In today’s world we see many images every day.  We see celebrities on the cover of magazines, commercials of candidates running for offices, political cartoons, and newspaper headlines.  In ancient portraiture we see head figures depicted on coins, in paintings, and in sculpture.  Many pictures show the greatness of an individual, but others are made with the intention to disgrace the one who is being portrayed.

Ancient portraits were made to praise an individual, whether it be the bust of an ancestor to be praised, the sculpture of a god to be placed in a temple, or the coinage of a great ruler.  I do believe that we could compare the modern works of Andy Warhol to the ancient portraits, where the purpose would be to portray a positive image of a well-known figure.  For example, we know that Warhol was a fan of Jackie Kennedy.  Andy Warhol once said, “There is so much awe and respect for her.  Being with her is like walking with a saint.”  In the image Red Jackie (1964), Warhol gives the first lady bright red lips and bright blue eyes.  We also see Warhol’s fondness of John F. Kennedy in Flash-November 22, 1963 (1968).

On the contrary, we also see how also used negative images to get a point across.  In the image Vote McGovern (1972), we see a distorted face of Richard Nixon with the words “Vote McGovern” across the bottom.  Nixon’s face is a blue and green shade with a yellow mouth and funny colored eyes.  This demonic image of Nixon would definitely not convince you to vote for him, therefore turning to the other candidate.   Although this is not the best depiction of Nixon, it is not like he himself asked Warhol to paint this picture of him.  Most of the ancient rulers were already in power when they would ask a sculptor to make them into a “divine image”.  When asking for a portrait, those of the ancient times may not have a straight sculpture but just have their head on a different body, or have themselves depicted as god like. 

I have come to the conclusion that ancient portraits can be compared to modern political portraiture.  Even in the recent presidential election we saw images of each candidate.  Many of the shots seen on commercials show the candidate with their face turned up towards the sky, giving the image of looking into the future.  This picture also gives the illusion of the candidate being much taller than they actually are.  This once again can be compared to the ancient statues when the heads of leaders were put on a sculpture of someone else’s perfected body so as to be looked upon as god like and without blemish.

Warhol’s portrait of Mao Zedong is in part a commentary on the ruler’s portrait, hanging all over China. The image of Mao, newly released to the United States, became a focal point of American popular culture. Taking advantage of this newly released image, Warhol catapulted the portrait to even greater recognition. His collection of Mao portraits is impressive. The collection is a series of reproductions of a single image. Each is treated with different colors to achieve a slightly different look. As they are displayed in the Currier Gallery of Art, the portraits are hung next to one another, creating a block of Mao. To further emphasis the effect, the portraits are hung over a Mao wall paper.

                Warhol’s portraits of Mao remind me of the use of portraits on coins in Ancient Rome. Senators used coins to imprint themselves on the minds of Roman citizens during the Republic. Although it was illegal to depict themselves (as long as they were still living) relief sculptures of ancestors marked coins. The use of coins ensures that a large number of the population sees the image, as it is repeated on the face of many coins, and the coins will circulate through the entire city. This is similar to how Mao’s portrait dominated buildings in China. The repetition of the imagery imprints the image on citizen’s minds.

Because Senators could not use self portraits, they portrayed an ancestor, along with a symbol of their family. The use of images and symbols ensured that a large number of the population would understand, even if they were not literate. Similarly, the population of China would understand from a very young age that Mao Zedong is an important figure who is to be respected, even if they did not totally understand his significance in the government.

                Of course Warhol’s image of Mao is not the one circulated throughout China, but the idea is the same. Repetition of an image is a powerful tool artists can employ. Portraits which are repeated again and again have a strong impact on the viewer.

 Cameo portraits such as the one above of Emperor Augustus were intricate in their Hellenistic Origins of gem cutting, and in several cases they communicated political propaganda, this one with divine attributes and heavy symbolism.  Notice how Augustus is portrayed armed with a spear with an ‘aegis’ garment over his shoulder that illustrates a wind God of sorts blowing a seafaring vessel.  This could have been a symbolic reference to Augustus’ annexation of Egypt.  The laurel wreath that he was shown wearing on his head could indicate his military triumph. 

   Quite similarly, Augustus at Prima Porta has divine references from his bare feet and the little cupid at his heel, as well as propaganda on his breastplate.  He is made to be seen as a youthful and ideal icon in the eyes of Rome.  His cult image could be likened to the deification of Mao Zedong.  So what was the thought that went behind Warhol’s Mao(s)? 

   The recuring element of repitition so prevalent in Warhol’s works seemed to emphasise Mao as such a widespread figure, like campbell’s soup.  While Augustus may have been inscribed on roman coins, Warhol found it more fitting in one of his more rare and notable works to slap an image of Mao onto a campbell’s soup can, humorously suggesting Mao to qualify as an Icon of mass food distribution, possibly? 

   It is a bit more difficult to interpret the various shades in which Warhol painted Mao.  He certainly was less discriminate in his color choice than, say, the artists who were commissioned to paint Prima Porta.  He experimented with colors on many famous public figures and did have a bit of varitation; he was especially liberal in his color choices for Mao, though he was more conservative in his renderings of the Shah and Jimmy Carter, for reasons of patronage and reverence, much like the ancient tomb portraits.  However, these decisions suggest that Warhol’s modern portraiture answered more to sheer visual curiosity, the whims of the artist and a more universal interpretation of public figure’s images- While the Romans may have understood the propaganda on Augustus’ breastplate, Warhol’s color evoke’s something immediate.  Take several different immediate effects all clustered together over a repeating backdrop of a public figure and you have an identity crisis more exclusive to modern portraiture, at least with public figures you don’t mind playing around with a bit. 

   The Shah’s portrait is very conservative and dignified. 

 Mao’s portrait(s) have no obvious symbolic reference to an event and the viewer is left guessing exactly what to think about Mao, because all the frames are the same, and yet, they vary in feel.  It makes us question what differs so much; our perception of this foreigner, the foreigner, or something in between.  It is somewhere between a reflection and an engineering of one’s culture, and in that way these modern portrait(s) have been consistent with the ancient portraits.

Everyone has heard of the phrase that a picture speaks 1,000 words. This very true statement has been used excessively throughout the history of politics in order to send specific messages to viewers, and in turn manipulate their opinions of political figures. This can commonly be seen through ancient Roman portraits of political figures as well as in modern society, and through images done by Andy Warhol. . Most of the portraits seen during ancient Roman as well as in modern society, try to display only the positive qualities of political figures, while Andy Warhol’s images tend to focus on the negative features of important political people.

Throughout the history of ancient Rome, prime leaders and figures would use art to enhance positive features that they held in order to persuade popular opinion. For instance, in the statue of Augustus seen to the right, Augustus is portrayed to be a strong and powerful leader. His extended hand and finger display his great leadership and confidence to the people of Rome. Additionally, the statue of Marcus Aurelius to the left sends a similar message to the viewer. The fact that he is portrayed on horseback gives me a superiority and control over every spectator. His extended hand also makes him look like a great leader who is very confident. Any viewer who sees this statue automatically gets the impression that he was a powerful political figure.

Today, many political candidates, including Barrack Obama and John McCain, use similar techniques as the ancient Romans in order to persuade voters that they are the best presidential candidate. However, instead of using coins or sculptures, modern political figures rely on images spread nationally through the media. For instance, before his winning election, this image of Barrack Obama to the right was placed in the New York Times. This picture conveys to the viewer the normalcy of Obama. It shows his similarity to other fathers and families, and makes himself more identifiable to the viewers who can easily relate to him. Additionally, this image of Obama to the left displays his popularity by many people. It also depicts him as a friendly candidate cares about his supporters. These images are similar to the ancient Roman portraits of political figures in the fact that they both enhance the human greatness of each figure in order to sway popular beliefs.

Andy Warhol has used portraits of 20^th century political leaders to persuade popular opinion, however, many of his images attribute negative features to the figures he portrayed. His image of President John F. Kennedy to the left gives a washed out look this political figure. The blue and red contrast creates a clash that gives the picture a blinding affect and makes it hard to look at for a long time. Similarly, his image of Jimmy Carter to the right makes him look terrifying because of the pencil drawings that emphasize his fierce eyes. Also, the shadings on one half of his face and hand makes him look two-faced which might represent an evil side to him. Unlike the Roman and modern day portraits which portray positive aspects of political figures, Andy Warhol distorts popular images of these people to highlight his own negative opinions about them.

Images of important figures will always be used to manipulate popular opinion. Unfortunately, it is up to us as viewers to look behind the messages that are being sent by these portraits in order to find the truth behind all political figures.

I find it fascinating how so many features of our everyday lives find an origin in ancient Rome and/or ancient Greece. From the architecture of the basilicae outlining the structure of today’s Christian churches to the art that constitutes our culture, we see traces of the ancient artist almost everywhere we turn.

One of the characteristics the ancient Greeks and Romans were recognized for was the manner in which they portrayed the political leaders of their time through art. The sculptures and portraitures of significant political leaders during the ancient times expressed the individual in an idealized fashion. It is likely that this portraiture “Augustus of Primaporta” presents Augustus in a more glorified or dignified manner than he was in reality. The artist who constructed the piece strived for perfection in order to portray Augustus in such a way.

The same is true regarding the portraiture of modern political figures, such as the individuals Andy Warhol is recognized for producing. Take, for example, Warhol’s portrait of former United States President Theodore Roosevelt, titled “Cowboys and Indians – Teddy Roosevelt.” This image depicts Roosevelt in uniform, with cap and eyepiece. Whether Roosevelt actually appeared in everyday life this way is not the point – it is the fact that Warhol chose to portray Teddy Roosevelt in his blue uniform. This may be in an effort to again idealize the individual: he is seen as patriotic in his blue uniform, with an almost regal expression about him.

This demonstrates how both the more contemporary Andy Warhol and the ancient artists were inspired by similar motives. The goal behind these portraitures of important people is to make them appear even more significant by portraying them closer to perfection. The artists probably understood what the society during their time was looking for in a political leader and strived to express that through the portraits. For this reason, the artists should be given credit and should be regarded as influential. Often, the credit goes to those whose image is being depicted without much regard to who created the image. Part of the artists’ skill had to be realizing how society functions and working to portray the individual in a respectful and significant manner.

Propaganda and media is essential to our political process today.  In the recent elections in the United States image was of utmost importance.  How the public perceives a political leader determines their success in elections.  People unconsciously make judgments about a candidate through pictures and photographs.  For example in these two photographs the 2008 candidates for president of the United States, Republican John McCain, and Democrat Barack Obama attempt to be projected as a responsible and a strong leader.  Although the images are very different they attempt to project a positive likeness to the public.   

In the picture of John McCain He stands tall leaning against what seems to be columns from at the Washington Monument.  The significance of columns to promote a strong message dates back to the Roman and Greek times when they began using columns as a decorative and innovative way to build structures such as temples, basilicas, churches, and forums.  Because the Greeks and Romans were very successful powers in their time columns have always represented a strong, sturdy structure and a good political system and leadership that built it.  By leaning on the column the message suggested is that John McCain is like columns and the positive message they have promoted for thousands of years. 

            Barack Obama’s image is done entirely different.  A double picture of his face colored in a red, white and blue promotes the message of extreme patriotism and American pride.  The look on Obama’s face is serious, but determined as if he is gazing into the future.  The emboldened and capitalized words “HOPE” and “PROGRESS” give off a clear message for what he claims to stand for.  As candidate for president the objective is to expose what you stand for.  And this photograph clearly shows the audience what Barack Obama stands for. 

The photograph of Barack Obama is very similar to the works of Andy Warhol.  He also used color and double images to exhibit candidates and political figures in a positive or negative light. 

These two silkscreen images done by Warhol also use color to promote a positive message.  The images of Jimmy Carter, a United States President and Mao Zedong, a previous Chinese Communist Chairman both promote an image of leadership.  Carter, like Obama uses the red, white and blue color scheme to promote patriotism and American pride.   Zedong’s image promotes one of seriousness, honor, and authority, which are qualities that the Chinese admire in their leaders.  Warhol represents him as the icon he was in China. 

            Ancient portraits were also made to show political leaders in a good light.  This portrait of Octavian was made during a flourishing Roman period.  He was a popular political leader who ruled Rome for forty years.  The portrait portrays Octavian as strong, and well built judging from his physical characteristics.  His muscles are sharply defined and he is wearing armor.  The extended arm promotes the idea of authority and direction that as ruler he gives his people for the future.   

            Overtime, political leaders have changed the means by which they put forth their image.  The Romans used portraits and statues, whereas today we use silkscreen and photos to express a message.  However, the objective has remained the same.  The public’s attitude towards an issue or candidate depends on what the media puts forth, whether right or wrong.  Therefore, since the Roman times candidates and political leaders have continuously realized the importance of their image, as it is determines how they are perceived by the people.    

Both modern and ancient art help to serve as examples of how humans revere powerful figures in society in similar ways. Although there are distinct differences in the styles of art between the times of Ancient Rome and Greece and the time of Andy Warhol in the late twentieth century, there are also similarities between the way the artists compose their portraits.

A portrait is simply a depiction of a person, and typically only their head and shoulders are displayed. This has remained unchanged for centuries. In one ancient carving of a consul, the artist does not give any emotion to his face. Additionally, it seems that the consul has good posture, which makes him appear stately to the viewer. A good amount of detail is given to his facial features, and the piece seems that it was carved smoothly and carefully. We cannot gather a great deal of information about exactly who this consul was as a person, but the sense is given that he is powerful yet reserved.

http://0-www.artstor.org.library.anselm.edu:80/artstor/nexaweb/BrowseViewerPage.do?side=left&total=38&vo=IGImageThumbnailView&page=25&q=276340&pageSize=1&key=Next&state=min&mode=half&metamode=false&sp2=false&cid=

Andy Warhol, whose pop art has proven itself to be both extremely influential and controversial,  altered many portraits of celebrities and political figures to show them in a different light. Andy Warhol once said that everything that needs to be known about the person whose portrait is being viewed can be see right away. In a portrait of China’s former Communist leader Mao Zedong, Warhol alters the coloring of Mao’s face to become lighter and also makes his eyes darker. Perhaps Warhol did this to make Mao look like the dark political figure that he really was. 

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2006-11/16/xin_581103160704715624113.jpg

The main difference between the work of Andy Warhol and the works of the Ancient Greeks and Romans is found in Warhol’s reliance on color. Without color, it seems that the messages that Andy Warhol sends in his works would otherwise not be received. The remains of Roman and Greek sculptures typically lack color. Some of these sculptures were once colored, and others were not. However, whether or not these works of art were colored or not does not seem to matter – we are still able to get a relatively accurate idea of who these portrayed people were. 

Artists today continue to use the idea of the portrait to their advantage. In an original mosaic portrait of 2008 president-elect Barack Obama, the artist uses images of Obama’s supporters rallying for change as components of the entire piece. The image of Obama himself shows him nobly looking upward, (perhaps towards this “change”) and he also exudes confidence which is desirable in a leader. 

http://www.itechnews.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/barack-obama-mosaic-portrait.jpg

With examples given from Ancient times, fifty years ago, and today, it can be seen that the portrait is used to display the most important characteristics of an influential individual. 

“Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” This saying originally was said in Greek in the third century BCE. The literal meaning is still held true today, and can be applied to a number of things. Interrupting art is what it is created for and one way to interrupt a form of art is to decide whether or not it is beautiful.

Roman portraits often are done in a three quarter profile and portraying them in ways that look natural. The artists try to show the politician in a way that is as real as possible with the coloring. The subject often has a neutral expression.

These points are quite different from the Andy Warhol portraits. His works are brightly colored, showing lively expressions. Warhol shows not only politicians, but also other media staples ranging from Marilyn Monroe to a can of Campbell’s Soup. The subjects in his portraits are not shown as a camera would capture them, but instead incorporate thick shadows and outlines that stand out. The style of painting used by Warhol does not show anything that looks too difficult since there are not many tiny details that the Roman art has such as backgrounds; Warhol’s backgrounds tend to be solid colors.

The Romans also portrayed their political leaders through sculpture. As we discussed in class these did not always directly portray the person as they were seen in person. The bodies were pre-sculpted with their head attached at a latter time. These sculptures were commissioned by the emperor at the time of their rule, much like how Warhol was commissioned by the Kennedy’s to do their portraits. Both of these works show a version of the subject, but not what would be seen if looking at the subject face to face.

Roman sculptures gave an impression of superiority because that was how the emperors wished to be viewed. Did Marilyn Monroe want to be viewed in shades of orange? Probably not. However, the different colors continue to show how she was a beautiful woman.

Art has a different meaning to all who experience it. Much like how music tastes differ, interpretation of art differs just as widely. The Romans used a more direct approach to portraying their subjects in their art by trying their best to accurately depict them. Andy Warhol depicts faces so they are recognizable at first glance, but uses unique ways to show them in a different way. I personally am a fan of both of these methods because they were not intended to give off the same impression. Art is not appreciated by all, but those who can understand that the beauty does not have to be literal can appreciate it on a whole different level.

There are several connections that can be made between the ancient artist’s work and the work of modern artists. In fact, many artist today take inspiration from past artists. That is why is not surprising that there are several similarities between works of ancient Rome and Greece and Andy Warhol’s works. These artists all depicted people of significance in their societies. For the Greeks and Romans artists, they portrayed emperors and military leader of their time. Similarly, Warhol’s works were depictions of government leaders and figureheads of his time. Through their depiction of people of power in their societies, the ancient Romans, Greeks, and Andy Warhol share something in common.
Both the Greeks and Warhol depicted their subjects as perfect beings. They were not always realistic (showing all details/flaws), but they showed perfection in order to communicate a message. That message was that the people in the sculptures/paintings were without flaw and were perfect beings.
Through this, the artists communicated to the audience that the people they portrayed, people who were running for office or a political position, as though they were perfect. It was their goal, through this portrayal, to convince their audience (the common people) of the eligibility of the people they portrayed. The more perfect they appeared to be, the more likely it was for the citizens to vote for or choose that person to hold a position of power.
For example, Andy Warhol depicted Senator Edward Kennedy to be perfect as well as patriotic in this example. Kennedy, a prominent United States Senator, is one example of Warhol’s depiction of the significant people in society. By depicting him in this way, it seems as though Kennedy is the perfect candidate for president. By putting the red, white, and blue behind him, Kennedy appears to be the epitome of the patriotic presidential candidate the average voter wanted to see.
In a similar way, the statue of Augustus, entitled Augustus Primaporta, depicts the emperor Augustus as a perfect man. As stated, Augustus was the emperor of Rome, and therefore was very influential in his society. This supports the idea that ancient Greek and Roman artists depicted significant leaders of their time. Here, Augustus is very idealized, not appearing to look like Augustus really looked at all. The artist is trying to depict Augustus as the perfect emperor and ruler. As previously stated, the artist is trying to communicate the message to the public that this man, Augustus, is the perfect example of a ruler, and therefore is also a form of propaganda.
As previously stated, the artwork done by these artists always portrayed a certain message. The portraits that I explained before had positive connotations, but some of them had negative messages behind them. For instance, in Warhol’s portrait of Richard Nixon, he appears to be evil. The yellow lips, green, sickly-looking face, cause Nixon to appear demonic. Depicting Nixon this way allows Warhol to slip in “Vote McGovern” into the portrait, and by doing this, viewers see McGovern, although not depicted, as being the “good guy” who will save / protect them from this inhumane person.

Portraits of political figures in ancient times were used to idealize an individual and to honor them for something great and honorable that they may have accomplished in their careers. Today, some political portraits are also used to idealize individuals who have done great things, but more often they are used to portray negative characteristics of someone. This technique is especially used in political elections. An artist will portray a negative characteristic of one candidate to try and persuade the people to side with the other candidate. In the ancient times, portraits were a statement of a person’s greatness and in the modern times, portraits are created in a certain way to persuade people of an individual’s positive or negative characteristics.

This is an ancient sculpture entitle Augustus of Primaporta. This sculpture is definitely a statement of his power and of his greatness. First of all, all of his features are idealized. He has no apparent bodily flaws. His stance also demonstrates great power. He is taking a step and his arm is outstretched and pointing to something. It is a very authoritative pose. He is dressed in elaborate robe with important and detailed battle scenes all over them. Another important statement of his greatness is made with the statue of cupid by his feet. Supposedly, Augustus is a direct descendent of Cupid. This portrays him as sort of a demigod. This portrayal of Augustus is just like all of the other political portraits of ancient times. It is a statement of his power and of his greatness.

This portrait of Richard Nixon by Andy Warhol is entitled “Vote McGovern.” He uses his unique screen printing technique in conjunction with unusual colors to create a feeling of unease in his viewers. The stony color of his face and the use of yellow in his eyes make him look evil. By portraying Richard Nixon as evil, Andy Warhol’s portrait persuades people to feel more comfortable and side with McGovern. Warhol rose to fame in the 1960’s, but this type of portraiture is still prominent today in the form of political cartoons in particular. The media is always trying to persuade the general population to side with one politician or another and the way that they do that is to portray the flaws of one individual which in turn makes the other individual look better.

Political portraits in the ancient world and political portraits in the modern world have one thing in common: they do not portray reality. Portraits in the ancient world portray idealized forms of political figures whereas portraits in the modern world portray people in either an idealized way or a highly negative way to persuade people to one side or the other.

Every portrait of a political figure has conveyed a message even during the Ancient Roman era.  Although the portrayals may differ, it is the same basic concept of trying to accomplish a goal.  Political gain in any time consists of an image that the public finds appealing and worthy of praise.  The images in Andy Warhol’s collection were not always used as a way for political propaganda.  Warhol chose whom he would portray in the portraits in the beginning, so it was not a part of the campaign of the subject of the image.  Many commissioned works such as those of Jimmy Carter and Edward Kennedy may have been used to relate to the younger generation and to appear more contemporary and modern.  Others such as the collage created of John F Kennedy is more relatable to the funerary masks created, being a memorial to a great man.  Warhol’s portraits were meant as statements to the masses.  It was a way to break the boundaries of the art world of the time period.  The select few that he chose to portray in this way were obviously important figures in the sixties.  To the public, the people pictured must have seemed impressive considering the singling out by the artist of the time. 

            There are similarities between Warhol’s portraits and the ancient portraits of Roman and Greek origin.  Both were meant to portray the qualities of a leader and important political figure.  The younger generation in each time period looked to these portraits as inspirational and awesome likenesses of the great masters of the past political scenes.  Just like the sculpture of Augustus of Primaporta, the images by Andy Warhol had an element of grandeur and substantial forbearance on the society of the time. The use of color by both the ancient artist and Warhol emphasizes the gravity of the work.  In politics today, the use of image is a gateway into the hearts of the people.  If a politician becomes the archetype of the society, at least in image, the public will react accordingly.  Images of politicians today highlight the better qualities of the candidate rather than the ugly. Images will always be used to create a greater following in the political world.

Throughout time, political portraits have been used to glorify politicians and gain support for a cause. However, the types of causes being represented by the politically motivated art may differ. The differences between Warhol and the ancient Roman artists existed for the same purpose. These artists intended to bring glory and honor to the people they are portraying.

Andy Warhol was a modern American artist who became famous for his Pop Art and his portraits of the famous politicians of his time. He was usually paid a commission by an important public figure to produce a portrait. These portraits were paid for in the hopes of gaining respect and hopefully votes for the person being depicted. Some of Warhol’s famous projects were for Ted Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and George McGovern. The portrait made for McGovern (Vote McGovern) was one of Warhol’s most unique concepts. Instead of painting McGovern, Warhol painted an unflattering picture of the opposition, President Nixon. Warhol’s disdain of Nixon was apparent due to the snarl on Nixon’s face and the garish colors across the portrait. The message was to vote for McGovern or a horrible person (Nixon) will stay leader. Additionally, Warhol’s art did serve a self-centered purpose. Warhol made vast amounts of money from his work and harnessed an ambition to be the top man in his field. If a Roman citizen had painted an unsightly portrait of a current emperor, the art would never reach wide distribution and the artist would most likely suffer a painful death.  

The Romans had slightly different motives for their political portraits. Romans used art to either glorify the recently deceased or government officials who wanted to prove his power. One of the major forms of displaying one’s status as was to have a likeness placed on a coin. Consuls sometimes had famous ancestors’ likenesses on the coin along with the family name. The emperor,Hadrian Hadrian, had himself placed on a coin to demonstrate power and to celebrate victories. In contrast to Warhol’s era, Roman portraits and sculptures were not meant to enhance a particular artist’s reputation and career. The artists were doing the civic duty required of them.

Today, political art has gone back to focus on the person being depicted. Video clips and photographs of today’s politicians are used to make candidates seem more appealing. The men who captured the candidates on tape do not tend to achieve fame. Instead, they are paid to produce material which either promotes their candidate, or denigrates the opposition.

While Warhol and the Romans are separated by vast amounts of time and space, the basic underlying goal of their art was the same. Both types of artists wanted to make their subject seem like great individuals. The reason the artist unit was included in our “portraits of human greatness” theme seems clear. Through the fine arts, not only can the spectacular talent of an ancient artist be revealed, but also the greatest individuals have often been presented to the world through art.

                Andy Warhol was commissioned to do portraits of many significant political figures. After his success due to his works on the Kennedy family he began to be commissioned by influential people to create portraits for them. Nelson Rockefeller was one of the first to do so commissioning Warhol to create images of himself and of his wife, Happy. Image is very important to a person in a place of political power. Political power is determined through political influence, and to be influential, a person needs the support of the people. Using America as an example, in the past years when a person in political power loses the support of the people their political influence disintegrates. Such as Eliot Spitzer, the governor of New York that was caught involved in an escort service. One the people lost approval of him he was basically forced to resign his position. Therefore a political figure is wise to generate a positive image of themselves to the people in order to have a possibility of advancement in politics. Obama used the “Obama Infomercial” to convey himself as a family man who is dedicated to helping the people that have been looked over. Influential Romans were no different than politicians of today. Instead of using the television to get through to the population, they used statues and buildings. For example Alexander only commissioned Lysippos to create portraits of him because he felt that only Lysippos could capture his masculine and leonine aspect. Alexander thought that it was important that people see him as a powerful ruler. Power was valued to the people and Alexander knew that if his own people thought him weak he would not have the support he desired. The building of large public buildings by rulers was a way of showing the people the technological advancements the society is making and a symbol of the strength of the government. Also by building public buildings that improved life such as bath houses and large structures for games the ruler was sending a message that he cared for his peoples’ happiness and for his country’s prosperity. People in political power of recent times try to express the same views. Edward Kennedy commissioned Warhol to create a portrait of him. The portrait (seen right) set Kennedy against a background of red, white, and blue. This sends a very patriotic message implying that Kennedy’s main concern is for his country and its people. I think that political figures will always need the support of the general population and will always use a form of art to try and get that support.

As stated in the prompt for this blog, ancient political leaders had an understanding of how portraiture served as vital means of communication to the public.  The Ancient Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius used an image of himself on horseback as a symbol of his victorious leadership on and off of the battlefield, creating an immensely masculine ideal of what it means to be a leader.  The Ancient Romans saw the symbol of Marcus Aurelius on horseback as a symbol of safety and security, as the statue originally depicted the emperor’s horse trampling over an enemy.  What a symbol of courage and power!  The use of the statue insured that the Romans had a secure homeland, and that they were safe under the influence of Marcus Aurelius. 

            Andy Warhol used portraiture with the same motives as the Ancient Romans—to portray major societal icons in ways that would affect society as a whole.  However, Warhol used a slightly different method of portraiture than the Ancient Romans.  For example, Andy Warhol created this portrait of Richard Nixon in order to influence how viewers of the portrait felt about McGovern.  By depicting Richard Nixon in such malevolence, with such contrast on the normal perception of what colors should appear in a picture, Warhol sent a clear message about McGovern—voting for McGovern will keep you safe, will make you happy, and will help you avoid Richard Nixon!  The Ancient Romans would have chosen to portray McGovern instead of Nixon, yet Warhol believed that even though the portrait did not show any positive depictions of McGovern, the negative depiction of Richard Nixon spoke volumes about McGovern.  Warhol did not seek to slander his subjects of portraiture, he merely used a different artistic style to stir up thought in his audience. 

            As a whole, the notion of portraiture has always promoted positive sentiments and long lasting records of society in a historical view.  By examining the portraiture of Ancient Rome, we can see what the Ancient Romans revered in a leader.  By examining the portraiture of our current society, we can also wee what our society reveres in a leader.  This examination of portraiture has been an eye opening experience, and I look forward to watching portraiture evolve in my lifetime. 

To be completely honest, I have always been the type of person who did not have a lot of interest or appreciation for art. Therefore, when I found out that we would be studying the ancient artist, initially I was not thrilled. I must admit, however, that my perspective has changed. Through studying the ancient artist and attending the Warhol exhibit I have truly developed an understanding for the importance of the existence of art in all cultures. Similar to the other units that we have studied, there are several parallels that can be drawn between artists of thousands of years ago and artists of today. It is through works of art, especially political, that we discover the important aspects portrayed in these individuals.

The ancient artist included painters, sculptors and architects. The main mission of these artists was to stress the cultural values morally, politically, and aesthetically. The visual arts used a relation between colors and shapes to portray different key aspects. Different political leaders had portraits and sculptures made so that the public would be aware of certain admirable traits such as strength, power and courage.

The above statue, Marcus Aurelius on Horseback, was designed to exemplify Marcus’ strength, courage and power which were especially exhibited through his experiences in the military. Marcus appears on a horse as an aspect of intimidation to his enemies. When the statue was first created, an enemy had appeared underneath the foot of the horse as to show how Marcus had the ability to overcome and trample all of his countries’ enemies.

Andy Warhol’s signature style involved graphic and bold designs. These aspects portrayed his interest in how political leaders ascended to celebrity status as a result of their constant representation in the media. Warhol created art that would be viewed on items such as the Campbell Soup can and Coca Cola. Warhol created portraits of American presidents and presidential candidates, queens and communist dictators.

One of Warhol’s famous works was that of Jackie Kennedy after her husband’s assassination.  The majority of these portraits were done with the main color being blue. The decision to use blue in these portraits revealed the tragic and violent aspects of the overall situation. Yet in these portraits Jackie was often depicted smiling. This portrays her strength as a first lady and her strength to overcome the devastation.

Another famous work of Andy Warhol was his portrait of Teddy Roosevelt. This portrait portrayed the emotion of nervousness and shadows by the use of red lines and the shadowy charcoal used on his face. This portrait was an example of the hard-hitting, energetic national spirit at the turn of the century. Roosevelt often stated, “Speak softly, and carry a big stick.” Roosevelt personifies dynamic which sought to subdue all opposition to the national cause. Similar to Marcus Aurelius on Horseback , Roosevelt appears as a powerful and confident leader in the portrait.

The one major difference between art of ancient times and art of today is that some art of ancient times did not completely resemble the individual being portrayed. Instead the art focused on the specific characteristics that the artist wished to portray. Art of today resembles the person that it is modeled after yet different colors and shades are used to portray the different desirable characteristics. It is through the study and appreciation of these works that the artists are able to exhibit who individuals really were on the inside regardless of their physique.