Haniwa Terracotta Dancers

Prompt: Focus on Haniwa Terracotta Dancers and explain the abstract.

The Haniwa Terracotta Dancers (埴輪 踊る人々, haniwa odoru hitobito, haniwa dancing people) are a pair of human-shaped terracotta burial figures - haniwa -  one smaller than the other, in the collection of the Tokyo National Museum. Their gestures with their arms have led them to be given the epithet of 'Dancers'.

埼玉県立さきたま史跡の博物館

埼玉県立史跡の博物館紀要 "Bulletin of the Museum of Saitama Prefectural Historic Sites"

江南町（熊谷市）教育委員会（PDF) " Konan Town (Kumagaya City) Board of Education (PDF)"

Category:Archaeological discoveries in Japan


Haniwa Terracotta Dancers

Prompt: Explain the abstract of this artwork, Haniwa Terracotta Dancers.

The Haniwa Terracotta Dancers (埴輪 踊る人々, haniwa odoru hitobito, haniwa dancing people) are a pair of human-shaped terracotta burial figures - haniwa -  one smaller than the other, in the collection of the Tokyo National Museum. Their gestures with their arms have led them to be given the epithet of 'Dancers'.

埼玉県立さきたま史跡の博物館

埼玉県立史跡の博物館紀要 "Bulletin of the Museum of Saitama Prefectural Historic Sites"

江南町（熊谷市）教育委員会（PDF) " Konan Town (Kumagaya City) Board of Education (PDF)"

Category:Archaeological discoveries in Japan


Haniwa Terracotta Dancers

Prompt: How does Haniwa Terracotta Dancers explain its abstract?

The Haniwa Terracotta Dancers (埴輪 踊る人々, haniwa odoru hitobito, haniwa dancing people) are a pair of human-shaped terracotta burial figures - haniwa -  one smaller than the other, in the collection of the Tokyo National Museum. Their gestures with their arms have led them to be given the epithet of 'Dancers'.

埼玉県立さきたま史跡の博物館

埼玉県立史跡の博物館紀要 "Bulletin of the Museum of Saitama Prefectural Historic Sites"

江南町（熊谷市）教育委員会（PDF) " Konan Town (Kumagaya City) Board of Education (PDF)"

Category:Archaeological discoveries in Japan


Haniwa Terracotta Dancers

Prompt: In Haniwa Terracotta Dancers, how is the abstract discussed?

The Haniwa Terracotta Dancers (埴輪 踊る人々, haniwa odoru hitobito, haniwa dancing people) are a pair of human-shaped terracotta burial figures - haniwa -  one smaller than the other, in the collection of the Tokyo National Museum. Their gestures with their arms have led them to be given the epithet of 'Dancers'.

埼玉県立さきたま史跡の博物館

埼玉県立史跡の博物館紀要 "Bulletin of the Museum of Saitama Prefectural Historic Sites"

江南町（熊谷市）教育委員会（PDF) " Konan Town (Kumagaya City) Board of Education (PDF)"

Category:Archaeological discoveries in Japan


Haniwa Terracotta Dancers

Prompt: Focus on Haniwa Terracotta Dancers and explain the Overview.

The Haniwa Terracotta Dancers were excavated on March 21, 1930, from the Nohara Tumulus. The tumulus is located in the Nohara Burial Mounds (野原古墳群, nohara kofun-gun) of Ohara Village, Ōsato County in the Saitama Prefecture. (Ohara Village was renamed to Kōnan Town and is now known as Ōaza Nohara Aza Miyawaki, Kumagaya City).   The sculptures are well known among the haniwa from the Kofun-period (250-538 CE) for their simplistic design, unique facial expressions and implied dancing gestures. However, in recent scholarly discussions, the theory that they are not dancing figures but horse keepers holding a rein and pulling a horse has become more prevalent.

埼玉県立さきたま史跡の博物館

埼玉県立史跡の博物館紀要 "Bulletin of the Museum of Saitama Prefectural Historic Sites"

江南町（熊谷市）教育委員会（PDF) " Konan Town (Kumagaya City) Board of Education (PDF)"

Category:Archaeological discoveries in Japan


Haniwa Terracotta Dancers

Prompt: Explain the Overview of this artwork, Haniwa Terracotta Dancers.

The Haniwa Terracotta Dancers were excavated on March 21, 1930, from the Nohara Tumulus. The tumulus is located in the Nohara Burial Mounds (野原古墳群, nohara kofun-gun) of Ohara Village, Ōsato County in the Saitama Prefecture. (Ohara Village was renamed to Kōnan Town and is now known as Ōaza Nohara Aza Miyawaki, Kumagaya City).   The sculptures are well known among the haniwa from the Kofun-period (250-538 CE) for their simplistic design, unique facial expressions and implied dancing gestures. However, in recent scholarly discussions, the theory that they are not dancing figures but horse keepers holding a rein and pulling a horse has become more prevalent.

埼玉県立さきたま史跡の博物館

埼玉県立史跡の博物館紀要 "Bulletin of the Museum of Saitama Prefectural Historic Sites"

江南町（熊谷市）教育委員会（PDF) " Konan Town (Kumagaya City) Board of Education (PDF)"

Category:Archaeological discoveries in Japan


Haniwa Terracotta Dancers

Prompt: How does Haniwa Terracotta Dancers explain its Overview?

The Haniwa Terracotta Dancers were excavated on March 21, 1930, from the Nohara Tumulus. The tumulus is located in the Nohara Burial Mounds (野原古墳群, nohara kofun-gun) of Ohara Village, Ōsato County in the Saitama Prefecture. (Ohara Village was renamed to Kōnan Town and is now known as Ōaza Nohara Aza Miyawaki, Kumagaya City).   The sculptures are well known among the haniwa from the Kofun-period (250-538 CE) for their simplistic design, unique facial expressions and implied dancing gestures. However, in recent scholarly discussions, the theory that they are not dancing figures but horse keepers holding a rein and pulling a horse has become more prevalent.

埼玉県立さきたま史跡の博物館

埼玉県立史跡の博物館紀要 "Bulletin of the Museum of Saitama Prefectural Historic Sites"

江南町（熊谷市）教育委員会（PDF) " Konan Town (Kumagaya City) Board of Education (PDF)"

Category:Archaeological discoveries in Japan


Haniwa Terracotta Dancers

Prompt: In Haniwa Terracotta Dancers, how is the Overview discussed?

The Haniwa Terracotta Dancers were excavated on March 21, 1930, from the Nohara Tumulus. The tumulus is located in the Nohara Burial Mounds (野原古墳群, nohara kofun-gun) of Ohara Village, Ōsato County in the Saitama Prefecture. (Ohara Village was renamed to Kōnan Town and is now known as Ōaza Nohara Aza Miyawaki, Kumagaya City).   The sculptures are well known among the haniwa from the Kofun-period (250-538 CE) for their simplistic design, unique facial expressions and implied dancing gestures. However, in recent scholarly discussions, the theory that they are not dancing figures but horse keepers holding a rein and pulling a horse has become more prevalent.

埼玉県立さきたま史跡の博物館

埼玉県立史跡の博物館紀要 "Bulletin of the Museum of Saitama Prefectural Historic Sites"

江南町（熊谷市）教育委員会（PDF) " Konan Town (Kumagaya City) Board of Education (PDF)"

Category:Archaeological discoveries in Japan


Haniwa Terracotta Dancers

Prompt: Focus on Haniwa Terracotta Dancers and explain the Characteristics.

Haniwa are commonly representations with a high level of abstraction. However, these two figures were created with an exceptional degree of abstraction. Both are standing statues, with clay sticks for arms, that lack the lower part of the body. Instead, a cylindrical tube with a rounded end for the head is used as a base. With the left arm raised and the right arm extended diagonally downward in front, they look, when viewed from the front, as if both arms are held in an inverted S-shape. Their mouths and eyes are hollowed in circles of approximately the same size, depicting as if they are wide open. These facial expressions are rare for haniwa. They also look as if they are singing while dancing. The constriction of a neck is not expressed, and the bridge of the nose is affixed with a single clay string extended to the forehead, making it a characteristic expression of a human. Clothing is not depicted in detail, either, other than a fastened waist belt. The smaller haniwa is plastered with clay on both sides of the head. Historically, this is the hairstyle of a low-ranking person known as a peasant style (with buns on each side of the head), and because it is equipped with a tool that appears to be a sickle on the back waist, it is classified as a male farmer. The larger haniwa has no earlobes or hair, except for a small earhole on either side of the head. Because these two figures form a pair, one large and one small, there is a theory that they represent a man and a woman, with the larger one being the woman. There is also a theory that both are male. In the Special Haniwa Exhibition, where the Dancing Haniwa was first shown to the public, early comments criticized them as “unskillfully made with a bizarre style.” They have not been classified as 'important cultural property' unlike other haniwa sculptures. Nevertheless, archaeologist Shuichi Goto later gave the opinion that "there is something to love about the childish craftsmanship.” Fumio Miki, also an archaeologist, wrote that “although it is unskillfully crafted, you can feel a sense of intimacy in the candid expressions.” Japanese art historian Seiroku Noma argues that “at first glance, this kind of expression appears to be at a primitive stage, but it is instead a result of the bold simplification of already partially developed haniwa stylization. This simple and bold portrayal makes it more interesting than a well-crafted haniwa.”

埼玉県立さきたま史跡の博物館

埼玉県立史跡の博物館紀要 "Bulletin of the Museum of Saitama Prefectural Historic Sites"

江南町（熊谷市）教育委員会（PDF) " Konan Town (Kumagaya City) Board of Education (PDF)"

Category:Archaeological discoveries in Japan


Haniwa Terracotta Dancers

Prompt: Explain the Characteristics of this artwork, Haniwa Terracotta Dancers.

Haniwa are commonly representations with a high level of abstraction. However, these two figures were created with an exceptional degree of abstraction. Both are standing statues, with clay sticks for arms, that lack the lower part of the body. Instead, a cylindrical tube with a rounded end for the head is used as a base. With the left arm raised and the right arm extended diagonally downward in front, they look, when viewed from the front, as if both arms are held in an inverted S-shape. Their mouths and eyes are hollowed in circles of approximately the same size, depicting as if they are wide open. These facial expressions are rare for haniwa. They also look as if they are singing while dancing. The constriction of a neck is not expressed, and the bridge of the nose is affixed with a single clay string extended to the forehead, making it a characteristic expression of a human. Clothing is not depicted in detail, either, other than a fastened waist belt. The smaller haniwa is plastered with clay on both sides of the head. Historically, this is the hairstyle of a low-ranking person known as a peasant style (with buns on each side of the head), and because it is equipped with a tool that appears to be a sickle on the back waist, it is classified as a male farmer. The larger haniwa has no earlobes or hair, except for a small earhole on either side of the head. Because these two figures form a pair, one large and one small, there is a theory that they represent a man and a woman, with the larger one being the woman. There is also a theory that both are male. In the Special Haniwa Exhibition, where the Dancing Haniwa was first shown to the public, early comments criticized them as “unskillfully made with a bizarre style.” They have not been classified as 'important cultural property' unlike other haniwa sculptures. Nevertheless, archaeologist Shuichi Goto later gave the opinion that "there is something to love about the childish craftsmanship.” Fumio Miki, also an archaeologist, wrote that “although it is unskillfully crafted, you can feel a sense of intimacy in the candid expressions.” Japanese art historian Seiroku Noma argues that “at first glance, this kind of expression appears to be at a primitive stage, but it is instead a result of the bold simplification of already partially developed haniwa stylization. This simple and bold portrayal makes it more interesting than a well-crafted haniwa.”

埼玉県立さきたま史跡の博物館

埼玉県立史跡の博物館紀要 "Bulletin of the Museum of Saitama Prefectural Historic Sites"

江南町（熊谷市）教育委員会（PDF) " Konan Town (Kumagaya City) Board of Education (PDF)"

Category:Archaeological discoveries in Japan


Haniwa Terracotta Dancers

Prompt: How does Haniwa Terracotta Dancers explain its Characteristics?

Haniwa are commonly representations with a high level of abstraction. However, these two figures were created with an exceptional degree of abstraction. Both are standing statues, with clay sticks for arms, that lack the lower part of the body. Instead, a cylindrical tube with a rounded end for the head is used as a base. With the left arm raised and the right arm extended diagonally downward in front, they look, when viewed from the front, as if both arms are held in an inverted S-shape. Their mouths and eyes are hollowed in circles of approximately the same size, depicting as if they are wide open. These facial expressions are rare for haniwa. They also look as if they are singing while dancing. The constriction of a neck is not expressed, and the bridge of the nose is affixed with a single clay string extended to the forehead, making it a characteristic expression of a human. Clothing is not depicted in detail, either, other than a fastened waist belt. The smaller haniwa is plastered with clay on both sides of the head. Historically, this is the hairstyle of a low-ranking person known as a peasant style (with buns on each side of the head), and because it is equipped with a tool that appears to be a sickle on the back waist, it is classified as a male farmer. The larger haniwa has no earlobes or hair, except for a small earhole on either side of the head. Because these two figures form a pair, one large and one small, there is a theory that they represent a man and a woman, with the larger one being the woman. There is also a theory that both are male. In the Special Haniwa Exhibition, where the Dancing Haniwa was first shown to the public, early comments criticized them as “unskillfully made with a bizarre style.” They have not been classified as 'important cultural property' unlike other haniwa sculptures. Nevertheless, archaeologist Shuichi Goto later gave the opinion that "there is something to love about the childish craftsmanship.” Fumio Miki, also an archaeologist, wrote that “although it is unskillfully crafted, you can feel a sense of intimacy in the candid expressions.” Japanese art historian Seiroku Noma argues that “at first glance, this kind of expression appears to be at a primitive stage, but it is instead a result of the bold simplification of already partially developed haniwa stylization. This simple and bold portrayal makes it more interesting than a well-crafted haniwa.”

埼玉県立さきたま史跡の博物館

埼玉県立史跡の博物館紀要 "Bulletin of the Museum of Saitama Prefectural Historic Sites"

江南町（熊谷市）教育委員会（PDF) " Konan Town (Kumagaya City) Board of Education (PDF)"

Category:Archaeological discoveries in Japan


Haniwa Terracotta Dancers

Prompt: In Haniwa Terracotta Dancers, how is the Characteristics discussed?

Haniwa are commonly representations with a high level of abstraction. However, these two figures were created with an exceptional degree of abstraction. Both are standing statues, with clay sticks for arms, that lack the lower part of the body. Instead, a cylindrical tube with a rounded end for the head is used as a base. With the left arm raised and the right arm extended diagonally downward in front, they look, when viewed from the front, as if both arms are held in an inverted S-shape. Their mouths and eyes are hollowed in circles of approximately the same size, depicting as if they are wide open. These facial expressions are rare for haniwa. They also look as if they are singing while dancing. The constriction of a neck is not expressed, and the bridge of the nose is affixed with a single clay string extended to the forehead, making it a characteristic expression of a human. Clothing is not depicted in detail, either, other than a fastened waist belt. The smaller haniwa is plastered with clay on both sides of the head. Historically, this is the hairstyle of a low-ranking person known as a peasant style (with buns on each side of the head), and because it is equipped with a tool that appears to be a sickle on the back waist, it is classified as a male farmer. The larger haniwa has no earlobes or hair, except for a small earhole on either side of the head. Because these two figures form a pair, one large and one small, there is a theory that they represent a man and a woman, with the larger one being the woman. There is also a theory that both are male. In the Special Haniwa Exhibition, where the Dancing Haniwa was first shown to the public, early comments criticized them as “unskillfully made with a bizarre style.” They have not been classified as 'important cultural property' unlike other haniwa sculptures. Nevertheless, archaeologist Shuichi Goto later gave the opinion that "there is something to love about the childish craftsmanship.” Fumio Miki, also an archaeologist, wrote that “although it is unskillfully crafted, you can feel a sense of intimacy in the candid expressions.” Japanese art historian Seiroku Noma argues that “at first glance, this kind of expression appears to be at a primitive stage, but it is instead a result of the bold simplification of already partially developed haniwa stylization. This simple and bold portrayal makes it more interesting than a well-crafted haniwa.”

埼玉県立さきたま史跡の博物館

埼玉県立史跡の博物館紀要 "Bulletin of the Museum of Saitama Prefectural Historic Sites"

江南町（熊谷市）教育委員会（PDF) " Konan Town (Kumagaya City) Board of Education (PDF)"

Category:Archaeological discoveries in Japan


Haniwa Terracotta Dancers

Prompt: Focus on Haniwa Terracotta Dancers and explain the Recent re-interpretation.

Archaeologist Shuichi Goto identified these two figures as dancing people in 1931. In his paper “The Significance of Haniwa”, Goto classified haniwa according to their clothing, equipment, and posture and analyzed the occupational characteristics of each haniwa. Goto discovered a group of music-playing haniwa exemplified by “A Boy Playing the Koto” and “A Boy Playing the Taiko Drum” excavated from the Kamitakeshi (Gōshi) Tenjinyama Tumulus in Isezaki City, Gunma Prefecture. The two figures excavated from the Nohara burial mound were cited as examples of the corresponding dancing figures and thus were designated as the “Dancing Man and Woman.”However, since the 1990s, doubts have been raised about the validity of these classification methods. For example, in the case of Dancing Haniwa, Goto regarded the act of raising one arm as dancing in comparison with other haniwa playing instruments, but this is made without concrete evidence. Yoshimichi Tsukada claims that it is more reasonable to consider the Dancing Haniwa to be horse herders because their characteristic attributes such as “raising one arm,” “equipped with a sickle on the waist band,” “represented only from waist and above,” and “having a hairstyle apportioned on both sides of the head” are elements widely shared with horse keeper haniwa, which depict horse pulling with one arm raised and holding a rein. Furthermore, haniwa often depict breasts to distinguish women, which the larger figure of the Dancing Haniwa does not have. Therefore, Tsukada argues that both figures should be considered to be male herders, rejecting the earlier interpretation of these haniwa as dancers.

埼玉県立さきたま史跡の博物館

埼玉県立史跡の博物館紀要 "Bulletin of the Museum of Saitama Prefectural Historic Sites"

江南町（熊谷市）教育委員会（PDF) " Konan Town (Kumagaya City) Board of Education (PDF)"

Category:Archaeological discoveries in Japan


Haniwa Terracotta Dancers

Prompt: Explain the Recent re-interpretation of this artwork, Haniwa Terracotta Dancers.

Archaeologist Shuichi Goto identified these two figures as dancing people in 1931. In his paper “The Significance of Haniwa”, Goto classified haniwa according to their clothing, equipment, and posture and analyzed the occupational characteristics of each haniwa. Goto discovered a group of music-playing haniwa exemplified by “A Boy Playing the Koto” and “A Boy Playing the Taiko Drum” excavated from the Kamitakeshi (Gōshi) Tenjinyama Tumulus in Isezaki City, Gunma Prefecture. The two figures excavated from the Nohara burial mound were cited as examples of the corresponding dancing figures and thus were designated as the “Dancing Man and Woman.”However, since the 1990s, doubts have been raised about the validity of these classification methods. For example, in the case of Dancing Haniwa, Goto regarded the act of raising one arm as dancing in comparison with other haniwa playing instruments, but this is made without concrete evidence. Yoshimichi Tsukada claims that it is more reasonable to consider the Dancing Haniwa to be horse herders because their characteristic attributes such as “raising one arm,” “equipped with a sickle on the waist band,” “represented only from waist and above,” and “having a hairstyle apportioned on both sides of the head” are elements widely shared with horse keeper haniwa, which depict horse pulling with one arm raised and holding a rein. Furthermore, haniwa often depict breasts to distinguish women, which the larger figure of the Dancing Haniwa does not have. Therefore, Tsukada argues that both figures should be considered to be male herders, rejecting the earlier interpretation of these haniwa as dancers.

埼玉県立さきたま史跡の博物館

埼玉県立史跡の博物館紀要 "Bulletin of the Museum of Saitama Prefectural Historic Sites"

江南町（熊谷市）教育委員会（PDF) " Konan Town (Kumagaya City) Board of Education (PDF)"

Category:Archaeological discoveries in Japan


Haniwa Terracotta Dancers

Prompt: How does Haniwa Terracotta Dancers explain its Recent re-interpretation?

Archaeologist Shuichi Goto identified these two figures as dancing people in 1931. In his paper “The Significance of Haniwa”, Goto classified haniwa according to their clothing, equipment, and posture and analyzed the occupational characteristics of each haniwa. Goto discovered a group of music-playing haniwa exemplified by “A Boy Playing the Koto” and “A Boy Playing the Taiko Drum” excavated from the Kamitakeshi (Gōshi) Tenjinyama Tumulus in Isezaki City, Gunma Prefecture. The two figures excavated from the Nohara burial mound were cited as examples of the corresponding dancing figures and thus were designated as the “Dancing Man and Woman.”However, since the 1990s, doubts have been raised about the validity of these classification methods. For example, in the case of Dancing Haniwa, Goto regarded the act of raising one arm as dancing in comparison with other haniwa playing instruments, but this is made without concrete evidence. Yoshimichi Tsukada claims that it is more reasonable to consider the Dancing Haniwa to be horse herders because their characteristic attributes such as “raising one arm,” “equipped with a sickle on the waist band,” “represented only from waist and above,” and “having a hairstyle apportioned on both sides of the head” are elements widely shared with horse keeper haniwa, which depict horse pulling with one arm raised and holding a rein. Furthermore, haniwa often depict breasts to distinguish women, which the larger figure of the Dancing Haniwa does not have. Therefore, Tsukada argues that both figures should be considered to be male herders, rejecting the earlier interpretation of these haniwa as dancers.

埼玉県立さきたま史跡の博物館

埼玉県立史跡の博物館紀要 "Bulletin of the Museum of Saitama Prefectural Historic Sites"

江南町（熊谷市）教育委員会（PDF) " Konan Town (Kumagaya City) Board of Education (PDF)"

Category:Archaeological discoveries in Japan


Haniwa Terracotta Dancers

Prompt: In Haniwa Terracotta Dancers, how is the Recent re-interpretation discussed?

Archaeologist Shuichi Goto identified these two figures as dancing people in 1931. In his paper “The Significance of Haniwa”, Goto classified haniwa according to their clothing, equipment, and posture and analyzed the occupational characteristics of each haniwa. Goto discovered a group of music-playing haniwa exemplified by “A Boy Playing the Koto” and “A Boy Playing the Taiko Drum” excavated from the Kamitakeshi (Gōshi) Tenjinyama Tumulus in Isezaki City, Gunma Prefecture. The two figures excavated from the Nohara burial mound were cited as examples of the corresponding dancing figures and thus were designated as the “Dancing Man and Woman.”However, since the 1990s, doubts have been raised about the validity of these classification methods. For example, in the case of Dancing Haniwa, Goto regarded the act of raising one arm as dancing in comparison with other haniwa playing instruments, but this is made without concrete evidence. Yoshimichi Tsukada claims that it is more reasonable to consider the Dancing Haniwa to be horse herders because their characteristic attributes such as “raising one arm,” “equipped with a sickle on the waist band,” “represented only from waist and above,” and “having a hairstyle apportioned on both sides of the head” are elements widely shared with horse keeper haniwa, which depict horse pulling with one arm raised and holding a rein. Furthermore, haniwa often depict breasts to distinguish women, which the larger figure of the Dancing Haniwa does not have. Therefore, Tsukada argues that both figures should be considered to be male herders, rejecting the earlier interpretation of these haniwa as dancers.

埼玉県立さきたま史跡の博物館

埼玉県立史跡の博物館紀要 "Bulletin of the Museum of Saitama Prefectural Historic Sites"

江南町（熊谷市）教育委員会（PDF) " Konan Town (Kumagaya City) Board of Education (PDF)"

Category:Archaeological discoveries in Japan


Rondanini Faun

Prompt: Focus on Rondanini Faun and explain the abstract.

The Rondanini Fawn is a marble sculpture by Flemish artist François Duquesnoy. It is part of the collection at the British Museum in London. The Rondanini Faun was built on an ancient torso, completed by Duquesnoy between 1625 and 1630. Duquesnoy's completion of antiques was acclaimed in Rome as 'absolutely perfect.' In 17th-century restoration of antique statues, the latter were often imbued with Baroque style by the contemporary sculptor who completed the opus. Albeit not excessively so, the Rondanini is no exception, its broad movement being proof thereof. Duquesnoy is known to have produced at least the limbs and the head for this figure, completing a severed torso with a faun tail. Duquesnoy's Faun takes its name from the Palazzo Rondanini in Rome, where it was once kept.

Category:Sculptures by François Duquesnoy

Category:Marble sculptures in the United Kingdom


Rondanini Faun

Prompt: Explain the abstract of this artwork, Rondanini Faun.

The Rondanini Fawn is a marble sculpture by Flemish artist François Duquesnoy. It is part of the collection at the British Museum in London. The Rondanini Faun was built on an ancient torso, completed by Duquesnoy between 1625 and 1630. Duquesnoy's completion of antiques was acclaimed in Rome as 'absolutely perfect.' In 17th-century restoration of antique statues, the latter were often imbued with Baroque style by the contemporary sculptor who completed the opus. Albeit not excessively so, the Rondanini is no exception, its broad movement being proof thereof. Duquesnoy is known to have produced at least the limbs and the head for this figure, completing a severed torso with a faun tail. Duquesnoy's Faun takes its name from the Palazzo Rondanini in Rome, where it was once kept.

Category:Sculptures by François Duquesnoy

Category:Marble sculptures in the United Kingdom


Rondanini Faun

Prompt: How does Rondanini Faun explain its abstract?

The Rondanini Fawn is a marble sculpture by Flemish artist François Duquesnoy. It is part of the collection at the British Museum in London. The Rondanini Faun was built on an ancient torso, completed by Duquesnoy between 1625 and 1630. Duquesnoy's completion of antiques was acclaimed in Rome as 'absolutely perfect.' In 17th-century restoration of antique statues, the latter were often imbued with Baroque style by the contemporary sculptor who completed the opus. Albeit not excessively so, the Rondanini is no exception, its broad movement being proof thereof. Duquesnoy is known to have produced at least the limbs and the head for this figure, completing a severed torso with a faun tail. Duquesnoy's Faun takes its name from the Palazzo Rondanini in Rome, where it was once kept.

Category:Sculptures by François Duquesnoy

Category:Marble sculptures in the United Kingdom


Rondanini Faun

Prompt: In Rondanini Faun, how is the abstract discussed?

The Rondanini Fawn is a marble sculpture by Flemish artist François Duquesnoy. It is part of the collection at the British Museum in London. The Rondanini Faun was built on an ancient torso, completed by Duquesnoy between 1625 and 1630. Duquesnoy's completion of antiques was acclaimed in Rome as 'absolutely perfect.' In 17th-century restoration of antique statues, the latter were often imbued with Baroque style by the contemporary sculptor who completed the opus. Albeit not excessively so, the Rondanini is no exception, its broad movement being proof thereof. Duquesnoy is known to have produced at least the limbs and the head for this figure, completing a severed torso with a faun tail. Duquesnoy's Faun takes its name from the Palazzo Rondanini in Rome, where it was once kept.

Category:Sculptures by François Duquesnoy

Category:Marble sculptures in the United Kingdom


Rondanini Faun

Prompt: Focus on Rondanini Faun and explain the Sculpture.

The restored statue was attributed to Duquesnoy by the latter's biographer, Giovanni Pietro Bellori. Duquesnoy's pupil, Orfeo Boselli, attributed the statue to the Fiammingo. In his Osservazioni, in the chapter treating restoration, Boselli cited the Rondanini Faun as proof of Duquesnoy's skills in the practice. As reported by Estelle Lingo "Boselli described the figure as leaping, and the [Rondanini Faun] is indeed represented in mid action, up on the toes of his right foot with his left foot lifted, both arms extended and head raised, as if he had just leapt and struck the cymbals he is holding." The broad movement of the faun is sign of the Baroque influence in Duquesnoy's day, an admirer of la maniere greca, who in this instance (the restoration of a sculpture ancient per se) nonetheless allowed Baroque influence to permeate the statue.Duquesnoy provided at least the head and the limbs for this sculpture, originally a severed torso with a faun tail. The upper limbs are what conveys the broad movement of the figure. The Fiammingo completed this oeuvre for Alessandro Rondanini, and in fact the sculpture take its name from the Palazzo Rondanini in Rome.

Category:Sculptures by François Duquesnoy

Category:Marble sculptures in the United Kingdom


Rondanini Faun

Prompt: Explain the Sculpture of this artwork, Rondanini Faun.

The restored statue was attributed to Duquesnoy by the latter's biographer, Giovanni Pietro Bellori. Duquesnoy's pupil, Orfeo Boselli, attributed the statue to the Fiammingo. In his Osservazioni, in the chapter treating restoration, Boselli cited the Rondanini Faun as proof of Duquesnoy's skills in the practice. As reported by Estelle Lingo "Boselli described the figure as leaping, and the [Rondanini Faun] is indeed represented in mid action, up on the toes of his right foot with his left foot lifted, both arms extended and head raised, as if he had just leapt and struck the cymbals he is holding." The broad movement of the faun is sign of the Baroque influence in Duquesnoy's day, an admirer of la maniere greca, who in this instance (the restoration of a sculpture ancient per se) nonetheless allowed Baroque influence to permeate the statue.Duquesnoy provided at least the head and the limbs for this sculpture, originally a severed torso with a faun tail. The upper limbs are what conveys the broad movement of the figure. The Fiammingo completed this oeuvre for Alessandro Rondanini, and in fact the sculpture take its name from the Palazzo Rondanini in Rome.

Category:Sculptures by François Duquesnoy

Category:Marble sculptures in the United Kingdom


Rondanini Faun

Prompt: How does Rondanini Faun explain its Sculpture?

The restored statue was attributed to Duquesnoy by the latter's biographer, Giovanni Pietro Bellori. Duquesnoy's pupil, Orfeo Boselli, attributed the statue to the Fiammingo. In his Osservazioni, in the chapter treating restoration, Boselli cited the Rondanini Faun as proof of Duquesnoy's skills in the practice. As reported by Estelle Lingo "Boselli described the figure as leaping, and the [Rondanini Faun] is indeed represented in mid action, up on the toes of his right foot with his left foot lifted, both arms extended and head raised, as if he had just leapt and struck the cymbals he is holding." The broad movement of the faun is sign of the Baroque influence in Duquesnoy's day, an admirer of la maniere greca, who in this instance (the restoration of a sculpture ancient per se) nonetheless allowed Baroque influence to permeate the statue.Duquesnoy provided at least the head and the limbs for this sculpture, originally a severed torso with a faun tail. The upper limbs are what conveys the broad movement of the figure. The Fiammingo completed this oeuvre for Alessandro Rondanini, and in fact the sculpture take its name from the Palazzo Rondanini in Rome.

Category:Sculptures by François Duquesnoy

Category:Marble sculptures in the United Kingdom


Rondanini Faun

Prompt: In Rondanini Faun, how is the Sculpture discussed?

The restored statue was attributed to Duquesnoy by the latter's biographer, Giovanni Pietro Bellori. Duquesnoy's pupil, Orfeo Boselli, attributed the statue to the Fiammingo. In his Osservazioni, in the chapter treating restoration, Boselli cited the Rondanini Faun as proof of Duquesnoy's skills in the practice. As reported by Estelle Lingo "Boselli described the figure as leaping, and the [Rondanini Faun] is indeed represented in mid action, up on the toes of his right foot with his left foot lifted, both arms extended and head raised, as if he had just leapt and struck the cymbals he is holding." The broad movement of the faun is sign of the Baroque influence in Duquesnoy's day, an admirer of la maniere greca, who in this instance (the restoration of a sculpture ancient per se) nonetheless allowed Baroque influence to permeate the statue.Duquesnoy provided at least the head and the limbs for this sculpture, originally a severed torso with a faun tail. The upper limbs are what conveys the broad movement of the figure. The Fiammingo completed this oeuvre for Alessandro Rondanini, and in fact the sculpture take its name from the Palazzo Rondanini in Rome.

Category:Sculptures by François Duquesnoy

Category:Marble sculptures in the United Kingdom


God is Great (no. 2)

Prompt: Focus on God is Great (no. 2) and explain the abstract.

God is Great #2 is a sculpture by the Zambian-born British artist John Latham. Created in 1991, the conceptual artwork featured copies of the Bible, Quran, and a volume of the Talmud, each cut in two and attached to a sheet of glass, giving the illusion of all three volumes being encased within the glass. Latham explained the work as referencing the common origin of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.In 2005 the sculpture was to be featured as part of a retrospective of Latham's work at the Tate Britain gallery in London. After the 7 July 2005 London bombings by Islamic militants, staff members at the gallery expressed concerns that Muslims offended by the work might carry out acts of violence at the gallery. Tate Britain decided not to include the piece in the exhibition. Latham was angered by the gallery's decision, requesting that they return the work to his possession. The controversy generated media interest and in November Tate Britain held a panel debate regarding the issue. The Tate's decision not to display the work was widely criticised, including by Muslim groups and commentators, who accused the gallery of promoting the idea that Muslims were fanatical, intolerant, and volatile.

British Muslim commentator Yasmin Alibhai-Brown criticised the Tate's decision to withdraw the work from display, arguing that it reflected the assumption that all Muslims were intolerant and volatile

Tate Britain's decision not to include the artwork in an exhibit was based on the 7 July 2005 London bombings (emergency crews pictured)

Category:English contemporary works of art


God is Great (no. 2)

Prompt: Explain the abstract of this artwork, God is Great (no. 2).

God is Great #2 is a sculpture by the Zambian-born British artist John Latham. Created in 1991, the conceptual artwork featured copies of the Bible, Quran, and a volume of the Talmud, each cut in two and attached to a sheet of glass, giving the illusion of all three volumes being encased within the glass. Latham explained the work as referencing the common origin of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.In 2005 the sculpture was to be featured as part of a retrospective of Latham's work at the Tate Britain gallery in London. After the 7 July 2005 London bombings by Islamic militants, staff members at the gallery expressed concerns that Muslims offended by the work might carry out acts of violence at the gallery. Tate Britain decided not to include the piece in the exhibition. Latham was angered by the gallery's decision, requesting that they return the work to his possession. The controversy generated media interest and in November Tate Britain held a panel debate regarding the issue. The Tate's decision not to display the work was widely criticised, including by Muslim groups and commentators, who accused the gallery of promoting the idea that Muslims were fanatical, intolerant, and volatile.

British Muslim commentator Yasmin Alibhai-Brown criticised the Tate's decision to withdraw the work from display, arguing that it reflected the assumption that all Muslims were intolerant and volatile

Tate Britain's decision not to include the artwork in an exhibit was based on the 7 July 2005 London bombings (emergency crews pictured)

Category:English contemporary works of art


God is Great (no. 2)

Prompt: How does God is Great (no. 2) explain its abstract?

God is Great #2 is a sculpture by the Zambian-born British artist John Latham. Created in 1991, the conceptual artwork featured copies of the Bible, Quran, and a volume of the Talmud, each cut in two and attached to a sheet of glass, giving the illusion of all three volumes being encased within the glass. Latham explained the work as referencing the common origin of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.In 2005 the sculpture was to be featured as part of a retrospective of Latham's work at the Tate Britain gallery in London. After the 7 July 2005 London bombings by Islamic militants, staff members at the gallery expressed concerns that Muslims offended by the work might carry out acts of violence at the gallery. Tate Britain decided not to include the piece in the exhibition. Latham was angered by the gallery's decision, requesting that they return the work to his possession. The controversy generated media interest and in November Tate Britain held a panel debate regarding the issue. The Tate's decision not to display the work was widely criticised, including by Muslim groups and commentators, who accused the gallery of promoting the idea that Muslims were fanatical, intolerant, and volatile.

British Muslim commentator Yasmin Alibhai-Brown criticised the Tate's decision to withdraw the work from display, arguing that it reflected the assumption that all Muslims were intolerant and volatile

Tate Britain's decision not to include the artwork in an exhibit was based on the 7 July 2005 London bombings (emergency crews pictured)

Category:English contemporary works of art


God is Great (no. 2)

Prompt: In God is Great (no. 2), how is the abstract discussed?

God is Great #2 is a sculpture by the Zambian-born British artist John Latham. Created in 1991, the conceptual artwork featured copies of the Bible, Quran, and a volume of the Talmud, each cut in two and attached to a sheet of glass, giving the illusion of all three volumes being encased within the glass. Latham explained the work as referencing the common origin of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.In 2005 the sculpture was to be featured as part of a retrospective of Latham's work at the Tate Britain gallery in London. After the 7 July 2005 London bombings by Islamic militants, staff members at the gallery expressed concerns that Muslims offended by the work might carry out acts of violence at the gallery. Tate Britain decided not to include the piece in the exhibition. Latham was angered by the gallery's decision, requesting that they return the work to his possession. The controversy generated media interest and in November Tate Britain held a panel debate regarding the issue. The Tate's decision not to display the work was widely criticised, including by Muslim groups and commentators, who accused the gallery of promoting the idea that Muslims were fanatical, intolerant, and volatile.

British Muslim commentator Yasmin Alibhai-Brown criticised the Tate's decision to withdraw the work from display, arguing that it reflected the assumption that all Muslims were intolerant and volatile

Tate Britain's decision not to include the artwork in an exhibit was based on the 7 July 2005 London bombings (emergency crews pictured)

Category:English contemporary works of art


God is Great (no. 2)

Prompt: Focus on God is Great (no. 2) and explain the Background.

God is Great (no. 2) was one of a series of artworks created by Latham which investigated relations between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It features a copy of the Qur'an, the Christian Bible, and a volume from the Talmud, all appearing as if they are embedded within a sheet of glass. This effect had been achieved by cutting each of the books in two and having each side glued to the glass.Latham stated that "it shows that all religious teaching comes from the same source, whatever name you give to it". To The Independent he commented that the sculpture's "literal meaning" was "that all inspirational belief systems derive from a single source, represented by the glass, from which all utterances are drawn on a vast number of now numerate levels". The scholar of religion S. Brent Plate thought that there was an "interpretative ambiguity" to the work, in that the viewer is left to decide for themselves whether it is "critical or accepting" of the religious traditions featured.In the years after it had been made, the work was part of a series that had gone on display at Oxford's Museum of Modern Art, London's Lisson gallery and at the Venice Biennale.

British Muslim commentator Yasmin Alibhai-Brown criticised the Tate's decision to withdraw the work from display, arguing that it reflected the assumption that all Muslims were intolerant and volatile

Tate Britain's decision not to include the artwork in an exhibit was based on the 7 July 2005 London bombings (emergency crews pictured)

Category:English contemporary works of art


God is Great (no. 2)

Prompt: Explain the Background of this artwork, God is Great (no. 2).

God is Great (no. 2) was one of a series of artworks created by Latham which investigated relations between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It features a copy of the Qur'an, the Christian Bible, and a volume from the Talmud, all appearing as if they are embedded within a sheet of glass. This effect had been achieved by cutting each of the books in two and having each side glued to the glass.Latham stated that "it shows that all religious teaching comes from the same source, whatever name you give to it". To The Independent he commented that the sculpture's "literal meaning" was "that all inspirational belief systems derive from a single source, represented by the glass, from which all utterances are drawn on a vast number of now numerate levels". The scholar of religion S. Brent Plate thought that there was an "interpretative ambiguity" to the work, in that the viewer is left to decide for themselves whether it is "critical or accepting" of the religious traditions featured.In the years after it had been made, the work was part of a series that had gone on display at Oxford's Museum of Modern Art, London's Lisson gallery and at the Venice Biennale.

British Muslim commentator Yasmin Alibhai-Brown criticised the Tate's decision to withdraw the work from display, arguing that it reflected the assumption that all Muslims were intolerant and volatile

Tate Britain's decision not to include the artwork in an exhibit was based on the 7 July 2005 London bombings (emergency crews pictured)

Category:English contemporary works of art


God is Great (no. 2)

Prompt: How does God is Great (no. 2) explain its Background?

God is Great (no. 2) was one of a series of artworks created by Latham which investigated relations between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It features a copy of the Qur'an, the Christian Bible, and a volume from the Talmud, all appearing as if they are embedded within a sheet of glass. This effect had been achieved by cutting each of the books in two and having each side glued to the glass.Latham stated that "it shows that all religious teaching comes from the same source, whatever name you give to it". To The Independent he commented that the sculpture's "literal meaning" was "that all inspirational belief systems derive from a single source, represented by the glass, from which all utterances are drawn on a vast number of now numerate levels". The scholar of religion S. Brent Plate thought that there was an "interpretative ambiguity" to the work, in that the viewer is left to decide for themselves whether it is "critical or accepting" of the religious traditions featured.In the years after it had been made, the work was part of a series that had gone on display at Oxford's Museum of Modern Art, London's Lisson gallery and at the Venice Biennale.

British Muslim commentator Yasmin Alibhai-Brown criticised the Tate's decision to withdraw the work from display, arguing that it reflected the assumption that all Muslims were intolerant and volatile

Tate Britain's decision not to include the artwork in an exhibit was based on the 7 July 2005 London bombings (emergency crews pictured)

Category:English contemporary works of art


God is Great (no. 2)

Prompt: In God is Great (no. 2), how is the Background discussed?

God is Great (no. 2) was one of a series of artworks created by Latham which investigated relations between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It features a copy of the Qur'an, the Christian Bible, and a volume from the Talmud, all appearing as if they are embedded within a sheet of glass. This effect had been achieved by cutting each of the books in two and having each side glued to the glass.Latham stated that "it shows that all religious teaching comes from the same source, whatever name you give to it". To The Independent he commented that the sculpture's "literal meaning" was "that all inspirational belief systems derive from a single source, represented by the glass, from which all utterances are drawn on a vast number of now numerate levels". The scholar of religion S. Brent Plate thought that there was an "interpretative ambiguity" to the work, in that the viewer is left to decide for themselves whether it is "critical or accepting" of the religious traditions featured.In the years after it had been made, the work was part of a series that had gone on display at Oxford's Museum of Modern Art, London's Lisson gallery and at the Venice Biennale.

British Muslim commentator Yasmin Alibhai-Brown criticised the Tate's decision to withdraw the work from display, arguing that it reflected the assumption that all Muslims were intolerant and volatile

Tate Britain's decision not to include the artwork in an exhibit was based on the 7 July 2005 London bombings (emergency crews pictured)

Category:English contemporary works of art


God is Great (no. 2)

Prompt: Focus on God is Great (no. 2) and explain the Tate Britain debate.

The Tate Britain gallery in London held a retrospective of the artist's work, John Latham in Focus, between September 2005 and February 2006. In the wake of the 7 July 2005 bombings on the London transport system, carried out by Islamic militants, Tate Britain made the decision not to include God is Great (no. 2) in the exhibition, as they had originally planned. The gallery were aware that the act of cutting the sacred texts in two might cause offense to some members of these religious groups, although the gallery's director, Stephen Deuchar, stated that the decision was made not out of fear of offending anyone, but out of fear that someone who had been offended might respond violently. Following on from the June bombings, gallery staff had expressed concern that they might be attacked because of the artwork.Deuchar added that it was "a very difficult decision, but we made it due to the exceptional circumstances of this summer and in the light of opinions that we value regarding religious sensitivities." The Tate had contacted Islamic scholars who had stated that the work could be seen as an abuse of the Quran, although the gallery had not consulted either the Metropolitan Police or the Muslim Council of Britain before making their decision. A notice was placed in the exhibit explaining that God is Great (no. 2) had been omitted.The incident followed on from several religious controversies that took place in Britain during the preceding year, including Christian demonstrations against Jerry Springer: The Opera and Sikh demonstrations against the play Behzti, which eventually resulted in the latter's cancellation by the Birmingham Repertory Theatre.

British Muslim commentator Yasmin Alibhai-Brown criticised the Tate's decision to withdraw the work from display, arguing that it reflected the assumption that all Muslims were intolerant and volatile

Tate Britain's decision not to include the artwork in an exhibit was based on the 7 July 2005 London bombings (emergency crews pictured)

Category:English contemporary works of art


God is Great (no. 2)

Prompt: Explain the Tate Britain debate of this artwork, God is Great (no. 2).

The Tate Britain gallery in London held a retrospective of the artist's work, John Latham in Focus, between September 2005 and February 2006. In the wake of the 7 July 2005 bombings on the London transport system, carried out by Islamic militants, Tate Britain made the decision not to include God is Great (no. 2) in the exhibition, as they had originally planned. The gallery were aware that the act of cutting the sacred texts in two might cause offense to some members of these religious groups, although the gallery's director, Stephen Deuchar, stated that the decision was made not out of fear of offending anyone, but out of fear that someone who had been offended might respond violently. Following on from the June bombings, gallery staff had expressed concern that they might be attacked because of the artwork.Deuchar added that it was "a very difficult decision, but we made it due to the exceptional circumstances of this summer and in the light of opinions that we value regarding religious sensitivities." The Tate had contacted Islamic scholars who had stated that the work could be seen as an abuse of the Quran, although the gallery had not consulted either the Metropolitan Police or the Muslim Council of Britain before making their decision. A notice was placed in the exhibit explaining that God is Great (no. 2) had been omitted.The incident followed on from several religious controversies that took place in Britain during the preceding year, including Christian demonstrations against Jerry Springer: The Opera and Sikh demonstrations against the play Behzti, which eventually resulted in the latter's cancellation by the Birmingham Repertory Theatre.

British Muslim commentator Yasmin Alibhai-Brown criticised the Tate's decision to withdraw the work from display, arguing that it reflected the assumption that all Muslims were intolerant and volatile

Tate Britain's decision not to include the artwork in an exhibit was based on the 7 July 2005 London bombings (emergency crews pictured)

Category:English contemporary works of art


God is Great (no. 2)

Prompt: How does God is Great (no. 2) explain its Tate Britain debate?

The Tate Britain gallery in London held a retrospective of the artist's work, John Latham in Focus, between September 2005 and February 2006. In the wake of the 7 July 2005 bombings on the London transport system, carried out by Islamic militants, Tate Britain made the decision not to include God is Great (no. 2) in the exhibition, as they had originally planned. The gallery were aware that the act of cutting the sacred texts in two might cause offense to some members of these religious groups, although the gallery's director, Stephen Deuchar, stated that the decision was made not out of fear of offending anyone, but out of fear that someone who had been offended might respond violently. Following on from the June bombings, gallery staff had expressed concern that they might be attacked because of the artwork.Deuchar added that it was "a very difficult decision, but we made it due to the exceptional circumstances of this summer and in the light of opinions that we value regarding religious sensitivities." The Tate had contacted Islamic scholars who had stated that the work could be seen as an abuse of the Quran, although the gallery had not consulted either the Metropolitan Police or the Muslim Council of Britain before making their decision. A notice was placed in the exhibit explaining that God is Great (no. 2) had been omitted.The incident followed on from several religious controversies that took place in Britain during the preceding year, including Christian demonstrations against Jerry Springer: The Opera and Sikh demonstrations against the play Behzti, which eventually resulted in the latter's cancellation by the Birmingham Repertory Theatre.

British Muslim commentator Yasmin Alibhai-Brown criticised the Tate's decision to withdraw the work from display, arguing that it reflected the assumption that all Muslims were intolerant and volatile

Tate Britain's decision not to include the artwork in an exhibit was based on the 7 July 2005 London bombings (emergency crews pictured)

Category:English contemporary works of art


God is Great (no. 2)

Prompt: In God is Great (no. 2), how is the Tate Britain debate discussed?

The Tate Britain gallery in London held a retrospective of the artist's work, John Latham in Focus, between September 2005 and February 2006. In the wake of the 7 July 2005 bombings on the London transport system, carried out by Islamic militants, Tate Britain made the decision not to include God is Great (no. 2) in the exhibition, as they had originally planned. The gallery were aware that the act of cutting the sacred texts in two might cause offense to some members of these religious groups, although the gallery's director, Stephen Deuchar, stated that the decision was made not out of fear of offending anyone, but out of fear that someone who had been offended might respond violently. Following on from the June bombings, gallery staff had expressed concern that they might be attacked because of the artwork.Deuchar added that it was "a very difficult decision, but we made it due to the exceptional circumstances of this summer and in the light of opinions that we value regarding religious sensitivities." The Tate had contacted Islamic scholars who had stated that the work could be seen as an abuse of the Quran, although the gallery had not consulted either the Metropolitan Police or the Muslim Council of Britain before making their decision. A notice was placed in the exhibit explaining that God is Great (no. 2) had been omitted.The incident followed on from several religious controversies that took place in Britain during the preceding year, including Christian demonstrations against Jerry Springer: The Opera and Sikh demonstrations against the play Behzti, which eventually resulted in the latter's cancellation by the Birmingham Repertory Theatre.

British Muslim commentator Yasmin Alibhai-Brown criticised the Tate's decision to withdraw the work from display, arguing that it reflected the assumption that all Muslims were intolerant and volatile

Tate Britain's decision not to include the artwork in an exhibit was based on the 7 July 2005 London bombings (emergency crews pictured)

Category:English contemporary works of art


God is Great (no. 2)

Prompt: In the context of God is Great (no. 2), explain the Response and the Tate Britain debate.

Latham was angered by the Tate's decision: "Tate Britain has shown cowardice over this . . . it isn't even a gesture as strong as censorship, just a loss of nerve." In his view, the artwork was "not offensive to anybody" and not "anti-Muslim". He wrote to the gallery stating that if they were not going to display the artwork then they should relinquish possession and return it to him, although admitted that he thought it unlikely that they would do so. The Tate conceded that in its notice in the gallery, it would state that they had removed the piece "without the consent" of the artist. Latham died on 1 January 2006, before the retrospective exhibition had finished.The British media soon picked on the story and various newspaper columns were devoted to it.The civil rights advocacy group Liberty also criticised the gallery's decision; its director, Shami Chakrabarti, expressed concern at the "signal this sends at a time when we see free speech quite significantly under threat" in Britain.The Secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain, Iqbal Sacranie, stated that he was unaware of any Muslim group that had protested against the display of the artwork, but that he respected the Tate's decision if they felt it to be "deeply offensive to the believers of the three religions". The Council also stated that it had wished that the Tate had consulted them before making the decision, adding that "sometimes presumptions are incorrectly made about what is unacceptable to Muslims and this can be counter-productive."Tate Britain organised a panel to debate the issue in November, titled "Sacred, Sacrosanct or Just Art?: The Politics and Place of Art in the Public Arena". One of those on the panel was the commentator Yasmin Alibhai-Brown. She noted that the debate was "more interesting and vital than that tired old match between absolutist libertarians and those who advocate censorship." In her view, the Tate's decision was wrong, but understandable. She expressed frustration that the Tate's decision displayed an attitude that assumed Muslims to be fanatical and intolerant, and articulated the view that the millions of "liberal, secular, and open minded" Muslims around the world were "offended by the decision that assumed we are all volatile and unlikely to understand such works." As a Muslim, she regarded the sculpture itself as "an extraordinary representation of devout belief in one God and universe".Another member of the panel was the commentator Anthony Julius. Regarding the artwork itself, he thought it "uninformed", believing that it did not reflect "any particularly intimate understanding of the traditions that it purports to represent." Specifically, he thought it confused to have a whole copy of the Quran coupled with only part of the Talmud, which he thought reflected ignorance as to the nature of Jewish scripture and its relationship with Islamic text. He opposed the Tate's decision to remove the artwork from display, suggesting that the possibility of the sculpture being damaged was minimal, the threat to gallery visitors "exceptionally unlikely", and that if needed, additional security could have been employed. He further suggested that the Tate should have consulted Latham before making the decision, because the artist—although no longer the legal owner of the piece—should remain in control of "the integrity of the work".

British Muslim commentator Yasmin Alibhai-Brown criticised the Tate's decision to withdraw the work from display, arguing that it reflected the assumption that all Muslims were intolerant and volatile

Tate Britain's decision not to include the artwork in an exhibit was based on the 7 July 2005 London bombings (emergency crews pictured)

Category:English contemporary works of art


God is Great (no. 2)

Prompt: Explain the Response about the Tate Britain debate of this artwork, God is Great (no. 2).

Latham was angered by the Tate's decision: "Tate Britain has shown cowardice over this . . . it isn't even a gesture as strong as censorship, just a loss of nerve." In his view, the artwork was "not offensive to anybody" and not "anti-Muslim". He wrote to the gallery stating that if they were not going to display the artwork then they should relinquish possession and return it to him, although admitted that he thought it unlikely that they would do so. The Tate conceded that in its notice in the gallery, it would state that they had removed the piece "without the consent" of the artist. Latham died on 1 January 2006, before the retrospective exhibition had finished.The British media soon picked on the story and various newspaper columns were devoted to it.The civil rights advocacy group Liberty also criticised the gallery's decision; its director, Shami Chakrabarti, expressed concern at the "signal this sends at a time when we see free speech quite significantly under threat" in Britain.The Secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain, Iqbal Sacranie, stated that he was unaware of any Muslim group that had protested against the display of the artwork, but that he respected the Tate's decision if they felt it to be "deeply offensive to the believers of the three religions". The Council also stated that it had wished that the Tate had consulted them before making the decision, adding that "sometimes presumptions are incorrectly made about what is unacceptable to Muslims and this can be counter-productive."Tate Britain organised a panel to debate the issue in November, titled "Sacred, Sacrosanct or Just Art?: The Politics and Place of Art in the Public Arena". One of those on the panel was the commentator Yasmin Alibhai-Brown. She noted that the debate was "more interesting and vital than that tired old match between absolutist libertarians and those who advocate censorship." In her view, the Tate's decision was wrong, but understandable. She expressed frustration that the Tate's decision displayed an attitude that assumed Muslims to be fanatical and intolerant, and articulated the view that the millions of "liberal, secular, and open minded" Muslims around the world were "offended by the decision that assumed we are all volatile and unlikely to understand such works." As a Muslim, she regarded the sculpture itself as "an extraordinary representation of devout belief in one God and universe".Another member of the panel was the commentator Anthony Julius. Regarding the artwork itself, he thought it "uninformed", believing that it did not reflect "any particularly intimate understanding of the traditions that it purports to represent." Specifically, he thought it confused to have a whole copy of the Quran coupled with only part of the Talmud, which he thought reflected ignorance as to the nature of Jewish scripture and its relationship with Islamic text. He opposed the Tate's decision to remove the artwork from display, suggesting that the possibility of the sculpture being damaged was minimal, the threat to gallery visitors "exceptionally unlikely", and that if needed, additional security could have been employed. He further suggested that the Tate should have consulted Latham before making the decision, because the artist—although no longer the legal owner of the piece—should remain in control of "the integrity of the work".

British Muslim commentator Yasmin Alibhai-Brown criticised the Tate's decision to withdraw the work from display, arguing that it reflected the assumption that all Muslims were intolerant and volatile

Tate Britain's decision not to include the artwork in an exhibit was based on the 7 July 2005 London bombings (emergency crews pictured)

Category:English contemporary works of art


God is Great (no. 2)

Prompt: In God is Great (no. 2), how is the Response of the Tate Britain debate explained?

Latham was angered by the Tate's decision: "Tate Britain has shown cowardice over this . . . it isn't even a gesture as strong as censorship, just a loss of nerve." In his view, the artwork was "not offensive to anybody" and not "anti-Muslim". He wrote to the gallery stating that if they were not going to display the artwork then they should relinquish possession and return it to him, although admitted that he thought it unlikely that they would do so. The Tate conceded that in its notice in the gallery, it would state that they had removed the piece "without the consent" of the artist. Latham died on 1 January 2006, before the retrospective exhibition had finished.The British media soon picked on the story and various newspaper columns were devoted to it.The civil rights advocacy group Liberty also criticised the gallery's decision; its director, Shami Chakrabarti, expressed concern at the "signal this sends at a time when we see free speech quite significantly under threat" in Britain.The Secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain, Iqbal Sacranie, stated that he was unaware of any Muslim group that had protested against the display of the artwork, but that he respected the Tate's decision if they felt it to be "deeply offensive to the believers of the three religions". The Council also stated that it had wished that the Tate had consulted them before making the decision, adding that "sometimes presumptions are incorrectly made about what is unacceptable to Muslims and this can be counter-productive."Tate Britain organised a panel to debate the issue in November, titled "Sacred, Sacrosanct or Just Art?: The Politics and Place of Art in the Public Arena". One of those on the panel was the commentator Yasmin Alibhai-Brown. She noted that the debate was "more interesting and vital than that tired old match between absolutist libertarians and those who advocate censorship." In her view, the Tate's decision was wrong, but understandable. She expressed frustration that the Tate's decision displayed an attitude that assumed Muslims to be fanatical and intolerant, and articulated the view that the millions of "liberal, secular, and open minded" Muslims around the world were "offended by the decision that assumed we are all volatile and unlikely to understand such works." As a Muslim, she regarded the sculpture itself as "an extraordinary representation of devout belief in one God and universe".Another member of the panel was the commentator Anthony Julius. Regarding the artwork itself, he thought it "uninformed", believing that it did not reflect "any particularly intimate understanding of the traditions that it purports to represent." Specifically, he thought it confused to have a whole copy of the Quran coupled with only part of the Talmud, which he thought reflected ignorance as to the nature of Jewish scripture and its relationship with Islamic text. He opposed the Tate's decision to remove the artwork from display, suggesting that the possibility of the sculpture being damaged was minimal, the threat to gallery visitors "exceptionally unlikely", and that if needed, additional security could have been employed. He further suggested that the Tate should have consulted Latham before making the decision, because the artist—although no longer the legal owner of the piece—should remain in control of "the integrity of the work".

British Muslim commentator Yasmin Alibhai-Brown criticised the Tate's decision to withdraw the work from display, arguing that it reflected the assumption that all Muslims were intolerant and volatile

Tate Britain's decision not to include the artwork in an exhibit was based on the 7 July 2005 London bombings (emergency crews pictured)

Category:English contemporary works of art


God is Great (no. 2)

Prompt: Describe the characteristics of the Response in God is Great (no. 2)'s Tate Britain debate.

Latham was angered by the Tate's decision: "Tate Britain has shown cowardice over this . . . it isn't even a gesture as strong as censorship, just a loss of nerve." In his view, the artwork was "not offensive to anybody" and not "anti-Muslim". He wrote to the gallery stating that if they were not going to display the artwork then they should relinquish possession and return it to him, although admitted that he thought it unlikely that they would do so. The Tate conceded that in its notice in the gallery, it would state that they had removed the piece "without the consent" of the artist. Latham died on 1 January 2006, before the retrospective exhibition had finished.The British media soon picked on the story and various newspaper columns were devoted to it.The civil rights advocacy group Liberty also criticised the gallery's decision; its director, Shami Chakrabarti, expressed concern at the "signal this sends at a time when we see free speech quite significantly under threat" in Britain.The Secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain, Iqbal Sacranie, stated that he was unaware of any Muslim group that had protested against the display of the artwork, but that he respected the Tate's decision if they felt it to be "deeply offensive to the believers of the three religions". The Council also stated that it had wished that the Tate had consulted them before making the decision, adding that "sometimes presumptions are incorrectly made about what is unacceptable to Muslims and this can be counter-productive."Tate Britain organised a panel to debate the issue in November, titled "Sacred, Sacrosanct or Just Art?: The Politics and Place of Art in the Public Arena". One of those on the panel was the commentator Yasmin Alibhai-Brown. She noted that the debate was "more interesting and vital than that tired old match between absolutist libertarians and those who advocate censorship." In her view, the Tate's decision was wrong, but understandable. She expressed frustration that the Tate's decision displayed an attitude that assumed Muslims to be fanatical and intolerant, and articulated the view that the millions of "liberal, secular, and open minded" Muslims around the world were "offended by the decision that assumed we are all volatile and unlikely to understand such works." As a Muslim, she regarded the sculpture itself as "an extraordinary representation of devout belief in one God and universe".Another member of the panel was the commentator Anthony Julius. Regarding the artwork itself, he thought it "uninformed", believing that it did not reflect "any particularly intimate understanding of the traditions that it purports to represent." Specifically, he thought it confused to have a whole copy of the Quran coupled with only part of the Talmud, which he thought reflected ignorance as to the nature of Jewish scripture and its relationship with Islamic text. He opposed the Tate's decision to remove the artwork from display, suggesting that the possibility of the sculpture being damaged was minimal, the threat to gallery visitors "exceptionally unlikely", and that if needed, additional security could have been employed. He further suggested that the Tate should have consulted Latham before making the decision, because the artist—although no longer the legal owner of the piece—should remain in control of "the integrity of the work".

British Muslim commentator Yasmin Alibhai-Brown criticised the Tate's decision to withdraw the work from display, arguing that it reflected the assumption that all Muslims were intolerant and volatile

Tate Britain's decision not to include the artwork in an exhibit was based on the 7 July 2005 London bombings (emergency crews pictured)

Category:English contemporary works of art


Ugolino and His Sons (Carpeaux)

Prompt: Focus on Ugolino and His Sons (Carpeaux) and explain the abstract.

Ugolino and His Sons is a marble sculpture of Ugolino made by Jean-Baptiste Carpeaux in Paris during the 1860s. It depicts the story of Ugolino from Dante's Inferno in which the 13th century count is imprisoned and starving with his children. The work, known for its expressive detail, launched Carpeaux's career.

Category:Sculptures based on Inferno (Dante)

File:Scan the World - Ugolino and His Sons.stl

Category:Nude sculptures in New York (state)

Category:Sculptures of children in New York City

Category:Sculptures in the Metropolitan Museum of Art


Ugolino and His Sons (Carpeaux)

Prompt: Explain the abstract of this artwork, Ugolino and His Sons (Carpeaux).

Ugolino and His Sons is a marble sculpture of Ugolino made by Jean-Baptiste Carpeaux in Paris during the 1860s. It depicts the story of Ugolino from Dante's Inferno in which the 13th century count is imprisoned and starving with his children. The work, known for its expressive detail, launched Carpeaux's career.

Category:Sculptures based on Inferno (Dante)

File:Scan the World - Ugolino and His Sons.stl

Category:Nude sculptures in New York (state)

Category:Sculptures of children in New York City

Category:Sculptures in the Metropolitan Museum of Art


Ugolino and His Sons (Carpeaux)

Prompt: How does Ugolino and His Sons (Carpeaux) explain its abstract?

Ugolino and His Sons is a marble sculpture of Ugolino made by Jean-Baptiste Carpeaux in Paris during the 1860s. It depicts the story of Ugolino from Dante's Inferno in which the 13th century count is imprisoned and starving with his children. The work, known for its expressive detail, launched Carpeaux's career.

Category:Sculptures based on Inferno (Dante)

File:Scan the World - Ugolino and His Sons.stl

Category:Nude sculptures in New York (state)

Category:Sculptures of children in New York City

Category:Sculptures in the Metropolitan Museum of Art


Ugolino and His Sons (Carpeaux)

Prompt: In Ugolino and His Sons (Carpeaux), how is the abstract discussed?

Ugolino and His Sons is a marble sculpture of Ugolino made by Jean-Baptiste Carpeaux in Paris during the 1860s. It depicts the story of Ugolino from Dante's Inferno in which the 13th century count is imprisoned and starving with his children. The work, known for its expressive detail, launched Carpeaux's career.

Category:Sculptures based on Inferno (Dante)

File:Scan the World - Ugolino and His Sons.stl

Category:Nude sculptures in New York (state)

Category:Sculptures of children in New York City

Category:Sculptures in the Metropolitan Museum of Art


Ugolino and His Sons (Carpeaux)

Prompt: Focus on Ugolino and His Sons (Carpeaux) and explain the Description and style.

The work is a highly expressive depiction of Ugolino della Gherardesca from Canto XXXIII of Dante's Inferno. In the story, the Pisan count Ugolino is sentenced to die in a tower prison with his children and grandchildren. Carpeaux shows Ugolino at the moment where he considers cannibalism. The work is emblematic of the Romantic style's heightened physical and emotional states. Ugolino looks into the distance. His posture ignores the four children that cling to his body as if he were unaware they were there—the youngest is curled at his feet and possibly dead. In the source text, Ugolino grieves the agonizing death of his children and whether he eats his children's flesh is unclear to the reader, as it is in the sculpture. Ugolino's body is muscular even though he is starving. Its style reflects the Vatican's Laocoön and His Sons.

Category:Sculptures based on Inferno (Dante)

File:Scan the World - Ugolino and His Sons.stl

Category:Nude sculptures in New York (state)

Category:Sculptures of children in New York City

Category:Sculptures in the Metropolitan Museum of Art


Ugolino and His Sons (Carpeaux)

Prompt: Explain the Description and style of this artwork, Ugolino and His Sons (Carpeaux).

The work is a highly expressive depiction of Ugolino della Gherardesca from Canto XXXIII of Dante's Inferno. In the story, the Pisan count Ugolino is sentenced to die in a tower prison with his children and grandchildren. Carpeaux shows Ugolino at the moment where he considers cannibalism. The work is emblematic of the Romantic style's heightened physical and emotional states. Ugolino looks into the distance. His posture ignores the four children that cling to his body as if he were unaware they were there—the youngest is curled at his feet and possibly dead. In the source text, Ugolino grieves the agonizing death of his children and whether he eats his children's flesh is unclear to the reader, as it is in the sculpture. Ugolino's body is muscular even though he is starving. Its style reflects the Vatican's Laocoön and His Sons.

Category:Sculptures based on Inferno (Dante)

File:Scan the World - Ugolino and His Sons.stl

Category:Nude sculptures in New York (state)

Category:Sculptures of children in New York City

Category:Sculptures in the Metropolitan Museum of Art


Ugolino and His Sons (Carpeaux)

Prompt: How does Ugolino and His Sons (Carpeaux) explain its Description and style?

The work is a highly expressive depiction of Ugolino della Gherardesca from Canto XXXIII of Dante's Inferno. In the story, the Pisan count Ugolino is sentenced to die in a tower prison with his children and grandchildren. Carpeaux shows Ugolino at the moment where he considers cannibalism. The work is emblematic of the Romantic style's heightened physical and emotional states. Ugolino looks into the distance. His posture ignores the four children that cling to his body as if he were unaware they were there—the youngest is curled at his feet and possibly dead. In the source text, Ugolino grieves the agonizing death of his children and whether he eats his children's flesh is unclear to the reader, as it is in the sculpture. Ugolino's body is muscular even though he is starving. Its style reflects the Vatican's Laocoön and His Sons.

Category:Sculptures based on Inferno (Dante)

File:Scan the World - Ugolino and His Sons.stl

Category:Nude sculptures in New York (state)

Category:Sculptures of children in New York City

Category:Sculptures in the Metropolitan Museum of Art


Ugolino and His Sons (Carpeaux)

Prompt: In Ugolino and His Sons (Carpeaux), how is the Description and style discussed?

The work is a highly expressive depiction of Ugolino della Gherardesca from Canto XXXIII of Dante's Inferno. In the story, the Pisan count Ugolino is sentenced to die in a tower prison with his children and grandchildren. Carpeaux shows Ugolino at the moment where he considers cannibalism. The work is emblematic of the Romantic style's heightened physical and emotional states. Ugolino looks into the distance. His posture ignores the four children that cling to his body as if he were unaware they were there—the youngest is curled at his feet and possibly dead. In the source text, Ugolino grieves the agonizing death of his children and whether he eats his children's flesh is unclear to the reader, as it is in the sculpture. Ugolino's body is muscular even though he is starving. Its style reflects the Vatican's Laocoön and His Sons.

Category:Sculptures based on Inferno (Dante)

File:Scan the World - Ugolino and His Sons.stl

Category:Nude sculptures in New York (state)

Category:Sculptures of children in New York City

Category:Sculptures in the Metropolitan Museum of Art


Ugolino and His Sons (Carpeaux)

Prompt: Focus on Ugolino and His Sons (Carpeaux) and explain the Production.

Carpeaux won the Prix de Rome in 1854. While in Rome, he stayed in the French Academy in Rome's Villa Medici and studied the works of Michelangelo. Carpeaux's Ugolino was prototyped on Michelangelo's works from three centuries prior, particularly his Last Judgment panel of the Sistine Chapel. The children's anatomy was based on naturalistic observation. He sketched dying children as part of his preparation. He was compositionally influenced by Laocoön and His Sons at the Vatican. Carpeaux completed the work in the last year of his residence at the French Academy in Rome.The sculpture was cast in bronze in 1863 by the French Ministry of Fine Arts and displayed in the Parisian Tuileries to accompany a replica of Laocoön. A marble version was completed in Paris under Carpeaux's supervision for the owner of the Saint-Béat marble quarry to exhibit at the 1867 International Exposition. This version was later acquired by the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City.

Category:Sculptures based on Inferno (Dante)

File:Scan the World - Ugolino and His Sons.stl

Category:Nude sculptures in New York (state)

Category:Sculptures of children in New York City

Category:Sculptures in the Metropolitan Museum of Art


Ugolino and His Sons (Carpeaux)

Prompt: Explain the Production of this artwork, Ugolino and His Sons (Carpeaux).

Carpeaux won the Prix de Rome in 1854. While in Rome, he stayed in the French Academy in Rome's Villa Medici and studied the works of Michelangelo. Carpeaux's Ugolino was prototyped on Michelangelo's works from three centuries prior, particularly his Last Judgment panel of the Sistine Chapel. The children's anatomy was based on naturalistic observation. He sketched dying children as part of his preparation. He was compositionally influenced by Laocoön and His Sons at the Vatican. Carpeaux completed the work in the last year of his residence at the French Academy in Rome.The sculpture was cast in bronze in 1863 by the French Ministry of Fine Arts and displayed in the Parisian Tuileries to accompany a replica of Laocoön. A marble version was completed in Paris under Carpeaux's supervision for the owner of the Saint-Béat marble quarry to exhibit at the 1867 International Exposition. This version was later acquired by the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City.

Category:Sculptures based on Inferno (Dante)

File:Scan the World - Ugolino and His Sons.stl

Category:Nude sculptures in New York (state)

Category:Sculptures of children in New York City

Category:Sculptures in the Metropolitan Museum of Art


Ugolino and His Sons (Carpeaux)

Prompt: How does Ugolino and His Sons (Carpeaux) explain its Production?

Carpeaux won the Prix de Rome in 1854. While in Rome, he stayed in the French Academy in Rome's Villa Medici and studied the works of Michelangelo. Carpeaux's Ugolino was prototyped on Michelangelo's works from three centuries prior, particularly his Last Judgment panel of the Sistine Chapel. The children's anatomy was based on naturalistic observation. He sketched dying children as part of his preparation. He was compositionally influenced by Laocoön and His Sons at the Vatican. Carpeaux completed the work in the last year of his residence at the French Academy in Rome.The sculpture was cast in bronze in 1863 by the French Ministry of Fine Arts and displayed in the Parisian Tuileries to accompany a replica of Laocoön. A marble version was completed in Paris under Carpeaux's supervision for the owner of the Saint-Béat marble quarry to exhibit at the 1867 International Exposition. This version was later acquired by the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City.

Category:Sculptures based on Inferno (Dante)

File:Scan the World - Ugolino and His Sons.stl

Category:Nude sculptures in New York (state)

Category:Sculptures of children in New York City

Category:Sculptures in the Metropolitan Museum of Art


Ugolino and His Sons (Carpeaux)

Prompt: In Ugolino and His Sons (Carpeaux), how is the Production discussed?

Carpeaux won the Prix de Rome in 1854. While in Rome, he stayed in the French Academy in Rome's Villa Medici and studied the works of Michelangelo. Carpeaux's Ugolino was prototyped on Michelangelo's works from three centuries prior, particularly his Last Judgment panel of the Sistine Chapel. The children's anatomy was based on naturalistic observation. He sketched dying children as part of his preparation. He was compositionally influenced by Laocoön and His Sons at the Vatican. Carpeaux completed the work in the last year of his residence at the French Academy in Rome.The sculpture was cast in bronze in 1863 by the French Ministry of Fine Arts and displayed in the Parisian Tuileries to accompany a replica of Laocoön. A marble version was completed in Paris under Carpeaux's supervision for the owner of the Saint-Béat marble quarry to exhibit at the 1867 International Exposition. This version was later acquired by the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City.

Category:Sculptures based on Inferno (Dante)

File:Scan the World - Ugolino and His Sons.stl

Category:Nude sculptures in New York (state)

Category:Sculptures of children in New York City

Category:Sculptures in the Metropolitan Museum of Art


Ugolino and His Sons (Carpeaux)

Prompt: Focus on Ugolino and His Sons (Carpeaux) and explain the Reception.

The initial release of the plaster model created a "public sensation". Ugolino and His Sons departed from the French Academy's tradition with "boldness and vigor" and the "spirit and masterly technique worthy of Michelangelo". The sculpture, and Carpeaux, were considered descendants of the 1830s French Romantic sculptor tradition associated with François Rude and Auguste Préault. Carpeaux admired the works of Rude, who once served as his mentor. Ugolino and His Sons launched Carpeaux's career and led to his commission for the façade of the Palais Garnier opera house: La Danse, a work that made him famous.

Category:Sculptures based on Inferno (Dante)

File:Scan the World - Ugolino and His Sons.stl

Category:Nude sculptures in New York (state)

Category:Sculptures of children in New York City

Category:Sculptures in the Metropolitan Museum of Art


Ugolino and His Sons (Carpeaux)

Prompt: Explain the Reception of this artwork, Ugolino and His Sons (Carpeaux).

The initial release of the plaster model created a "public sensation". Ugolino and His Sons departed from the French Academy's tradition with "boldness and vigor" and the "spirit and masterly technique worthy of Michelangelo". The sculpture, and Carpeaux, were considered descendants of the 1830s French Romantic sculptor tradition associated with François Rude and Auguste Préault. Carpeaux admired the works of Rude, who once served as his mentor. Ugolino and His Sons launched Carpeaux's career and led to his commission for the façade of the Palais Garnier opera house: La Danse, a work that made him famous.

Category:Sculptures based on Inferno (Dante)

File:Scan the World - Ugolino and His Sons.stl

Category:Nude sculptures in New York (state)

Category:Sculptures of children in New York City

Category:Sculptures in the Metropolitan Museum of Art


Ugolino and His Sons (Carpeaux)

Prompt: How does Ugolino and His Sons (Carpeaux) explain its Reception?

The initial release of the plaster model created a "public sensation". Ugolino and His Sons departed from the French Academy's tradition with "boldness and vigor" and the "spirit and masterly technique worthy of Michelangelo". The sculpture, and Carpeaux, were considered descendants of the 1830s French Romantic sculptor tradition associated with François Rude and Auguste Préault. Carpeaux admired the works of Rude, who once served as his mentor. Ugolino and His Sons launched Carpeaux's career and led to his commission for the façade of the Palais Garnier opera house: La Danse, a work that made him famous.

Category:Sculptures based on Inferno (Dante)

File:Scan the World - Ugolino and His Sons.stl

Category:Nude sculptures in New York (state)

Category:Sculptures of children in New York City

Category:Sculptures in the Metropolitan Museum of Art


Ugolino and His Sons (Carpeaux)

Prompt: In Ugolino and His Sons (Carpeaux), how is the Reception discussed?

The initial release of the plaster model created a "public sensation". Ugolino and His Sons departed from the French Academy's tradition with "boldness and vigor" and the "spirit and masterly technique worthy of Michelangelo". The sculpture, and Carpeaux, were considered descendants of the 1830s French Romantic sculptor tradition associated with François Rude and Auguste Préault. Carpeaux admired the works of Rude, who once served as his mentor. Ugolino and His Sons launched Carpeaux's career and led to his commission for the façade of the Palais Garnier opera house: La Danse, a work that made him famous.

Category:Sculptures based on Inferno (Dante)

File:Scan the World - Ugolino and His Sons.stl

Category:Nude sculptures in New York (state)

Category:Sculptures of children in New York City

Category:Sculptures in the Metropolitan Museum of Art


Ugolino and His Sons (Carpeaux)

Prompt: Focus on Ugolino and His Sons (Carpeaux) and explain the Legacy.

Surrealist artist Max Ernst used a woodcut of Ugolino, presumably from the International Exposition's catalog, in his 1929 graphic novel La femme 100 têtes. His collage preserves the terror of Ugolino's face, but juxtaposes it against musical instruments.

Category:Sculptures based on Inferno (Dante)

File:Scan the World - Ugolino and His Sons.stl

Category:Nude sculptures in New York (state)

Category:Sculptures of children in New York City

Category:Sculptures in the Metropolitan Museum of Art


Ugolino and His Sons (Carpeaux)

Prompt: Explain the Legacy of this artwork, Ugolino and His Sons (Carpeaux).

Surrealist artist Max Ernst used a woodcut of Ugolino, presumably from the International Exposition's catalog, in his 1929 graphic novel La femme 100 têtes. His collage preserves the terror of Ugolino's face, but juxtaposes it against musical instruments.

Category:Sculptures based on Inferno (Dante)

File:Scan the World - Ugolino and His Sons.stl

Category:Nude sculptures in New York (state)

Category:Sculptures of children in New York City

Category:Sculptures in the Metropolitan Museum of Art


Ugolino and His Sons (Carpeaux)

Prompt: How does Ugolino and His Sons (Carpeaux) explain its Legacy?

Surrealist artist Max Ernst used a woodcut of Ugolino, presumably from the International Exposition's catalog, in his 1929 graphic novel La femme 100 têtes. His collage preserves the terror of Ugolino's face, but juxtaposes it against musical instruments.

Category:Sculptures based on Inferno (Dante)

File:Scan the World - Ugolino and His Sons.stl

Category:Nude sculptures in New York (state)

Category:Sculptures of children in New York City

Category:Sculptures in the Metropolitan Museum of Art


Ugolino and His Sons (Carpeaux)

Prompt: In Ugolino and His Sons (Carpeaux), how is the Legacy discussed?

Surrealist artist Max Ernst used a woodcut of Ugolino, presumably from the International Exposition's catalog, in his 1929 graphic novel La femme 100 têtes. His collage preserves the terror of Ugolino's face, but juxtaposes it against musical instruments.

Category:Sculptures based on Inferno (Dante)

File:Scan the World - Ugolino and His Sons.stl

Category:Nude sculptures in New York (state)

Category:Sculptures of children in New York City

Category:Sculptures in the Metropolitan Museum of Art


Ankhhaf (sculpture)

Prompt: Focus on Ankhhaf (sculpture) and explain the abstract.

The painted limestone bust of Ankhhaf is an ancient Egyptian sculpture dating from the Old Kingdom. It is considered the work "of a master" of ancient Egyptian art, and can be seen at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Its catalog number is Museum Expedition 27.442.

Category:Sculptures in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

Category:Limestone sculptures in the United States


Ankhhaf (sculpture)

Prompt: Explain the abstract of this artwork, Ankhhaf (sculpture).

The painted limestone bust of Ankhhaf is an ancient Egyptian sculpture dating from the Old Kingdom. It is considered the work "of a master" of ancient Egyptian art, and can be seen at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Its catalog number is Museum Expedition 27.442.

Category:Sculptures in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

Category:Limestone sculptures in the United States


Ankhhaf (sculpture)

Prompt: How does Ankhhaf (sculpture) explain its abstract?

The painted limestone bust of Ankhhaf is an ancient Egyptian sculpture dating from the Old Kingdom. It is considered the work "of a master" of ancient Egyptian art, and can be seen at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Its catalog number is Museum Expedition 27.442.

Category:Sculptures in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

Category:Limestone sculptures in the United States


Ankhhaf (sculpture)

Prompt: In Ankhhaf (sculpture), how is the abstract discussed?

The painted limestone bust of Ankhhaf is an ancient Egyptian sculpture dating from the Old Kingdom. It is considered the work "of a master" of ancient Egyptian art, and can be seen at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Its catalog number is Museum Expedition 27.442.

Category:Sculptures in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

Category:Limestone sculptures in the United States


Ankhhaf (sculpture)

Prompt: Focus on Ankhhaf (sculpture) and explain the Description.

It depicts a mature man and was therefore likely made during the reign of Khafre (circa 2520–2494 BC).  One of the earliest – and even after four and a half thousand years, still among the finest – true sculptured portraits, it is an almost unprecedented depiction of the unidealised features of an actual man.  Sculptures portraying true likenesses of people (rather than highly stylized portrayals) are rare in Ancient Egyptian art, both before and after the creation of Ankhhaf's bust. Plaster covers a limestone core, which has been painted red, a colour commonly given to males in both sculpture and in reliefs (figures of women were typically painted yellow). The face is stern, with a slightly uneven mouth which makes him appear as though he is smirking from one side, and aloof and impersonal from the other. There is a slight droop to the eyelids, whose eyes were once painted white with brown pupils. The figure once had a beard and ears, which were broken away in antiquity along with part of the figure's nose.

Category:Sculptures in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

Category:Limestone sculptures in the United States


Ankhhaf (sculpture)

Prompt: Explain the Description of this artwork, Ankhhaf (sculpture).

It depicts a mature man and was therefore likely made during the reign of Khafre (circa 2520–2494 BC).  One of the earliest – and even after four and a half thousand years, still among the finest – true sculptured portraits, it is an almost unprecedented depiction of the unidealised features of an actual man.  Sculptures portraying true likenesses of people (rather than highly stylized portrayals) are rare in Ancient Egyptian art, both before and after the creation of Ankhhaf's bust. Plaster covers a limestone core, which has been painted red, a colour commonly given to males in both sculpture and in reliefs (figures of women were typically painted yellow). The face is stern, with a slightly uneven mouth which makes him appear as though he is smirking from one side, and aloof and impersonal from the other. There is a slight droop to the eyelids, whose eyes were once painted white with brown pupils. The figure once had a beard and ears, which were broken away in antiquity along with part of the figure's nose.

Category:Sculptures in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

Category:Limestone sculptures in the United States


Ankhhaf (sculpture)

Prompt: How does Ankhhaf (sculpture) explain its Description?

It depicts a mature man and was therefore likely made during the reign of Khafre (circa 2520–2494 BC).  One of the earliest – and even after four and a half thousand years, still among the finest – true sculptured portraits, it is an almost unprecedented depiction of the unidealised features of an actual man.  Sculptures portraying true likenesses of people (rather than highly stylized portrayals) are rare in Ancient Egyptian art, both before and after the creation of Ankhhaf's bust. Plaster covers a limestone core, which has been painted red, a colour commonly given to males in both sculpture and in reliefs (figures of women were typically painted yellow). The face is stern, with a slightly uneven mouth which makes him appear as though he is smirking from one side, and aloof and impersonal from the other. There is a slight droop to the eyelids, whose eyes were once painted white with brown pupils. The figure once had a beard and ears, which were broken away in antiquity along with part of the figure's nose.

Category:Sculptures in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

Category:Limestone sculptures in the United States


Ankhhaf (sculpture)

Prompt: In Ankhhaf (sculpture), how is the Description discussed?

It depicts a mature man and was therefore likely made during the reign of Khafre (circa 2520–2494 BC).  One of the earliest – and even after four and a half thousand years, still among the finest – true sculptured portraits, it is an almost unprecedented depiction of the unidealised features of an actual man.  Sculptures portraying true likenesses of people (rather than highly stylized portrayals) are rare in Ancient Egyptian art, both before and after the creation of Ankhhaf's bust. Plaster covers a limestone core, which has been painted red, a colour commonly given to males in both sculpture and in reliefs (figures of women were typically painted yellow). The face is stern, with a slightly uneven mouth which makes him appear as though he is smirking from one side, and aloof and impersonal from the other. There is a slight droop to the eyelids, whose eyes were once painted white with brown pupils. The figure once had a beard and ears, which were broken away in antiquity along with part of the figure's nose.

Category:Sculptures in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

Category:Limestone sculptures in the United States


Ankhhaf (sculpture)

Prompt: Focus on Ankhhaf (sculpture) and explain the Site of discovery.

The bust was discovered in his tomb, installed within a small chapel oriented to the east and facing the chapel's doorway. His arms may have been sculpted on the small pedestal on which it sat, though these have been lost. It was evident that it had once been the focus of a funerary cult, as the bust had crushed several small pottery vessels of the type used for offerings when it fell in antiquity from its pedestal.

Category:Sculptures in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

Category:Limestone sculptures in the United States


Ankhhaf (sculpture)

Prompt: Explain the Site of discovery of this artwork, Ankhhaf (sculpture).

The bust was discovered in his tomb, installed within a small chapel oriented to the east and facing the chapel's doorway. His arms may have been sculpted on the small pedestal on which it sat, though these have been lost. It was evident that it had once been the focus of a funerary cult, as the bust had crushed several small pottery vessels of the type used for offerings when it fell in antiquity from its pedestal.

Category:Sculptures in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

Category:Limestone sculptures in the United States


Ankhhaf (sculpture)

Prompt: How does Ankhhaf (sculpture) explain its Site of discovery?

The bust was discovered in his tomb, installed within a small chapel oriented to the east and facing the chapel's doorway. His arms may have been sculpted on the small pedestal on which it sat, though these have been lost. It was evident that it had once been the focus of a funerary cult, as the bust had crushed several small pottery vessels of the type used for offerings when it fell in antiquity from its pedestal.

Category:Sculptures in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

Category:Limestone sculptures in the United States