Barry Kemp Interview

September 27, 2006.

Excavating Amarna

"Does the increased focus on new art styles during the Amarna period and the discovery of sculptors' workshops at the site suggest there were more artisans here or a larger part of the city was dedicated to art production than at other capitals? Or could this simply reflect the fact that the archaeological record at other cities was more disturbed by later building over the centuries or may still lie beneath modern buildings?

Again, comparison with other places is impossible. The evidence is not there. Akhenaten inherited the sculptors of his father's reign who were able to work on a large scale to a remarkably high level of sensitivity in hard stones. He benefited from this. On the other hand, it is clear that he had an insufficient number of skilled relief artists. The standard of carving on wall blocks from Amarna varies greatly, some of the work being of poor quality. The number of locatable sculptor's workshops at Amarna is not particularly large. They form part of a broad pattern of evidence to suggest that the whole city was one loosely organized workshop serving the court. It is hard to think that other major cities (and there would have been only a few at any one time) did not have this character. But only more archaeology at other places will help to answer the question.

Did Akhenaten's actions--changing the religion, promoting new artistic style, and moving the capital--affect the everyday lives of Egyptians?

The lives of the people of Amarna were dramatically changed by the move to a new location, probably not a convenient or inviting one. It was a bleak strip of desert they had to colonize. The impact that his religion had upon them is one of the Project's research themes. At one end lie the Aten temples and their strange obsession with offering-tables. Are they a sign that a greater degree of public benefit was in Akhenaten's mind? The idea is quite attractive but hard to prove, the evidence in part being the archaeological remains of the offering-cult. At the other end is the fact that Amarna is richer in evidence for domestic religious cults and beliefs than other settlement sites of the period (Ramesside Deir el-Medina excepted) and for the most part they were not centered on Akhenaten's ideas."

http://www.archaeology.org/online/interviews/kemp.html

(where I found interview)

Funny thing

According to Montserrat, many of the 'gay' sources on Akhenaten are VERY misogynistic, they concentrate So much on the relationship between Smenkhrae (who during the time they were written was believed to be a man) that they almost wrote Nefertiti and the other Royal women of Amarna out of the history.

BTW the reason I haven't blogged properly in ages is because i'm doing a VERY long analysis of Montserrat's book in regards to the Afrocentric and Sexuality theories.

Funny thing to, you know that youtube video where the faces of Obama and his family are compared to those of Akhenaten's family is actually very typical of what Afrocentrics do. They take images of famous black people and compare them to the faces of Akhenaten and family to illustrate the African origins of the family.

ALSO one thing i hadn't realised is the appeal of Akhenaten to black Muslims!!!

I reckon there would have been no stupid or weird theories if the colossi hasn't been discovered before the artworks of the 'later' period of Amarna; the work of Thutmose, more realistically looking.

note to self: look at artwork and what effects they have on conclusions

Just a quick thing about this.

There was the lime stone trial piece with the heads of two rules , excavated 1933

>>>and when it was found people automatically lept to the conclusion that it was Akhenaten and his son who was Smenkare (atm i really don't care what its spelt like). Rather than looking at it for a purpose RATHER THAN TO EXPLAIN THE GAPS IN HISTORY.

JUST QUICKLY

OH and i need to make the point in there somewhere that it wasn't unusual for Pharaoh's to depict themselves in a particular way, like a rhetoric kinda thing, to make specific points

e.g. Hatsheput's and beards.

Sorry Gay Robins

The art and Architecture of Ancient Egypt

William Stevenson Smith (revised edition by William Kelly Simpson)

"The craftsman who cut the Karnak blocks were experimenting with sunk relief much as the men in the Theban tomb of Parennefer had tried both raised and relief cut in a thick plaster coating and sunk relief in the poor rock surface...This prevalent use of sunk relief, where all figures were set back from the surface of the wall, was cheaper in labour than the Old Kingdom method"

Thus more experimentation confirming that the style was VERY different to those past and future.

areas i will attack in my essay

• Utopian ideas of Amarna art (the original influences).

• Medical (pathology): influence of the colossi on history. Here i think would be a good place to talk about ancient perspectives and compare this to it and colossi.

• Afrocentrism: Dominic Montserrat's History, Fantasy and Ancient Egypt.

• Religious: focus on the Shu & Tefnut theory and others i can find.

• Artistic perspective: Gay Robins, how affects visual, changes in OUR perceptions of art through ages and how ties in with present theories i.e. technological evolution has meant that art no longer has to appear 'REAL', in our society the concept behind an artwork is increasingly becoming the main focus. ALSO when Picasso went to Africa there wasn't the desire to portray images as the appeared in life, hence the development of the cubism thing. I put this in b/c in many cultures (par Greek and Roman) there wasn't the desire to show life as it really was, it was more a stylistic rep, which is what it had been (depending on your opinion) until Amarna. I draw this conclusion b/c one cannot escape from the fact that especially as Amarna developed it seemed increasingly realistic; in William Stevenson Smith's book afore mentioned, there are two paster mask heads (p 104) look (in my opinion) kinda real, THEY HAVE WRINKLES. As MR. Wright has just pointed out, this is because of the experimental medium they were using; "the suggestion that they were casts taken to give more permanent form to exceptionally realistic sculptor's studies in clay deserves serious consideration... The wrinkles round the eyes and on the forehead of the old woman [324] and on the brow of the extraordinary old man [323] are unprecedented in earlier sculpture" (William Stevenson Smith, Art and Architecture of Ancient Egypt)>> THIS IS BIG, sorry Gay.

• Rhetoric?

• Multiplicity of approaches. That this is more complex than it appears, Lise Manniche makes this point in her book

This is all so far, i want to talk about the crowns in there somewhere BUT I will need to take a re-look at that book, look for a greater number of historians and analyse them for their background (I will point out that in Montserrat's book there is a BIG discussion of historians). I will also need to brush up on my art history knowledge.

If i remember anything when i get home I will blog it, probs will be later (saturday b/c of carnival) :)

Amarna's Article

In an article from the National Geographic Website, "Pharaohs of the Sun" by Rick Gore, the bust of Nefertiti is mentioned, in relation to the debate of whether she actually looked like this or not.

It is interesting to note that Gore comments "But Nefertiti seldom looks the same in any of the numerous portraits of her". Gore also make specific reference to a statue Rolf Krauss (curator) calls the "tired Nefertiti", which he explains is an elderly statue of her in which, her face appears lined and has apparent saggy breasts. Due to the unlikely fact that Nefertiti would have aged this amount during her husbands sort reign.

Therefore, it is doubtful realism is a technique here, especially if theories that this bust acted as a model for other artists. Though it could also be argued that this change to a more realistic art style would have produced works that showed a slow grasp; an argument I used also to account for the colossi.

The Gore also suggests the artistic extremism is due to his attempts "to break down more than a thousand years of artistic tradition, so he instructed his artists to portray the world as it really was". Which doesn't seem like a bad theory, as it is reasonable to assume that the majority of people even in current society find realism a more aesthetic. Thus this would have made the new religion more appealing to the larger society. This would account for the changing art style in sculpture.

As James Allen comments, "Akhenaten probably didn't have the greatest physique by American standards... He had an easy life in the palace". Thus again confirming that Akhenaten wasn't physically deformed, despite my personal opinion that it is a stupid conclusion to make, which ignores other works of the same and second period (there are two distinctive periods that coincide with the change of "head artist" and may account for some of the misconceptions of the art period).

Art in Egypt seems to have been a way for many rulers to try and change their image, Hatshepsut is known for in some sculptures having a beard on to display her power as pharaoh.

But this could be me looking at the Egyptian society and placing my views on it, but i shall continue anyway, if for the criticism :)

The article also talks about the change from rigid form to one that was more fluid and informal; thus putting the Pharaoh in more intimate situations with his family and wife. This (sorry to dispute with Gay Robins after my rant before) is what makes the art different and revolutionary, no other pharaohs were depicted in this venerable situation in the New Kingdom.

Amenhotep III, it is agreed began the 'rebellion', as Akhenaten's father he undoubtedly inspired his son. It isn't completely known what caused the 'rebellion', but it could be the political friction with the priests of Amun who's power almost surpassed that of the Pharaoh's. He began building monuments to Aten, including a funerary temple across the Nile from Thebes WHICH featured two 65 ft (20m) 710 tonne statues. Known as the Colossi of Memnon. "Some scholars argue that Akhenaten and his father ruled together for several years".

Just a little point

Amarna itself was never 'lost' as such, Romans visited the site as did those accompanying Napoleon's expedition.

Viewpoint effecting artworks> Colossi

I'd just like to say my thoughts on this issue were correct (or according to my bias they are)!!!!!

Theres this thing in art called the "conceptual framework" that art students (and one would hope art historians) consider when examining an artwork.

gif">

It is a tool which shows the relationships between artworks, their contexts, audiences and the artists.

From this i began to think of one of the David statues and how it is said that if u position yourself correctly the statue moves; or something like that. But the point is with statues the intentions (artistic practice) are effected by and audience or context an artist creates for.

Anyway, as the colossi are VERY big (though not as big as others colossi-like statues from the Osirian festival, but there something like 4m) and so any GOOD artist who needs their statue to be seen a particular way, and KNOWS that the height of a statue, and the point of the audience/observer will effect it. Thus, they may change the proportions to suit this view point, which may lead to the exaggeration of proportions as are seen with the colossi. This achieves a really weird looking statue if seen in profile , but more normal if seen from a distance.

Nicholas Reeves observed this:

"when seen from below the peculiar distortion of the king's face is far less apparent, the impression is one of unadulterated power"> 2001, "Akhenaten. Egypt's False Prophet"

Lise Manniche in "The Akhenaten Colossi of Karnak" then explains that the colossi were "never meant to be seen face to face... the artists allowed for this, for example in the angle of the eyeball and the exaggerated size of the upper lip".

I also want to mention that I am 'hypothesising' that the eyeballs were looking down (as was noticed by Desroches Noblecourt in 1972) in order to stare at the audience, to establish their power and confront the audience with the new religion. NOT medical reasons!!!

Which then, I suppose could justify opinions about the colossi as a large piece of rhetoric (as is mentioned previously in my blog), but it doesn't seem as likely as the proportions theory does.

A link to a crazy woman

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rj4ffn1e0xk