Week 5

       This is a Male figure from the Cycladic culture. It isn’t specified to be male, but because the figure seems to be taking ‘an action’ it is seen as the male gender. Initially my reaction to this was that it was a very clean sculpture; clean lines, clean figure, and overall well done. The way the man is sitting in the chair holding his cup looks like he is interacting with someone. As if he is in a deep conversation with someone across from him. This really engaged me into the sculpture.

       The male figure is from the height of the Cycladic culture. It is from the time period of 2800-2300 BC.  The figure is constructed entirely of marble. His left arm crosses over his body while his right arm raises a glass as if to propose a toast. His upward chin and defined nose make him seem he is of importance. As if he understands what he is talking about and is taking thought in what he is saying. That is if he is speaking at all. The legs look as if they were just sliced down the middle and parted to make two. Not sure why it was sculpted this way. Maybe they did this to make the sculpture symmetrical.

       I then looked at the male figure from the Ancient Near East. This human figure is from Ain Ghazai, Jordan during 6750-6250 BCE. This early representation of the human figure is a little different than the figure from the Cycladic culture. This specific statue stands 3 feet tall and is made of a cane from which is encased in white plaster. The nostrils and eyes are quiet defined. The eyes are made with shells. The eyes are also painted with a type of natural asphalt. These types of sculptures were also said to have clothes, and tattoos painted on the body. This human sculpture also seems disproportioned to an average human figure. I see this mostly in the size of the arms, and how they are rather small. I also see it in the rather large neck.

       Between the human figure from the Cycladic culture and the human figure from Ancient Near East I can see many differences. First thing I saw was the difference in stature. One is standing with no emotion on his face. The other is sitting and even though the features of the face are not distinct we see emotion in the way he sits and holds his head. The Ancient Near East sculpture also has rough craftsmanship about it, whether that is because it is an older piece or the material, but we see a more clean presentation from the human figure from the Cycladic culture. More detail was put into the Ancient Near East human figure with the various mediums they used, and yet each statue has a very simple design to it. Looking at both figures helps us realize that the human figure is seen differently in every culture, and amongst every individual. It’s interesting to me that there are so many forms of beauty out there and each artist has a different way of portraying it.