Prompt/Purpose
Using the skills outlined in your reading of "Studying the Humanistic Tradition" in the Fiero preface earlier this semester and the Intro and Primer PowerPoints, apply formal text analysis to apply formal analysis to contrast the “Calf Bearer” (book 1, p. 110, fig. 5.7) with the “Good Shepherd” (book 2, p. 25, fig. 9.5).
Original
Andrea Price
HUM 2211
Karen Scheafer
Oct. 24, 2007
Two Worlds: Separate Pieces
Different eras, different cultures, and completely separate ideals are often poured into a piece of artwork, anything from a clay pot to something as large as a full-sized bronze statue of Poseidon. “Calf-Bearer” was conceived during the Greek transition of archaic style to classical Greek; while Christian influences lead to the creation of “The Good Shepherd.” There are several key features that help to characterize the differences between the two. These include the purposes behind each piece, as well as the artist’s intent in creating them and the physical and stylistic differences of each sculpture . They illustrate the personality and the message each one presents to the audience.
The “Calf-Bearer” has been classified as a more transitional type piece; it holds some of the stiffness of the archaic style while it also depicts some of the detail and movement of the Greek Classical era. The artist’s intent was to depict the everyday man, as protector of his calf doing a thing he would do on any other day; the piece was strictly for aesthetic value. The figure is depicted as free standing and moving forward, detail is put into the muscles, and the arms are drawn in, there is fluidity to his motion and the calf itself has the softened detail of young animal. Previously, such statues were seen as stiff and lifeless and were modeled after Egyptian art. Unlike “The Good Shepherd”, the “Calf-Bearer” had eyes of mother-of-pearl, gray agate and lapis lazuli while “The Good Shepherd” was left unadorned.[KF3] The artist used a play of light and dark to help define the finer features and more realistic look of the “Calf-Bearer” which was the goal of the artist and what he wanted to project to the audience.
The Christian world has always been influenced by the Life of Jesus and “The Good Shepherd” depicts the shepherd (Jesus), caretaker of the lamb (followers). Not much religious art was made during the time period, due to the ban against “graven images” however, those freestanding works that were created retained only the rudimentary features. This is shown by “The Good Shepherd” in the use of contrapposto and a few other general ideals held in the high classical statuary. Unlike the “Calf-Bearer”, “The Good Shepherd” was meant as a religious message from Jesus to his followers as was most art of the time period. The statue itself is somewhat effeminate and depicts Jesus through the shepherd rather than that being Jesus himself. The statue is fully clothed; his head is tilted to the side and is focused on the lamb as if he is watching for its safety. And the stance of the figure is somewhat casual despite the awesome power it represents. It is not overly simplified, nor is it immaculate in any way, “The Good Shepherd” was not meant to be aesthetically pleasing as the jewel-eyed “Calf-Bearer” or as a study in human realism, but the artist wished simply to relay an emotional message, “Jesus is the savior of man.”
The two contrast not only in their physical features but as well as in their messages to the audience. One strictly for visual reasons, while the other to relay an important religious message. These principles influenced the way in which each piece was sculpted, the “Calf-Bearer” paid careful attention to detail of muscle of the body and motion while “The Good Shepherd” paid more attention to the message being portrayed. Each piece has its own distinct features that make it unique, and in a way, powerful.
586 words
Layout (c) Andrea Price 2007. All other images (c) rightful owners.