Very interesting discussion. My big question is do art historians believe that when an artist makes this type of art that they think of all of the ideas that you discussed. Or does the idea come to
Them and we place all of these ideas/ concepts on their art work.
Regarding the discussion surrounding the cosmogony of the piece in relation to Amarna or post-Amarna dating, it's important to recognize that Amarna theology wasn't a new theology, but rather a form of replacement theology. Akhenaten and Nefertiti were the physical embodiments of Shu and Tefnut respectively. Their sacred union brought about Ra(Horakhty) and thereby Aten as His physical form. With that said, the cosmogony remains the same, regardless of period. Stylistically, I'd venture to say it's late Amarna.
Very interesting discussion. My big question is do art historians believe that when an artist makes this type of art that they think of all of the ideas that you discussed. Or does the idea come to
Them and we place all of these ideas/ concepts on their art work.
Regarding the discussion surrounding the cosmogony of the piece in relation to Amarna or post-Amarna dating, it's important to recognize that Amarna theology wasn't a new theology, but rather a form of replacement theology. Akhenaten and Nefertiti were the physical embodiments of Shu and Tefnut respectively. Their sacred union brought about Ra(Horakhty) and thereby Aten as His physical form. With that said, the cosmogony remains the same, regardless of period. Stylistically, I'd venture to say it's late Amarna.