We are searching data for your request:
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.
This is not strictly a history question, but I hope you can help me: I'm looking for original ancient art depicting king Midas (Ideally a mosaic, but anything will work, as long as it is from the "ancient era"). Searching online with the most popular search engines has been an absolute waste of time, and I find it hard to believe that there is not a single "original" art piece depicting Midas (I thought he was one of the popular ones, even back in the day?).
Ideally, the image should be large, in high resolution and royalty/copyright/whatever free, as I plan to use it as cover art in my doctoral thesis (I am on a completely unrelated field, but Midas' myths provide a perfect metaphor for my research, and I'm really into Greek mythology, so… ).
Links, actual names of the pieces (maybe the search engines will be less useless if I tell them exactly which piece I am looking for?), links, downloads, anything at all will be helpful. Thanks in advance to anyone who can help me out!!
His tomb was found in 1957; a detailed report,
Reconstructing King Midas: A First Report, by A. J. N. W. Prag, Anatolian Studies, Vol. 39 (1989), pp. 159-165 (9 pages) Published by: British Institute at Ankara
details a reconstruction of his face from the body found in the tomb; see p. 9 of the article, available on JSTOR:
I don't know about portraits, but there are coins depicting him.
There is a tragic pathos to this mighty sculpture of a dying hero from a temple on the Greek island of Aegina. Tragedy is a Greek concept. The tragedies of Sophocles, Euripides and Aeschylus are still performed. This statue shows a strong man fallen, heroic to his last breath.
Pergamon Altar. Athena against the giant Alcyoneus. Photograph: Phas/UIG via Getty Images
Classical Greek art changed rapidly as Greece itself went through wars and imperial transformations. In what is called the Hellenistic age it became much more emotional, sensual and even sensationalist. The furious sculptures on the Pergamon altar – which can be seen in its own museum in Berlin – are full of passion and psychological drama.
Were all sixteen portraits painted by the same artist?
Visually, it is clear from the style of the portraits in this set that they have not all been painted by one person. It was previously suggested that the portraits of William I, Henry II, and the later monarchs from Edward III onward were painted by one artist, and that the portraits of Henry I, Stephen, John and Henry III were by another, but technical analysis has revealed that a more complex network of painters and craftsmen were involved in the making of this set.
Several portraits can be grouped together as follows:
The ‘Crooked eye’ group
The portraits of Henry I, Stephen, John and Henry III (erroneously inscribed ‘Edwardus’) are very similar in style and it has previously been suggested that they were produced by the same artist or workshop. This has been confirmed by technical analysis, which points to strong links between these paintings. The results indicate that the portraits of Stephen, John and Henry III were produced by a single painter and the portrait of Henry I was produced by a second artist working in a very similar style, probably in the same workshop.
The panels and the pigments used are comparable in all four portraits and a similar painting style has been used for each. For example, microscopic analysis of the painted surface has revealed that in each case the flesh paint has been applied with a characteristic softly blended technique. In addition, the mordant (the preparatory layer beneath the areas of gold leaf) has been applied in a similar way in all four portraits.
Photomicrographs of Stephen and Henry I
The drawing underneath the paint layers is also very similar across the group. Infrared reflectography allows us to see that the artists have used extensive drawing to mark out the pattern before applying the paint. In general, the artist appear to have been more confident when marking out the faces, which are drawn in a less sketchy way than the costume, indicating an established pattern was employed for this part of the composition in each case.
Infrared reflectogram mosiacs of John and Henry III
Detail from Stephen - eyes
In terms of their design and composition, all four portraits relate to a series of woodcuts published in 1597, matching these designs more closely than others in the set (see below for more information on the woodcuts). The portrait of Henry III has a drooping eyelid, a physical condition that was recorded in medieval chronicles and repeated in sixteenth-century written histories including Holinshed’s Chronicles, which was first published in 1577. Although the portrait of Henry III in this set does appear to have been based on the 1597 woodcut, this aspect of the king’s appearance has been emphasised in the painting, which suggests that written descriptions may also have informed the design of these portraits. Like the others in the group, the portrait of Stephen also appears to have been based on the 1597 woodcut. In both images the king is depicted with slightly crooked eyes. There is no documentary evidence that he looked like this in reality. Instead, it is likely that this design was ultimately based on a forward-facing image of the king in a medieval manuscript illustration in which his eyes were depicted in this way unintentionally. King John’s eyes are also slightly crooked, possibly because the artist found it difficult to paint a face in a half-profile position.
Dating and dendrochronology
Further evidence that these portraits were produced as a group has been supplied by dendrochronology (tree-ring dating): the panel used for the portrait of Stephen is made of wood from two trees, one of which was also used to make the panel for the Henry III portrait, and the other, for the portrait of John. The two boards used to make the panel for Stephen come from trees for which the earliest possible felling dates are 1585 and 1592, which means that the paintings cannot have been made before 1592.
Midas is based on the Greek myth about a king of the same name, who turned everything he touched into gold. He could have also been inspired by Shirley Bassey's song for 007: Goldfinger, which is about a man described to have the Midas Touch because of his love of gold.
He was likely the leader of GHOST and E.G.O., and supposedly a team of double agents going undercover for E.G.O. and A.L.T.E.R.
Chapter 2: Season 2
Midas could be found as a boss at the Agency. He was heavily guarded by GHOST Henchmen and could be defeated. Like all bosses, he had his own unique drops: his drum gun and the Agency Keycard - which could be used to unlock the vault. Inside the vault laid a fountain of loot
After the Device live event, Midas would leave his own organization to join SHADOW as he changed his appearance after the event. It marked his own defeat by SHADOW. This might have been pre-determined and may have just been an indication that The Agency would become The Authority.
Midas likely handed over the The Agency to Jules to turn into SHADOW's new HQ.
Another snapshot of Midas can be found this season, it is Oro, however at this point in the story we had no information on him.
Chapter 2: Season 3
At the start of Chapter 2: Season 3, a Midas' snapshot was attacked by a Loot Shark in the trailer.
Chapter 2: Season 4
Close to the end of Chapter 2: Season 4, the Midas' snapshot who have been attacked by a Loot Shark attempt to take back the eye of the island. He returns as Shadow Midas. He would eventually fail and Galactus destroys The Ruins and the eye of the island by exposing the Zero Point. Around this time, another Midas's snapshot made his appearance: Midas Rex, it is assumed to be a version of Midas prior to Oro.
Chapter 2: Season 5
Marigold arrives on the Island. Just like Midas, she is cursed with the Golden Touch. In her quests, she mentions that someone is "spending Midas' gold" and her pickaxe description mentions that her daggers are a treasured gift from Midas.
Chapter 2: Season 6
Jules' NPC description reveals Jules is Midas' daughter and that he has been "an international crime boss". A snapshot of Jules also appears : Scrapknight Jules, she wears armor similar to that of Midas Rex with the logo of the Imagined Order on her cape.
He is also seen in Batman/Fortnite: Zero Point Issue 1 fighting batman.
Chapter 2: Season 7
The Marigold NPC, seems to be in on a plan, with Midas and Jules, as she is asking for a getaway driver, she also tells them to stick to the plan, stating that something is going to happen soon involving him.
Idealism apparent in ancient Egyptian art in general and specifically in portraiture was employed by choice, not as a result of lack of proficiency or talent. This is evident in the detailed and realistic depiction of birds and animals.  This choice was made for religious, political, magical, ethical and social reasons. What can be defined as a portrait outside of the western tradition? It is difficult to understand the ancient Egyptians' concept of portraiture, and therefore in approaching portraiture from ancient Egypt one must try to ignore the modern concept of what a portrait should be. "The Egyptians sought something very different in their representations of the human, and we should not judge them by our own standards".  After understanding why "portraits" were made in ancient Egypt, one can debate whether they are real portraits especially when they are examined "through ancient eyes". 
There are three concepts one must bear in mind when looking at ancient Egyptian portraiture: "the person represented may have chosen the particular form, and for him or her, it was real" "Egyptian may have seen his individuality expressed in terms of conformity to Ma'at" and "the sense of identity in ancient Egypt was different from ours". 
A statue was believed to convey a person's true identity merely by bearing an inscription of its owner's name upon it. The identity of a person fully inhabited it regardless whether there was any physical or facial resemblance. Other factors contributing to the further clarification of the person's identity could include a certain facial expression, a physical action or pose, or presence of certain official regalia (for example, the scribal palette). As to the king's identity, it was determined through his various royal epithets as well as his different manifestations as a human, deity or animal, and as a sphinx.  Sometimes certain physical features reoccur in statues and reliefs of the same person, but that doesn't mean that they are portraits but rather a manifestation is a single quality or aspect. 
The preservation of the deceased body through mummification affected tomb sculpture as artistic objects were created to help further preserve the body for the afterlife. Such objects are apotropaic amulets that "ensured the eternal existence of the deceased's soul" and "naturalistically sculpted heads of the deceased – reserve heads – (that functioned as) substitutes in case the skull was damaged".  In such funerary context, the deceased's statue was not just an abode for his personality, but also became the focal point of the cult's offerings in other words, "the image became the reality".  As the deceased wished to be remembered as an upright and blameless individual, the ka statues tend to be idealized. 
Many royal ideal representations are a "type of countenance . including iconographic and stylistic details (to convey the king's) physiognomical characteristics (as well as) physical particularities with a great deal of traditional idealization".  In other words, they are idealized well studied forms of the ruling kind, and sometimes, hard to be discarded with his death. Therefore, the deceased king's idealized form may prevail during the beginning of his successor's reign till the artists found a new conventionalized form to represent the new king. Also, such borrowing of older forms of representations was also used during the Kushite and Saite periods as efforts for a renaissance of the arts. However, it was sometimes an exact copy of older reliefs to the point of even copying the exact names and titles of the older relief as is the case with the relief of "Taharqa as Sphinx trampling fallen enemies" and a 5th Dynasty relief in the Sun Temple in Abu Sir.
The concept of portraiture is still debated upon with regards to Egyptian art, but also, its modern definition. The debate arises because of the expression of the inner qualities – that have no concrete manifestation – in contrast to the physical resemblance that is more emphasized for the easy identification of the subject. In other words, portraiture is very subjective as it is not a mere photographic shot of the person. Nevertheless, throughout history, the inner life was found to be more important because it is the main characteristic of an individual and continuous attempts are made to further express such a fleeting concept visually. As a result, likeness between the image and the model could be a more exact expression of such concept as the main idea is to convey a huge spectrum of different types of the model's qualities rather than mechanically reproduce the external features. 
Religious and funerary influence on ancient Egyptian art is great as is made it utilitarian rather than aesthetic mainly "commissioned for the tomb or the temple destined to be seen by only a few persons".  Therefore, idealizing work is propagandistic to represent "the perfect human figure, the culmination of all that the Egyptians held to be good" as religion and fear of death and the afterlife were ruling forces over the Egyptians' minds and idealism is a means for them to achieve the desired happy ending as "it compromises a tangible affirmation of the individual's adherence to Ma'at and virtue as proclaimed in tomb biographies and chapter 125 of the Book of the Dead".  Therefore, to achieve the expression of the "virtuous" person, the artist's perception and techniques of portrayal underwent "the process of selection, deletion and arrangement". 
Idealism is often used as a means to indicate status. Old age is a sign of wisdom and hard work as in Senwosret III's case as well as wealth expressed through corpulence of the body. Nevertheless, old men are rarely depicted, but such work is found almost in every period especially in the Old and Middle Kingdoms while it can reach photographic realism in the Saite period.  There is a great difference between kings and queens depictions, and the non-royal. As the king and queen are both royal as well as religious institutions by themselves, they can only be rendered as perfect as possible. Hence, idealism is used and with the progress of time, introducing normal tendencies were introduced. This is not necessarily the case with normal folk or even high status officials: they can be realistically and individually rendered such is the case with the bust of Ankhhaf of the fourth dynasty.  The latter is a special and unique case since the prevailing inclinations to emulate the royal way of portrayal especially of very high status officials as is the case with Ankhhaf. There is a general observation that the lower the social status the less idealistic and conventional rendering of the person.  Still, such works are still debated whether they are true portraits or idealized and conventionalized. 
As to women, few naturalistic works of women prior to Late Period and Ptolemaic Period existed and "the great majority of female representations are idealized".  Mainly, noble and high status women were highly idealized to express their eternal youth, beauty and fertility. This is not the case for non-elite women. The latter exhibit more variety of postures, costumes, activity and age as seen in scenes of working women, market places, and mothers and off springs. Such scenes have women with protruding bellies, sagging breasts, deep naso-labial folds . etc. resulting into sometimes ugly, inelegant effect.
Naturalism in art, the accurate depiction of the visual appearance of things, is not necessarily portraiture. It is sometimes distinguished (although the usage of both terms is highly variable) from realism, "which is the rendering of the qualities, (inner and outer), of a particular person"  However, both avoid the abstractive nature of idealism. This does not mean that naturalism and idealism cannot coexist because they do especially in royal portraiture that conventionalizes and idealizes some of the king's chosen features. Naturalistic tendencies were mildly introduced during the Old and Middle Kingdoms in non- royal artworks and some royal (12th Dynasty: note Senwosret III and Amenemhat III's), then again, during the Amarna period as seen in the awkward depiction of Akhenaton's features and body as well as in some of Nefertiti's. Also, note the resemblance between the profiles (especially the noses) of both Thutmose III and Set I's statues or reliefs and their mummies. 
However, the greatest efforts for naturalism and sometimes an almost brutal verism in royal statuary started with the Kushite kings of the 25th Dynasty.  Such naturalistic tendencies were direct influences from Middle Kingdom statuary. Hence, the renaissance that mainly characterizes the 26th Dynasty (Saite Period) started with the Nubian Kings. Since they are Nubians with different physical and facial features, their statues and reliefs were trying to express such differences. Even with their naturalistic tendencies and the recurrence of the same king's features in almost all of his statuaries (e.g. Taharqa), we cannot prove they are realistic work, but at the same time, we cannot prove they are not. 
Egyptian artists and artisans worked within a strict framework dictated by ethical, religious, social and magical considerations. They were not free to express their personal likes and dislikes even they were not free to produce what they actually saw. Rather, they expressed the patron's wishes. The statue or relief had to conform "to highly developed set of ethical principles and it was the artist's task to represent the model as a loyal adherent", but still considering the naturalizing tendencies evolving with time, it is possible to say that "something of both the physical and appearance and the personality of the individual was made manifest". 
King Amenemhat III's sculptures are frequently difficult to distinguish from Senwosret III's meanwhile, the facial features of both were popular among private sculptures.  Both observations further consolidate the idea of the artist as a propagandist for certain dictated ideologies or personal agenda.  For instance, Hatshepsut was frequently depicted as a male king. That was an imposed request from her for political reasons to legitimize her rule as a woman (that is considered a sign of decay and chaos) and to emphasize her adherence to Ma'at by ascertaining her male identity. Her divine conception scene is purely propagandistic. Also during the Amarna Period, the change in style might be a result of a change in theology and religion.  Akhenaton's depiction is "the most extreme variation from the standard canon. showing the king with an elongated neck, drooping jaw, and fleshly feminine body".  That is so to serve the king's new theological program that referred to him as "the agent of creation" and in order to emphasize his "role of androgynous creator god (both male and female at the same time), hence the feminine features of the king".  With the change in religion, there was no fear to change the standards of art that was once considered as deviation from perfection. Clearly, in both Hatshepsut and Akhenaton's cases, the artists were forced to portray what they are told not what they saw and that further increases the confusion over the degree of likeness.
The context of the displayed statue or relief must be put into consideration when studying a piece of art. Was it in the innermost sanctuary of the tomb and meant to be seen only by the gods or was it monumental, on the first pylon of the temple, and meant to be seen by the public? Context dictates the purpose of the statue or relief, and therefore the patron would have asked for different representations of himself in each situation.  Moreover, the intended audience for the piece has great effect on the type of representation required for the piece. If the judges of the afterlife are the intended audience, then the patron would want himself idealized as much as possible in order to adhere to Ma'at and to be capable of inhabiting a perfect and youthful body eternally.
However, if the audience were meant to be the masses, then the patron's political agenda would dictate the nature of the representation: the king would want himself portrayed in as powerful and as godlike a way as possible. Also, some private individuals who had the means to commission pieces occasionally ordered highly naturalistic "portraits". Some of them preferred to have themselves portrayed as old and corpulent to show their wisdom and wealth. Who was the audience for such naturalistic pieces? Perhaps the public, perhaps the gods, but certainly the patrons of such works did not believe that they needed to be idealized like a king.
The state of preservation and condition greatly affect how we interpret and evaluate the work at hand. This because "limestone sculptures were occasionally covered with a thin plaster coat, which received additional modeling. The finishing (layer) will obviously obscure or enhance the details of the core sculpture".  Most of the naturalistic statues are found with their plaster coat, while the less preserved the coat is, the more idealized the work appears.
Additionally, the condition of the sculptures (whether they were found full-figure or fragmentary) is also a major factor. A person's identity could be determined by a certain action or pose, so if the body is missing, that means vital information about the individual's personality is missing also. "The missing bodies would have had their own indications of personality or stylistic peculiarities". 
Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.
Flavian dynasty, ( ad 69–96), the ancient Roman imperial dynasty of Vespasian (reigned 69–79) and his sons Titus (79–81) and Domitian (81–96) they belonged to the Flavia gens.
The fall of Nero ( ad 68) and the extinction of the Julio-Claudian dynasty had been followed by a war of succession that revealed the military basis of the principate and the weakness of the tie connecting the emperor with Rome. The successive emperors Galba, Otho, Vitellius, and Vespasian represented in turn the legions of Spain, the Praetorian Guard (the household troops), the Army of the Rhine, and a coalition of the armies of the Danube and the Euphrates and all except Otho were already de facto emperors when they entered Rome. The final survivor in the struggle, Vespasian, was a man of comparatively humble origin and, because the principate ceased to possess the prestige of high descent, it became necessary to remove, as far as possible, the anomalies of the office and to give it a legitimate and permanent form. There were several results: an elaborate and formal system of titles was substituted for the personal names of the Julio-Claudian emperors there was an increasing tendency to insist on the inherent prerogatives of the principate (such as the censorial power) and there was an attempt to invest Caesarism with a hereditary character, either by natural descent or by adoption. Moreover, the worship of the Divi, or deified Caesars, was made the symbol of imperial continuity and legitimacy.
Vespasian’s reign was noted for his reorganization of the army, making it more loyal and professional for his expansion of the membership of the Senate, bringing in administrators with a sense of service for his increase and systematization of taxation and for his strengthening of the frontiers of the empire (though little new territory was added). Titus’ brief but popular reign was followed by the autocracy of Domitian, who fought the senatorial class and instituted taxes and confiscations for costly buildings, games, and shows. A final reign of terror (89–96) was ended by his assassination. The Flavian dynasty was succeeded by the era of the Five Good Emperors.
Ancient Greece Edit
Equestrian statuary in the West dates back at least as far as Archaic Greece. Found on the Athenian acropolis, the sixth century BC statue known as the Rampin Rider depicts a kouros mounted on horseback.
Ancient Middle and Far East Edit
A number of ancient Egyptian, Assyrian and Persian reliefs show mounted figures, usually rulers, though no free standing statues are known. The Chinese Terracotta Army has no mounted riders, though cavalrymen stand beside their mounts, but smaller Tang Dynasty pottery tomb Qua figures often include them, at a relatively small scale. No Chinese portrait equestrian statues were made until modern times statues of rulers are not part of traditional Chinese art, and indeed even painted portraits were only shown to high officials on special occasions until the 11th century. 
Ancient Rome Edit
Such statues frequently commemorated military leaders, and those statesmen who wished to symbolically emphasize the active leadership role undertaken since Roman times by the equestrian class, the equites (plural of eques) or knights.
There were numerous bronze equestrian portraits (particularly of the emperors) in ancient Rome, but they did not survive because they were melted down for reuse of the alloy as coin, church bells, or other, smaller projects (such as new sculptures for Christian churches) the standing Colossus of Barletta lost parts of his legs and arms to Dominican bells in 1309. Almost the only sole surviving Roman equestrian bronze, the equestrian Statue of Marcus Aurelius in Rome, owes its preservation on the Campidoglio, to the popular misidentification of Marcus Aurelius, the philosopher-emperor, with Constantine the Great, the Christian emperor. The Regisole ("Sun king") was a bronze classical or Late Antique equestrian monument of a ruler, highly influential during the Italian Renaissance but destroyed in 1796 in the wake of the French Revolution. It was originally erected at Ravenna, but moved to Pavia in the Middle Ages, where it stood on a column before the cathedral. A fragment of an equestrian portrait sculpture of Augustus has also survived.
Medieval Europe Edit
Equestrian statues were not very frequent in the Middle ages. Nevertheless, there are some examples, like the Bamberg Horseman (German: Der Bamberger Reiter), in Bamberg Cathedral. Another example is the Magdeburg Reiter, in the city of Magdeburg, that depicts Emperor Otto I. There are a few roughly half-size statues of Saint George and the Dragon, including the famous ones in Prague and Stockholm. The Scaliger Tombs in Verona include Gothic statues at less than life-size. A well-known small bronze Equestrian statuette of Charlemagne (or another emperor) in Paris may be a contemporary portrait of Charlemagne, although its date and subject are uncertain.
St. George and dragon (1373), Prague
Tilman Riemenschneider: Hl Georg (1490–1495), Bode Museum
After the Romans, no surviving monumental equestrian bronze was cast in Europe until 1415–1450 when Donatello created the heroic bronze Equestrian statue of Gattamelata the condottiere, erected in Padua. In 15th century Italy, this became a form to memorialize successful mercenary generals, as evidenced by the painted equestrian funerary monuments to Sir John Hawkwood and Niccolò da Tolentino in Florence Cathedral, and the Statue of Bartolomeo Colleoni (1478–1488) cast by Verrocchio in Venice.
Leonardo da Vinci had planned a colossal equestrian monument to the Milanese ruler, Francesco Sforza, but was only able to create a clay model. The bronze was reallocated for military use in the First Italian War.  Similar sculptures have survived in small scale: The Wax Horse and Rider (c. 1506–1508) is a fragmentary model for an equestrian statue of Charles d'Amboise.  The Rearing Horse and Mounted Warrior in bronze was also attributed to Leonardo.
Titian's equestrian portrait of Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor of 1548 applied the form again to a ruler. The Equestrian statue of Cosimo I de' Medici (1598) by Giambologna in the center of Florence was a life size representation of the Grand-Duke, erected by his son Ferdinand I.
Ferdinand himself would be memorialized in 1608 with an equestrian statue in Piazza della Annunziata was completed by Giambologna's assistant, Pietro Tacca. Tacca's studio would produce such models for the rulers in France and Spain. His last public commission was the colossal equestrian bronze of Philip IV, begun in 1634 and shipped to Madrid in 1640. In Tacca's sculpture, atop a fountain composition that forms the centerpiece of the façade of the Royal Palace, the horse rears, and the entire weight of the sculpture balances on the two rear legs, and discreetly, its tail, a novel feat for a statue of this size.
Bernt Notke: St George and the Dragon (1489), bronze replica of wooden sculpture, Stockholm
During the age of Absolutism, especially in France, equestrian statues were popular with rulers Louis XIV was typical in having one outside his Palace of Versailles, and the over life-size statue in the Place des Victoires in Paris by François Girardon (1699) is supposed to be the first large modern equestrian statue to be cast in a single piece it was destroyed in the French Revolution, though there is a small version in the Louvre. The near life-size equestrian statue of Charles I of England by Hubert Le Sueur of 1633 at Charing Cross in London is the earliest large English example, which was followed by many. The equestrian statue of King José I of Portugal, in the Praça do Comércio, was designed by Joaquim Machado de Castro after the 1755 Lisbon earthquake and is a pinnacle of Absolutist age statues in Europe. The Bronze Horseman (Russian: Медный всадник , literally "The Copper Horseman") is an iconic equestrian statue, on a huge base, of Peter the Great of 1782 by Étienne Maurice Falconet in Saint Petersburg, Russia. The use of French artists for both examples demonstrates the slow spread of the skills necessary for creating large works, but by the 19th century most large Western countries could produce them without the need to import skills, and most statues of earlier figures are actually from the 19th or early 20th centuries.
United States Edit
In the colonial era, an equestrian statue of George III by English sculptor Joseph Wilton stood on Bowling Green in New York City. This was the first such statue in the United States, erected in 1770 but destroyed on July 9, 1776, six days after the Declaration of Independence.  The 4,000-pound gilded lead statue was toppled and cut into pieces, which were made into bullets for use in the American Revolutionary War.  Some fragments survived and in 2016 the statue was recreated for a museum. 
In the United States, the first three full-scale equestrian sculptures erected were Clark Mills' Andrew Jackson (1852) in Washington, D.C., Henry Kirke Brown's George Washington (1856) in New York City, and Thomas Crawford's George Washington in Richmond, Virginia (1858). Mills was the first American sculptor to overcome the challenge of casting a rider on a rearing horse. The resulting sculpture (of Jackson) was so popular he repeated it for New Orleans, Nashville, and Jacksonville.
Cyrus Edwin Dallin made a specialty of equestrian sculptures of American Indians: his Appeal to the Great Spirit stands before the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. The Robert Gould Shaw Memorial in Boston is a well-known relief including an equestrian portrait.
20th century Edit
As the 20th century progressed, the popularity of the equestrian monument declined sharply, as monarchies fell and the military use of horses virtually vanished. The Statue of Queen Elizabeth II riding Burmese in Canada, and statues of Rani Lakshmibai in Gwalior and Jhansi, India, are some of the rare portrait statues with female riders. (Although Joan of Arc has been so portrayed a number of times,  and an equestrian statue of Queen Victoria features prominently in George Square, Glasgow). In America, the late 1970s and early 1980s witnessed something of a revival in equestrian monuments, largely in the Southwestern United States. There, art centers such as Loveland, Colorado, Shidoni Foundry in New Mexico, and various studios in Texas once again began producing equestrian sculpture.
These revival works fall into two general categories, the memorialization of a particular individual or the portrayal of general figures, notably the American cowboy or Native Americans. Such monuments can be found throughout the American Southwest.
In Glasgow, the sculpture of Lobey Dosser on El Fidelio, erected in tribute to Bud Neill, is claimed to be the only two-legged equestrian statue in the world.
The monument to general Jose Gervasio Artigas in Minas, Uruguay (18 meters tall, 9 meters long, 150,000 kg) was the world's largest equestrian statue until 2009. The current largest is the 40 meters tall Genghis Khan Equestrian Statue at Tsonjin Boldog, 54 km from Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, the legendary location where Genghis Khan found the golden whip.
The world's largest equestrian sculpture, when completed, will be the Crazy Horse Memorial in South Dakota, at a planned 641 feet (195 m) wide and 563 feet (172 m) high, even though only the upper torso and head of the rider and front half of the horse will be depicted. Also on a huge scale, the carvings on Stone Mountain in Georgia, USA are equestrian sculpture rather than true statues, the largest bas-relief in the world. The world's largest equestrian bronze statues are Juan de Oñate statue in El Paso, Texas (2006), statue in Altare della Patria in Rome (1911) and statue of Jan Žižka in Prague (1950). 
In many parts of the world, an urban legend states that if the horse is rearing (both front legs in the air), the rider died from battle one front leg up means the rider was wounded in battle and if all four hooves are on the ground, the rider died outside battle. For example, Richard the Lionheart is memorialised, mounted passant, outside the Palace of Westminster by Carlo Marochetti the former died 11 days after his wound, sustained in siege, turned septic. A survey of 15 equestrian statues in central London by the Londonist website found that nine of them corresponded to the supposed rule, and considered it "not a reliable system for reading the fate of any particular rider". 
In the United States, the rule is especially held to apply to equestrian statues commemorating the American Civil War and the Battle of Gettysburg,  but there are at least nine instances where the rule does not hold for Gettysburg equestrian statues. One such statue was erected in 1998 in Gettysburg National Military Park, and is of James Longstreet, who is featured on his horse with one foot raised, even though Longstreet was not wounded in that battle. However, he was seriously wounded in the Wilderness battle the following year. This is not a traditional statue, as it does not place him on a pedestal. One writer claims that any correlation between the positioning of hooves in a statue and the manner in which a Gettysburg soldier died is a coincidence.  There is no proper evidence that these hoof positions correlate consistently with the rider's history but some hold to the belief regardless.  
Calumny of Apelles – Botticelli’s Final Painting
The painting is really tiny (compared to the majority of his works), 62x 91 cm, while his detailed technique rather brings to mind miniatures than images on wood. Look at the miniature mythological and religious scenes on the architectural reliefs in the background- they are so sharp and clear, so thoroughly thought.
Sandro Botticelli, Calumny of Apelles, detail, 1495, Uffizi, Florence
The small size and the technique suggest that the painting was not intended for display but was meant to be hidden and treasured, enjoyed solely on a special occasion.
Sandro Botticelli, Calumny of Apelles, detail, 1495, Uffizi, Florence
We’re not sure whether the painting was commissioned, it might have been painted by Botticelli to express his resentment for an unjust accusation of a crime he had not committed (an anonymous denunciation to the authorities accused him of sodomy), since the painting is an allegory for a real story of an unjust accusation that happened to the painter Apelles. He had been accused by a rival painter Antiphilos for having allegedly participated in a plot against the king of Egypt. Anger and shame experienced by Apellus summoned to the king are embodied by a young man in a loincloth.
Sandro Botticelli, Calumny of Apelles, detail, 1495, Uffizi, Florence
He is being dragged in front of the king’s throne by Calumny. She is holding a torch which may suggest that the spread of lies is as quick as the spread of light. Her hair is being arranged with white ribbons by Fraud, while Perfidy decorates her head with roses, both being symbols of purity and innocence here subverted. Can he expect a just judgement? It doesn’t seem so as the king is gullibly listening to two beautiful figures personifying Ignorance and Suspicion. They’re whispering calumnies to his ‘donkey ears’ of King Midas. He’s extending his arm towards a man in a black cloak who represents Rancour (Envy) and obscures king’s view of the scene below.
Sandro Botticelli, Calumny of Apelles, detail, 1495, Uffizi, Florence
A young woman in the left is, of course, naked Truth. She’s full of indignation and she points towards Heavens expecting the last judgment to come from God. Her beautiful figure is juxtaposed with an old woman in black mourning who stands for Punishment and looks at Truth with scorn (or is it envy?).
Difference Between Modern Art and Ancient Art
Art is the product of human expression. In human history, art has been used as a documentation and expression of life in a particular period of time. Art records not only the lifestyle of a certain period or people, but also the personalities that shaped history.
Modern and ancient art are two classifications of art and, very loosely, human history. Both periods have distinct characteristics that help identify human perceptions and lives in their respective times.
Ancient art, as its name implies, is the art produced during the ancient times. This particular art period ranges from the Paleolithic period to the Middle Ages. Ancient art was produced by early humans, ancient civilizations, and early Christian societies.
Ancient art can be described and is often used as an historical archive. Artistic products of the period reveal historic events and lifestyles of early human societies. Ancient civilizations including Egypt, China, Mesopotamia, Assyria, Babylon, India, Japan, Korea, Persia, China, Central America, Greece, and Rome produce their own distinctive art. Ancient art has no uniformity and no worldwide approach, appeal, or effect.
The emphasis of ancient art is on history, and it is influenced by the distinct cultures of its origin, religion, and political climate. Ancient art is also characterized as a stiff, direct, and frank representation of life.
On the other hand, modern art is the direct opposite of ancient art. The dawn of modern art is debatable, although some suggest it took place in 1860-1970. During this timeframe, there were two World Wars.
Modern art is the result of questioning, opposing, or abandoning the traditional ideas, subjects, and techniques of expression. It focuses on the changing times and perceptions, experimentation, new perspectives, and fresh ideas about the world and the function of art. Additionally, modern art tends to be more expressive and supported or influenced by the general population.
Modern art also formed art movements including surrealism, Fauvism, expressionism, cubism, and Dadaism.
Unlike ancient art, modern art can be produced by any person from any country. It is not unique to any culture or society it has worldwide and global appeal.
An Accurate Portrait
For those accustomed to traditional Sunday school portraits of Jesus, the sculpture of the dark and swarthy Middle Eastern man that emerges from Neave's laboratory is a reminder of the roots of their faith.
"The fact that he probably looked a great deal more like a darker-skinned Semite than westerners are used to seeing him pictured is a reminder of his universality," says Charles D. Hackett, director of Episcopal studies at the Candler School of Theology in Atlanta. "And [it is] a reminder of our tendency to sinfully appropriate him in the service of our cultural values."
Neave emphasizes that his re-creation is simply that of an adult man who lived in the same place and at the same time as Jesus. As might well be expected, not everyone agrees.
Forensic depictions are not an exact science, cautions Alison Galloway, professor of anthropology at the University of California in Santa Cruz. The details in a face follow the soft tissue above the muscle, and it is here where forensic artists differ widely in technique. Galloway points out that some artists pay more attention to the subtle differences in such details as the distance between the bottom of the nose and the mouth. And the most recognizable features of the face&mdashthe folds of the eyes, structure of the nose and shape of the mouth&mdashare left to the artist.
"In some cases the resemblance between the reconstruction and the actual individual can be uncanny," says Galloway. "But in others there may be more resemblance with the other work of the same artist."
Despite this reservation, she reaches one conclusion that is inescapable to almost everyone who has ever seen Neave's Jesus. "This is probably a lot closer to the truth than the work of many great masters."