Historical Figures of Cezanne and Cleopatra - Assignment Example

Assignment Part Cleopatra What does this passage1 tell us about Plutarch’s view of the effect of Cleopatra on Antony, and how does this viewpoint relate to the wider Roman perspective on Cleopatra and Egypt? Cleopatra had a profound effect on Antony. He was astonished by what he saw, and seized the opportunity to indulge himself "in the amusements and diversions of a young man with all his future before him". The two were clearly fond of each other as Antony allowed himself to be carried off by the queen to Alexandria, and squander time there, and both were extravagant in giving banquets to each other. The cook’s introduction to Antony, and Antony’s tour of the palace kitchens, the sight of the abundant provisions and how meals were prepared, left equally indelible impressions of Cleopatra on Antony, especially her hospitality and lavishness, and prepardness to serve at any time. This account is based on what was told to Plutarch’s own grandfather, and therefore shaped Plutarch’s own personal view of the effect of Cleopatra on Antony. Cleopatra’s fame, at least in the western intellectual tradition, owes to a great extent her encounter with the Romans, and in particular Mark Antony amongst other leaders. This also means that the Roman perspective on Cleopatra and Egypt is shaped much by these interactions, dealings and visits than other aspects of her rule and kingdom. However, the broader perspective that contrasts with the above charming account also depicted Cleopatra as an enemy and not only a lover or ally. She successfully captivated the attention of Antony as with Caeser earlier, but in Rome, for all her hospitality, she became “the victim of a vicious propaganda campaign” (§1.3). At the heart of this unfortunate circumstance for Cleopatra was Octavian’s envy for and conflict with Antony. Thus, there are two opposing perspectives on Cleopatra. One is the affectionate perspective as indulged in by Antony, and the other is the negative picture portrayed by Octavian and his followers. In the end, the defeat of the former at the decisive battle of Actium allowed history to be largely swayed by viewing Egypt as an enemy of Rome, and Cleopatra as a seductress, enemy and loser. This negative characterisation of Cleopatra and Egypt were present in Octavian’s speech delivered before the aforementioned battle. He gave the impression to his army that Egypt’s way of life was decadent, and that Cleopatra had actually enslaved Antony. Hence, Plutarch’s view of the effect of Cleopatra on Antony was one of being deeply impressed and developing a close attachment, whereas the later and more lasting Roman view as promoted by Octavian, was one of being deeply annoyed and developing an enmity. This enmity was not only directed at Cleopatra personally, but also the negative portrayals furthered Rome’s dominance over Egypt. Plutarch’s viewpoint was therefore just one aspect of the wider Roman perspective. As always, empires and civilisations clash, and Cleopatra was merely a pawn in the wider game. It was not in Rome’s nature to be content with having Egypt as an ally. Despite Cleopatra’s attempts, ultimately to safeguard her own kingdom, Egypt had to be subdued. Assignment 1 Part 2: Cézanne Outline the main differences between Plate 1.3.24, Cézanne’s Jug and Fruit (1885-87) and Plate 1.3.30, Zurbarán’s Still Life with Lemons, Oranges and a Rose (1663). Cézanne’s Jug and Fruit and Zurbarán’s Still Life with Lemons, Oranges and a Rose are two superficially similar works of art. However, there are also notable differences between the two. At first glance the striking difference was the greater glare in Zubarán’s painting, especially from the yellow lemons and apparently yellow looking oranges against a dark background, and sharper delineation of all objects making it more life-like. Cézanne’s painting is quite unlike this. It uses a greater variety of colours and shades, as well as textures and tones, but with less contrast and generally gives less attention to detail. Even similar fruits in Cézanne’s work display variety and more gradation. The range of tones used however, distinguishes between the two paintings as much as the more obvious content differences of present objects and their positioning. Cézanne used black for outlining the objects but clearly did not make as much use of black as Zubarán. By this is meant not only the use of a black background by Zubarán in contrast to Cézanne’s light blue, but also the general use of lighter tones by Cézanne in contrast to Zubarán’s more balanced use of tones. Despite the outlining, roughness is apparent in Cézann’e brushwork showing less blending in stark contrast to Zubarán who seems to value greater perfection. The variety in texture and tone however can be seen in Cézanne’s background wall as well, as opposed to the more modern exuberance in Zubarán’s painting. It is not that Cézanne displays an inability to reproduce delicate likeness; rather the impression he intends to give is different. His painting skills are apparent for example in the glazed effect he successfully gives to the stoneware jug. Zubarán effectively manifests different textures as well, in fact much more so, but in other respects displays more confined use of artistry. Also, the source of light is clearly at opposing ends in both pictures. Light shines from the left in Zubarán’s work and from the right in Cézanne’s work as evidenced by the lighted areas and shadows. The modelling is different too as is the placement of objects. Zubarán’s objects are placed at an equal distance away from the viewer on a glass table giving a draped effect, as does the wall. Cézanne on the other hand, who uses apples and pears for a greater offering, also chooses to give a greater sense of perspective through modulating colour, and perhaps entice the viewer not by the focus on and sparkle of the neatly arranged fruit, but by the way it is arranged loosely on the wooden table. Thus, not only have different artistic techniques been used, albeit using oil on canvas, but also both artistst took distinct mental approaches to their tasks. It seems that Zubarán wanted to please the traditional household whereas Cézanne attempted to display greater individuality or radicalism. Overall, Cézanne’s painting is typical of his “determination to do things differently” (§3.3) and in a more rough manner, whereas Zubarán followed a more standard approach. Read More