'The Aristodikos is so convincingly realistic and looks so much like a living man...' [WOODFORD]. How far do you agree with Woodford's opinion?

In order for the question to be answered, it must be approached in a specific elbow room. First of all, it is important to raze that a technical and fair answer to the question would implicate the shipway in which Woodford is right and the ways in which she is wrong. Also, the way in which the subject of her story must be judged is by analyse it to subject fields of the same period in order to work out its position among statues of its age. We must recollect to what extent her controversy is true and under what circumstances the arguing exists. As mentioned before, a skinny argument would include the rights and wrongs of the statement therefore we will stolon look at the ways in which the statement is true. The archaic period was a time when the main inspiration for Greek sculpture came from the Egyptians, therefore more(prenominal) similarities can be seen when analyse Greek to Egyptian. Similarities can be seen in the way accordance is used which is the one of the be lookings of the Archaic style. A good example of this is shown in the new York Kouros on which a proficiency of mirror lines was used to bring out perfect symmetry. This very technique which aims for perfection is what makes the revolutionary York Kouros unreal, as the humankind body is rich of imperfections. The sculptor of the Aristodikos has taken this into bill and his awareness of proportions in the human body is much more refined than that of the creator of the New York Kouros. So in this aspect the Aristodikos has great naturalistic advancements all over its contemporary counterparts. The New York Kouros has another aspect making it unrealistic; there is no impression given of soft flesh. Although the rear of the statue... If you want to germinate a full essay, order it on our website: OrderCustomPaper.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: write my paper