Dave L Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I remain unconvinced of the interpretation of the
> standard canon, as is Legon, so I ain't gonna
> start studying Amarna as well 'till I'm satisfied
> who is right!
Read who you want, but while Legon has been writing about the canon of proportion since at least the 1990's, it was Robins who was asked by a panel of Egyptologists to write about the grid system in the
The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt (2000, 2: 68-71).
In short, Legon's interpretations have never been widely accepted in the Egyptological community from what I can see.
In the meantime, perhaps you should also include this work as part of your studies:
Davis, W. 1989.
The Canonical Tradition in Ancient Egyptian Art. Cambridge New Art History and Criticism. N. Bryson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Davis explores the artistic, functional and ritual rationales of a canon of proportions in ancient Egyptian art and architecture, and particularly how these canon could be modified to make certain statements - religious and political. While a different viewpoint from strictly Iverson's and even Robins' point of view, it's worth at least reading about.
For those who wish to follow up in the same idea on Amarna art there's a very interesting dissertation written some years ago on how the art and artistic traditions were modified for political reasons during the Amarna period:
Meyers, E. L. 1981.
A Program of Political Theology in Amarna Tomb Art: Imagery as Metaphor. Ph. D. Dissertation (Unpublished). Department of the History of Art. Philadelphia:University of Pennsylvania. (Available from
Proquest Dissertation Service.)
Reference:
Robins, G. 2000. Grid Systems. In D. B. Redford, Ed.,
The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt,
2: 68-71. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg
Doctoral Candidate
Oriental Institute
Doctoral Programme in Oriental Studies [Egyptology]
Oxford University
Oxford, United Kingdom