Ancient art. What comes to your mind? Egypt, right? Pyramids, mummies, and tombs. Pharaoh, King Tut, and Nefertiti. The Mummy, Indiana Jones, and Tomb Raider. When traveling displays of Egyptian artifacts arrive at a museum, lines circle the block.

Let’s try to move beyond the mummy’s curse hype and ask ourselves what we should understand about Egyptian art and what it can teach us about art in general. Our Vital Questions can help.

Dynastic Context

Like most ancient steles— a slab that marks a boundary or commemorates the authority, victories, and achievement

The context of ancient Egypt was defined by the River Nile which conferred a sliver of green abundance on an arid desert landscape. Each year, the river would flood, creating a fertile zone along the banks. This annual gift of life provided the basis for agricultural plenty that supported internal wealth and dominance of international trade. Egypt became one of the great world powers of the day.

Monuments & Steles: Art of Intimidation

Egyptian dominance derived from trade, wealth, and the armies that the Nile’s abundance paid for. It was also supported by a rich artistic tradition. The Narmer Palette proclaimed the achievement and authority of the kings which unified the kingdoms of the Upper and Lower Nile in about 3100 BCE.

Narmer Palette, both sides. (c 3150 BCE). Slate relief.

Like most ancient steles— a slab that marks a boundary or commemorates the authority, victories, and achievement of a regime—the Narmer Palette performs a Didactic role as a work of art. It teaches a lesson, or rather, three lessons. It proclaims the political power of the king, the cultural dominance of the Naqada people, and the religious lesson of submission to the will of the gods. The faces of the palette are divided into “registers,” or zones. At the top, we see the invocation of a deity, the cow goddess Hathor.  In the middle register (obverse face), we see King Narmer smiting an enemy under the gaze of the falcon god Horus.

Today, the Naqada society is seen as the precursor to 31 dynasties of royal dominion that endured for over 3,000 years. Generations of Pharaohs used Didactic art to intimidate enemies, allies, trading partners, and citizens. The most famous of these art projects were massive monuments the scale of which were designed to strike dumb members of cultures which lacked Egypt’s economic and technological resources.

Francis Frith. (1860). The Great Pyramid and Sphinx	Abu Simbel. (c 1270 BCE). Four Colossi of Ramses II.	Antonio Beato. (c 1880s). Colossi of Memnon.

From ancient kings to corporations in our age, the powerful erect massive, monumental  buildings and art works to intimidate and assert power. Ancient Egyptian architecture and statuary—the pyramids, the Sphinx, the temple compound at Luxor—were erected to project power and affirm the blessing of the gods in opposition to every rival … now and in the future.  Colossal statues of pharaohs like  Ramses II sought to intimidate generations yet unborn.

Of course, no one beats time. Pharaohs died. The empire was repeatedly defeated, eventually by Greeks and Romans. Monuments crumbled and collapsed. In 1818, English poet Percy Byssche Shelley was intrigued by press drawings of archeological discoveries. Eroding monuments such as the Colossi of Memnon (above), invoked the irony of human aspiration.[1] Shelley wrote a sonnet reflecting with melancholy irony on human mortality.

Curran (1819). Portrait of   Shelley. Oil on canvas

Potent Images

Hunting Scene. (c 1415 B.C.). Tomb of Menna	Fowling Scene. (c 1400 BCE).	Grape Harvest. (13th C BCE).

Clearly, these everyday scenes “embody life.” As a householder today hangs a panorama on the wall, so must these paintings have graced ancient homes. But wait. These images were composed on the walls of tombs. Indeed, the vast majority of ancient Egyptian art, from pyramids to mummies, was focused on death. Images and artifacts symbolically represent life and then are believed to spiritually project them into infinity.

False Door—Tomb Wall (c 2400 BCE). Relief.	Hunefer Book of the Dead (c 1317-1285 BCE). Papyrus scroll	Funerary Model Boat. (c 2100-1780 BCE). Wood and pigment.

The false door in the tomb wall above provides a portal for the deceased soul to begin the journey into the afterlife. The Book of the Dead instructs the soul in navigating the ordeal of judgment. Models of servants, boats, and other luxuries equip the soul to enjoy an affluent way of life in the hereafter.

Content and Signification

Our second vital question asks about content: what is the work delivering to us? At this point, we should make an important distinction:

In the visual arts, the term Representation refers to a work’s designation of a Visual Subject. Those tomb wall compositions depict for us human figures engaged in hunting or harvests. What is it? No problem.

But what do these images mean? Students sometimes get nervous about levels of meaning beyond the what is it question. And yet, human beings always ask about what things mean. Suppose someone frowns when you speak. You want to know what that frown means, right?

So we see a figure of a well-dressed man hunting while surrounded by other people. It’s not hard to interpret this as a picture of affluence that affirms the stability and prosperity of Egyptian society. The social implications are signified without being directly represented.

Today, the word Icon is used by some scholars to indicate a symbolic form which signifies a meaning which it resembles in no way (in the glossary entry, meaning #4). Thus, the octagonal shape of a stop sign tells us to stop, but only by convention–the shape in no way depicts the act of stopping.

Signifying Scale

Let’s look again at the Narmer Palette and Hunting Scene. What do you notice?

Narmer Palette, both sides. (c 3150 BCE). Slate relief.	Hunting Scene. (c 1415 B.C.). Tomb of Menna	Canon of Proportion. (c 1550-1292 BCE). Drawing board.

These compositions present human figures with signifying distinctions in scale. On the palette, the king is larger than the figures of conquered warriors and slaves. Similarly, the hunter is larger than wife, servants, and slaves, each allocated to a social caste by their decreasing size.

In many ancient societies, figures are by Convention scaled according to social status. Notice how the drawing board shown above provides draftsmen with guidelines for scaling figures according to a canon[1] designating appropriate ratios of height.

[1] Canon: in this cases, the word refers to a standard by which an image is measured and assessed.

Convention and Attribute

Sometimes, represented subjects pose visual puzzles. Many of the human figures depicted in Egyptian art are strange, hybrid forms topped with heads from animals. What do these signify? This is where Context comes back into play. Every culture teems with signs and symbols which are processed instantly and without thinking by its members. For millions of people in Euro-American societies, a Christian cross immediately signifies a great deal more than what it visually depicts.

While we may today be puzzled by those Egyptian hybrid figures, they would have been clear in their day. The hybrid figures depict the deities of the Egyptian canon. A conventional code identifies each deity with a standard attribute, i.e. a feature, action, or possession that members of the culture understand to be stably associated with the deity.

	Nut and Geb. (11th C BCE). Papyrus.	Osiris with Isis. (c 1300). Wall relief.	Isis. (c 570-526). Statue.
Deity	Nut: god of the sky Geb: god of the earth	Osiris: brother of Isis, resurrected from the dead, lord of underworld	Isis: rescuer of her brother from death
Attribute	Nut conventionally shown arcing over a reclining Geb	A crown suggesting authority	1) a throne symbol or 2) the horn and solar disc of her daughter Hathor
	Anubis. (c 1478-1458). Wall relief	Thoth (c 1300 BCE). Wall Relief	Hathor. (1200 BCE). Wall relief.
Deity	God who leads the dead to the afterlife	God of scribes and writing	Daughter of Isis
Attribute	The head of a jackal	The head of an ibis	Cow’s horns cradling a solar disk

Menkaura, Hathor, Hare. (26th C. BCE).	King Menkaura & queen.

Well, we see figures standing erect, feet flat with one advanced, the king’s arms straight with fists clenched. The faces are impassive and impersonal, capturing no emotion or individuality. Are you surprised?  Probably not. The idiosyncratic Egyptian style is so widely known that, in 1986, a pop group called the Bangles had a minor hit with a tuned called “Walk like an Egyptian.”

This distinctive style can be seen in thousands of works of art. Remarkably, it remained all but unchanged for 3,500 years. Dynasty after dynasty, generation after generation, Egyptian artists made consistent choices about the long lean bodies of the their figures and how they should stand or sit. Clothing, facial features, and demeanors are interchangeable with little indication of the individual. These are not portraits, but, rather, conventional depictions of a generic idea of “the Pharaoh.”

Again we run up against the cultural gap. What is wrong with these artists? 2,500 years and No one thought to try a little innovation, show a little creativity?

But those are our values, right? That’s what Silverman was warning against. The role of the Egyptian artist was not to innovate forms or to express personal vision. It was to support the ideology of a powerful state and to preserve the current way of life, of life itself from the destructive forces of time. Pharaohs came and went, but the image and concept of The Pharaoh lived on through the ages. A stable,  unchanging style embodied the ideological heart of a people.

To Imitate or  to Stylize?

So representational art depicts visual subjects. Obviously, it does so by emulating the appearance of the subject. We depict a human figure with two arms, legs, eyes, and a mouth.

But how much detail do we need? How perfectly must the representation match the dimensions, the textures, the colors of the “real thing”? Consider these examples of Predynastic art before the Pharaohs.

Figurine of a man. (c 3650-3450 BCE). Elephant ivory	Woman with Upraised Arms. (c 3650-3300 BCE). Terracotta with white paint.	Figurine of a Bearded Man (c 3200-3100 BCE). Breccia composite.

Well, we can “see” the intended subjects, right? Features in the figurines clearly designate enough human features to evoke a face or a profile. But the level of detail is pretty low, eh? And the proportions, the textures, the colors … not very natural,  are they? Let’s make a distinction:

Spectrum of Representational Technique

• Imitative depiction: representation that strives to emulate the appearance of the visual subject
• Stylized depiction: representation that simplifies or distorts the appearance of the visual subject and relies on conventional association rather than imitative precision

Let’s be clear: this distinction is a spectrum, not a choice between distinct alternatives. Images can be more or less imitative and more or less stylized. Indeed, all representational images combine the two forms of effect. And let’s not fall into the trap of labeling Predynastic art as “primitive.” Technologies may evolve, but as we saw in those Ice Age caves, art from distant cultures can be far more richly meaningful than they might appear to outsiders.

Still, the conventional style of the dynastic periods is considerably more elaborate than the earlier forms. Details, proportions, colors and forms in paintings of the dynastic periods are sophisticated and naturalistic. But there is something a bit odd there. Consider the figures of the two hunters:

Fowling Scene. (c 1400 BCE).

What is it about those profiles that seems somehow “off,” at least to our eyes? Look especially at the shoulders in comparison with the feet. And what about those eyes?

The issue here is not a matter of ill-developed drawing technique. Rather, these painters established a conventional solution to the problem of showing three dimensions in a two-dimensional format. Figures are shown in profile, i.e. from the side. But shoulders, chests, and eyes are shown face-on. These hybrid points of view are skillfully integrated into elegant unities of form.

Pure Form

At this point, let’s try to clarify what we mean by form, a term that, like many others in in the arts, can be used in different ways. We have been exploring Egyptian art as a representation of visual subjects and as a signifier of contextually grounded meaning. But art can be viewed on a more elemental level.

Form (generic): in the arts, a term referring to the elements, patterns, and structures that comprise the composition without regard to subjects, meanings, or values

Formal elements: in visual art, the elements that comprise the composition irrespective of any representation of a visual subject: line, color, form and shape, value, texture, space, and movement

Let’s look at the painting of Meryt conferring authority on Sennufer. And let’s ignore the people, the history, the culture, the cultural significance. Indeed, let’s forget that we are looking at the depiction of human figures. What visual features do we see disconnected from any other thoughts?

Meryt offers cup to Sennufer. (c 1410 BCE).  Wall painting.

In the upper register, we see two of visual art’s most elemental features: line and color. Curved—curvilinear—lines stretch across the frame of the painting and form another formal element: shapes, including oval-circle combinations that we read as eyes but are in themselves geometrical shapes common to many cultural traditions. The human figures are shaped with elegantly stretched, curvilinear contour lines. These forms feature a limited color palette of black and earth tones, muted yellow and red formed from ochre.

Looked at from this formal perspective, representational issues fade in significance. Legs, ankles, and feet are not particularly detailed, but they flow elegantly into the columnar assembly of rectangular and triangular shapes. If we step back from the What is it? question, we can experience these formal elements as an integrated visual composition. Whether or not we realize it, formal elements such as Line, Shape, Color, Texture, and Composition contribute seminally to our sense of beauty.

References

Abu Simbel. Temple of Ramses II. (c 1270 BCE). Facade: Four Colossi of Ramses II [Sculpture]. Jstor https://www.jstor.org/stable/community.18130070

Anubis [Wall relief]. (c 1478-1458). Dayr al-Bahri Site, Egypt: Mortuary Temple of Hatshepsut. Jstor https://www.jstor.org/stable/community.13902114

Beato, A. (c 1880s). Colossi of Memnon [Photograph]. San Diego, CA: Museum of Man. Jstor https://www.jstor.org/stable/community.13732786

Book of the Dead of Hunefer [Papyrus Scroll]. (c 1300 BCE). London, UK: British Museum: EA9901,3  https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/Y_EA9901-3

Canon of Proportion [Drawing board]. (c 1550-1292 BCE). London, UK: British Museum, AN EA5601. https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/Y_EA5601

Curran, A. (c 1820). Portrait of Percy B. Shelley [Painting]. Jstor https://www.jstor.org/stable/community.13875581

False Door—Tomb Wall [Relief]. (c 2400 BCE). Minneapolis, MN: Minneapolis Institute of art https://collections.artsmia.org/art/1230/false-door-ancient-egyptian

Figurine of a Bearded Man (c 3200-3100 BCE).  Rama. [Photograph]. (April 19, 2011).  Wikimedia Commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Predynastic_bearded_man-MGR_Lyon-IMG_9928.jpg   Breccia composite

Figurine of a man. (c 3650-3450 BCE). New York, NY: Metropolitan Museum of Art. AN 54.28.2. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/547233    Elephant ivory

Fowling Scene [Wall painting]. (c 1400 BCE). Luxor, E.G.: Tomb of Nakht.. Jstor https://www.jstor.org/stable/community.13584730

Frith, F. (1860). The Great Pyramid and Sphinx [Photograph, Albumen Print]. Williamstown, MA: Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute. AN 1998.42.3.17. Jstor https://www.jstor.org/stable/community.15637318

Funerary Model Boat (c 2100-1780 BCE). Chicago, IL: Art Institute of Chicago, AN AIC_.1894.241 Jstor https://www.jstor.org/stable/community.15017596  Wood and pigment

Funerary Papyrus of Tameni. (11th C BCE). London, UK: British Museum: EA10008,3. https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/Y_EA10008-3

Grape Harvest [Wall Painting]. (13th C BCE). Thebes, E.G.: Tomb of Khaemweset, No 261. Abu Simbel, E.G.: AN 2Ak.093. Jstor https://www.jstor.org/stable/community.11652359

Hathor [Wall relief]. (1200 BCE). Abydos, Egypt: Temple of Seti I. Jstor https://www.jstor.org/stable/community.11654036

Hunting scene [Painting]. (c 1415 B.C.). Thebes, E.G.: Tomb of Menna. New York, NY: The Archive for Research on Archetypal Symbolism. Jstor https://www.jstor.org/stable/community.11652481

Isis [Statue]. (c 570-526). Cairo, Egypt: The Egyptian Museum. https://egyptianmuseumcairo.eg/artefacts/greywacke-seated-statue-of-isis/

Judgment scene: Hunefer before Osiris [Papyrus scroll]. (c 1317-1285 BCE). Hunefer Book of the Dead. London, UK: British Museum. Jstor https://www.jstor.org/stable/community.18119357

King Menkaure (Mycerinus) and queen [Sculpture]. (2490-2472 B.C.). Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, MA, United States. Jstor https://www.jstor.org/stable/community.15632489

Meryt offers cup to Sennufer [Wall painting]. (c 1410 BCE).  Thebes, E.G.: Tomb of Sennufer. Brodkey, A K. [Photograph. (1979). Jstor https://www.jstor.org/stable/community.11893499

Narmer Palette [Slate relief]. (ca. 3150 BCE). Cairo, E.G.: Egyptian Museum. Jstor https://www.jstor.org/stable/community.18113146

Nut and Geb. [Detail]. (11th C BCE). Funerary Papyrus of Tameni. London, UK: British Museum: EA10008,3. https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/Y_EA10008-3

Osiris with Isis and Nepthys [Detail].  (c 1300). Hunefer Book of the Dead. London, UK: British Museum: EA9901,3  https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/Y_EA9901-3

Queen Nefertari Being Led by Isis, tempera on paper facsimile by Charles K. Wilkinson, undated; in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York City; based on a scene depicting Isis (right) leading Queen Nefertari in the Tomb of Nefertari at Thebes, Egypt, c. 1279–1213 BCE

Shelley, P. (January 11, 1818) “Ozymandias.” London: The Examiner. Retrieved from Poetry Foundation, https://www.poetryfoundation.org/articles/69503/percy-bysshe-shelley-ozymandias#poem

Silverman, D. P. (1997). Ancient Egypt. New York: Oxford University Press.

Thoth [Relief]. (c 1300 BCE}. Abydos, Egypt: Temple of Seti I. World History Encyclopedia. https://www.worldhistory.org/Thoth/

Triad of King Menkaure (Mycerinus), the goddess Hathor, and the deified Hare nome [Sculpture]. (2532-2510 B.C.). Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, MA. Jstor https://www.jstor.org/stable/community.15634997

Woman with Upraised Arms [Figurine]. (c 3650-3300 BCE. Brooklyn, NY: Brooklyn Museum of Art. AN 2Ab.006b. Jstor https://www.jstor.org/stable/community.11651663 terracotta enlivened with traces of white paint on lower half.