experience with. It is for this reason, among others, that comparing two works of art from differing time periods helps one understand more about the artisan’s culture, beliefs, interpretations and intentions. In addition, comparisons between two similar works of art that are created in different time periods and/or locations can also help bring to light various aspects of the art itself, highlighting the techniques, visual elements and contexts that helped to mold the artist’s vision as well as contemporary and future interpretations. The more similar the two works are in terms of scale, material, subject matter or other major features of the art, the more these additional aspects are brought forward for study and appreciation. To provide a classic example of how these things come to bear upon the interpretation of art, an example comparison will be made of the Grande Ludovisi Sarcophagus (The Ludovisi Battle) and the Dying Warrior from the Temple of Aphaia. Both the Grande Ludovisi Sarcophagus and the Dying Warrior present similar images of death and dying using marble as a base material, but they remain sharply different because of the scale of the individual figures as well as several of the smaller visual elements involved in each. Both of these works of art are presented in marble and each details some sense of battle. The Ludovisi Sarcophagus can be seen to have been carved from a single block of marble that measured at least nine feet wide by five feet high and four and a half feet deep (“Art of the Roman Empire”, 2005). Of only slightly smaller scale overall, the Dying Warrior from the east pediment of the Temple of Aphaia measures just over six feet long. Additionally, there has been a great deal of discussion regarding just what the statue is truly made of. While some scholars say it is marble, others have suggested the statue was first created in poros, the native rock of the island on which the temple stands (George, 2001). A great deal of detail about this statue can still only be guessed at as several segments of the statue are missing, particularly the knee joint of the upraised leg. In addition, the statue has been removed from its overall context, taken off the island in the early 1800s, separated from the rest of its group and subjected to questionable restoration techniques that manifested themselves in strange details on other statues that had been included in the group (George, 2001). Despite the vast age differences in the two works of art, it does seem clear that both the Ludovisi Sarcophagus and the Dying Soldier were created as a means of depicting victory in battle utilizing the depictions of a number of different individuals, including the dying members of the fallen armies. While the Ludovisi Sarcophagus is believed to have been created to celebrate the Romans victory over the Goths in 215 AD, the Dying Soldier is thought to be part of a pediment scene depicting the Greeks fighting in one of their first wars against Troy, created sometime around 490 BC (Stratton, 2001). Although both works of art depict battle scenes, the context in which they are presented and the scale of the individual figures remain widely different. The Ludovisi Sarcophagus depicts a great number of individuals at a relatively small scale, covering the entire surface of the marble to such an extent that the background becomes almost nonexistent. “The dense carving of the relief and the extension to all four sides of the tomb of the battle scene, which teems so thickly with figures as to negate the background, are without precedent” (“Art of the Roman Empire”, 2005). The small figures are so interlaced within the context of the piece that it would be impossible to separate one from the whole even if one wished to try. These figures are not all depicted in their complete forms, several of them are coming up from behind others, such as the top half of the German that one of the Roman infantrymen holds by the beard in the left foreground while his bottom half is hidden behind yet another German who falls before him (Pennington, 2006). By contrast, the Dying Soldier was easily separated from the remainder of his battle scene as each figure seems to have been carved separately prior to being placed on the temple pediment (Dubrulle, 2002). While he constituted one small portion of the battle scene, being separated from the group has not lessened his impact as it would have to try to bring one of the Ludovisi figures out. Rather than detracting from his image, this separation has instead enabled viewers to focus on the more visual features of the solitary statue and appreciate the detail that conveys his dying moments. Although the visual elements of the Dying Warrior depict much more fluid and flowing style than statues created just 20 years prior (Stratton, 2001), this figure retains some of the stiffness of the older period when compared directly with the figures depicted in the Ludovisi Sarcophagus. Stratton compared the Dying Warrior and the rest of his group of statues to the statues that were featured on the west pediment of the same temple, but had been created earlier. In this comparison, he says that the figures on the east pediment “act of their own free will, doing and suffering in the shadow of self-awareness” (2001). Looking at the statue, it does seem to have a certain fluidity of motion, the legs are not stiffened in their pose but are instead still caught in the act of falling to the ground and the extended foot is lower even than the hip. The torso is twisted to face the ground even while the hips remain perpendicular to the ground, capturing the warrior in the moment of his fall. The warrior’s arm is braced as if to catch himself, indicating his body has not yet given up the fight just as his other arm continues to raise his shield, with a little help from the ground, as if the soldier intends to continue fighting. However, his downcast eyes and the grimace on his mouth indicate the inevitable. He will not rise again and he knows it. However, even these exquisite features are overshadowed when compared to the minute details including in the Ludovisi Sarcophagus. Just one small section of the sarcophagus is able to convey a world of expressions and emotions all at once. The previously mentioned Roman warrior, holding a German prisoner by the beard is a wonderful example of this. The Romans are indicated by their clean-shaved faces, but the bearded faces of the Germans are no less expressive. As the Roman soldier holds his prisoner, an enigmatic creasing of the forehead could be interpreted to indicate compassion and pity or anger and contempt. The cording along his forearm illustrates the strength that lies behind that grasp. The eyes and face of the German look up at his captor with a combination of hate, defiance, fear and pain. The actions do not look as posed as the Dying Warrior statue, instead seeming to have simply frozen in motion into the form presented now. While each sculpture presents itself as a masterpiece of human emotional expression, comparing them enables the strength and weaknesses of each to be seen. The larger scale of the Dying Warrior enables his pose and expressions to be studied more closely, allowing one to trace the line and detail of the figure, noting how the idea of motion is conveyed through his balance and mass. However, the smaller scale of the Ludovisi Sarcophagus does not automatically insinuate that the poses and facial expressions must be somehow less emotive. The complicated interweaving of the various figures in the Ludovisi make it impossible to separate one figure from the rest for individual study as was possible with the Dying Warrior, but the aspects of each character that remain visible work seamlessly with the rest to depict the same sense of triumph and defeat, grace and beauty, death and acceptance. Works Cited “Art of the Roman Empire.” The Ancient World from the Roman Empire to the Fourth Crusade. (2005). A World History of Art. February 4, 2007 Dubrulle, Hugh. “Dying Warrior.” (image details). The Origins of the Western Tradition. (2002). Saint Anselm College. February 4, 2007 George, Roy. “Aphaea Temple.” The Museum of the Goddess Athena. (2001). February 4, 2007 Pennington, Ken. “The Grande Ludovisi Sarcophagus” (image details). The Church Throughout the Ages. (2006) The Catholic University of America. February 4, 2007 Stratton, Jerold. “The Temple of Aphaea at Aegina.” Fireblade Coffeehouse. (2001). Negative Space. February 4, 2007 Read More