It is true that an Egyptian may be said to place his object for depiction in the centre and to encircle it with thoughts” (Logan 425).
Such thought makes it harder to separate the initial meaning of the Egyptian art, and today’s insights concerning it, which are oriented mainly on the aesthetic features of the art objects.
Simpson states that “the Egyptian art in many of its forms is propagandistic” (Simpson 266).
The assumption can be verified by the attempts to combine both aesthetics and the ideology when observing the particular piece of the Egyptian art – the Abu-Simbel temples.
Finally, Egyptian art was produced according to the canon, that is, the pre-set way of depicting anything.
All the listed features prove that the Egyptian art was limited by ideology, and the mysteriousness and secretiveness of it existed only to support the existing hierarchical order of the ancient society. “On the Status and Purposes of Ancient Egyptian Art.”Our writer has created an Egypt research paper about Egyptian art that you can read below.
The existence of the canonic ways of representation implies the obvious societal gap between the classes, as it makes art itself the concept which reflects the ideas of the representatives of the sovereignty.
Davis states that such principles of the representation “are best referred to as the “canon” of official, Egyptian art; thus, a certain kind of art – the official, academic style commissioned by highly placed or royal patrons are imitated by other classes – makes up the canonical tradition” (Davis).
Canon in ancient Egypt served as the method of influencing people by the repeatable forms, which reflected the guidelines of the sovereignty.
So, the function of the Egyptian art was limited primarily to its ideologically preset purpose, that is, art objects reflected the ideas produced by the representatives of the authority.