'Suspension of Disbelief'

The tragedy of Cleopatra and Anthony and the sculpture of the

Sphinx. Both infamous. Both with legends and mythologies

attached to them. What Cleopatra was to Anthony surprisingly

is not different in interpretation on a psychological,

emotional and religious level, to what the Sphinx meant to the

Pharaoh Khafra. Because the image I chose to compare is a

painting created shortly after Shakespeare wrote the infamous

tragedy. A masterpiece of wool and silk plain weave with wool

warp tapestry immortalizing the legend of a Goddess and her

Achilles' heel. True love.

Just as the Pharaoh Khafra made the Sphinx to originally make

a standing tribute to the Hellenistic conquests of his father,

in order to immortalize and further strengthen the legacy, but

instead gave basis to a mythological creature known as the

sphinx in Greek mythology. Although this fact regarding the

origin of the Sphinx is disputed among intellectuals, gives

the basis of theorizing how the creation of a sculpture for

intimidation ended up creating a new chapter in the religion

and beliefs of ancient Egyptians.

Although, the mediums vary, in comparison of the two images.

One being a painting created to not only promote the movement

 of mannerism back in the 17th century, but to also start an

intellectual debate regarding the archetype of both Cleopatra

and Anthony. Therefore, upon visual analysis, the motivation

of creation of these two artifacts and the method of

production are the primary common elements. Namely, the

Painting being a technical ancestor of photography. Even this

simple photograph of the Sphinx is in a composition with the

Pyramid of the Pharaoh, applying the rule of thirds to create

drama in the frame. A method of composition also present in

the painting, creating a compositional contrast between

Cleopatra and Anthony to highlight their relation on a sub-

textual and iconic level. And most importantly, both

successfully create the suspension of disbelief over the

spectator, indulging their consciousness into the legends of

ancient times, not for once letting them exploit or criticize

the intellectual and historical worth. Successfully executing

the function these both mediums, photograph and painting, are

to primarily achieve.

Praise worthy both these visual modes of art are, not only

entertaining but educating the spectator, were not meant to be

viewed in the context they are viewed today. Or to be more

precise, the creation of both the painting and the photograph

serve similar purposes. But both distort and manipulate the

original meanings of the subjects composed in the frame.

 For instance, the legend of Cleopatra has been always a

controversy on both political and religious levels. Not much

different than the socio-religious conflicts between the Sunni

and Shia Muslims, or the catholic and protestant christens.

Because the self-acclaimed re-incarnation of an Egyptian

Goddess born in Greece created a rivalry of power that not

only led to Caesar's assassination indirectly but also to the

extinction of the line of Pharaohs. But all that this painting

depicts in an overview is the passion Cleopatra bestowed upon

Anthony. A passion which bore no positive yields.

Beginning with the painting, the debate I initiated regarding

the subject being distorted in the composition to manipulate

its original interpretation can be proven by reviewing other

literary works of Shakespeare. One only needs to read Romeo

and Juliet to see the narrative similarities. But of course

the Charisma of Cleopatra and Anthony being much darker and

sophisticated, making the play more towards intellectual and

socio-religious debate via theatre than a mere commercial

presentation as Shakespeare was renowned for use of multiple

genres and for using characters from other religions as well

as from history.
 A maestro in the skills of dramatic arts, unfortunately,

influenced this painting to focus on one aspect of Cleopatra

and Anthony, the seduction. Possibly a creative choice of the

painter itself, has distorted the original meaning the goddess

and her lover had before; the last Pharaoh of Egypt to rule 21

years. Suppressing the grand narrative Anthony and Cleopatra

played in the history of human civilization.

Similar is the fate of the Sphinx. Known mostly as a

protector, a guardian of great treasures. Was originally

intended to be a monument of the Hellenistic Pharaoh dynasty

in its early stages. A view distorted and draped with layers

of other symbolic associations, such as the largest sculpture

of ancient times to exist, the physical corrosion and the

allegedly sabotage to its nose and beard braided with

fascination as a mystery no less seductive and alluring than

the beauty and prowess of Cleopatra, have mutated the meaning

its original creator intended. For in today's time the Sphinx

mainly serves the purpose of tourist attraction. No longer

capable of intimidating or immortalizing the legacy of the

Pharaohs. But rather a national monument of a country,

reproduced in a myriad other mediums such as clothes, mugs,

cartoons, comic books and popularized by reproduction in a

miniature downscaled form usually a toy is a prime example of

the layering of distortion to manipulate the original purpose

of its creation, degrading it from a symbol of power to a show

piece in a drawing room as an ash tray.

Therefore keeping in mind the reproduction of the Sphinx as a

photograph, as well as the portrayal of a historical

character, both contrasted with use of composition techniques

to give a dramatic portrayal are simply reproductions. Because

after all, even the photograph I selected is in the form of an

image downscaled, losing its impact it originally has due to

the materials used in its creation.

Although the basic still applies to these both images. Both

have no form without a spectator. Therefore on a surface

level, the medium used are of the same technical species,

namely a camera. The style also having a common element, the

intent of cheap reproduction due to choice of digital

conversion as a medium for storage on ARTsor and the format,

both being jpegs.

What puts all these similarities into contrast to each other

can only be explored using the tools of visual analysis and

the realization of the impact of visual culture. Because in

context of the 21st century, the two images have only two

common grounds, both being digital reproductions and both

revealing milestones in the otherwise rich and extensive

history of Egypt. The ironic connection between the two images

can only be identified by dwelling into the narrative of the

Pharaohs as one marking the beginning and other the end of

their dynasty. Also hidden in both these images are the

techniques of creating visual capable of captivating the

spectator to induce a temporary suspension of disbelief,

making him forget the distortion and manipulation done to the

subjects of the mis-en-scene as well as to the medium they

were originally meant to be represented in.

Only through the tools of visual deconstruction can one

realize how an Egyptian narrative in both images has been

represented by an alien spectator; a painter who never knew

Cleopatra or Anthony trying to explore their persona using a

visual representation of their physical forms with no relevant

factual evidence to support the authenticity of the physical

portrayal except the creativity and skills of the painter, as

well as the photographer of the Sphinx who never met any of

the Pharaohs to sympathize the intend of the son trying to

walk in his father shoes, afraid to disappoint or fail.

Therefore credit must be given to the ARTsor database for

securing images of these subjects for the purpose of research,

analysis and reference. For outside the database, googling and

download these images has manipulated and mutated the original

meaning as well as intent of creation of both Cleopatra's

tragedy and the Sphinx's symbology. A disease of incomplete or

distorted information, rather prevalent in the world of the

World Wide Web due to easy transportation as well as

duplication.

Via the tools of visual analysis both on a contextual as well

as on socio-technological level can unveil the true wisdom

hidden in subtext of both these images. That both have lost

their original meaning and significance.

As the present human civilization being majorly a combination

of post modernism and post realism, rapidly creating a

civilization that produces art primarily as a product instead

of a medium for education, provides a factual conclusion

regarding one similarity reflective in both these images, is

the reproduction for the sake of preserving the original

wisdom of the subjects within the frame. Because once the

tools of visual analysis are applied, even the ARTsor gallery

is distorting the original impact a painting or a sculpture

may have, instead of a digital reproduction.

Creator Workshop of Karel van Mander II (Dutch, 1579-1623)
Title Cleopatra Entertains Antony
Work Type Furnishings
Date about 1640
Material wool and silk plain weave with wool warp tapestry
Measurements 145 1/2 x 156 1/2 in.
Credit Line Indianapolis Museum of Art, Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Herman C.
Krannert, (66.2)
Image Copyright
Image ? Indianapolis Museum of Art
Notice
Repository Indianapolis Museum of Art

http://www.imamuseum.org/
Culture Egyptian
Title Great Sphinx, with likeness of the Pharaoh Khafre
(Chefren), head, with the Pyramid of Khafre in the
background
Work Type sculpture
Date c. 2520-2494 BCE
Location Giza, Egypt
Material limestone
Style Period Old Kingdom, Dynasty 4
ARTstor Collection Art, Archaeology and Architecture (Erich Lessing Culture
and Fine Arts Archives)