Re: 'Yes you can doubt it. It's your nature to be contrary to everything, often over mistaken trivialities. '
I am disagreeing with *you*, not with 'everything'. And the question is by no means trivial. It is quite misleading to characterise Greek art - even of the later classical period - as in search of 'living, speaking, moving likeness', if that implies a kind of illusionism; and it is most certainly not the case for earlier Greek sculpture - the Parthenon and earlier. Greek sculpture is in its way just as 'stylised' as Egyptian or African or any great art. It is simply that its style often makes more use of 'naturalistic' devices than many others. The only style that approaches true illusionism (with one or two minor exceptions) is, as I say, the 19th century academic style and its modern avatars. And those of course are abject failures - not art at all. I remember when I was young being told over and over again - and reading over and over again - the good old art history mantra that Greek art is a 'triumph of naturalism', 'realism' etc. It was only when I began to see how misleading this claim is that I really began to admire Greek sculpture. The Victory of Samothrace (eg) is not a triumph of naturalism at all, and neither are the Parthenon works in the British Museum and much else besides. They are a triumph of something very difficult to define - a kind of spirit of freedom, of human independence, of nobility perhaps - and no mere illusionism is ever going to achieve that. (One has only to put a Cabanel etc beside a photo of the Brit Museum works to see at a glance what is at stake.) DA http://www.home.netspeed.com.au/derek.allan/default.htm On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 8:08 PM, William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes you can doubt it. It's your nature to be contrary > to everything, often over mistaken trivialities. By > virtual I meant the living, speaking, moving likeness, > not an exact measured copy of a particular person (the > Romans did that -- and so did some Old Kingdom > transitional Egyptian portrait sculptors). Even the > Greek archaic sculpture was sometimes signed, with the > phrase "...made me", suggesting that the image was not > simply a representation but akin to a living, speaking > person. The classic work was abstract in its > flattened planarity, true, to emphasize contour and > wholeness whereas the later work was particularized to > suggest parts to be assembled in visual experience. > By 530 A canon was developed for ideal measuremenrts > and the distortions of anatomy were due to external > observation, not intimate knowledge of anatomy. The > most abstract part anatomical unit was the head. It > can be reasonably proposed that the forward distortion > of the forehead and the straight nose, short upper > lip, overly rounded jaw, were the result of efforts to > manipulate how light affected facial expression, with > the aim being that classical calm. Such distortions > lessened in the later period. Nevertheless, the > notion of a living, breathing, animate ideal human was > an underlying goal, as evididenced by remains and > scraps of contemporary writing, etc. > > WC > > > --- Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> RE: 'I used to tell my students that the >> ancient Greeks would have had moving, speaking >> sculptures on the Parthenon if they had the >> technology >> (as in Las Vegas!). We're still trying to come up >> with >> convincing virtual sculpture in digital games, etc. >> The ancient Greeks would love it. ' >> >> This I doubt very, very much indeed. The Greeks >> weren't in the >> business of mere illusionism. (Who has been, indeed, >> except the >> academic 'pompiers' and their numerous modern >> descendants?) >> >> DA >> >> On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 4:10 PM, William Conger >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > Talk about old news. People have known for decades >> > that the antique sculptures were painted, and not >> only >> > painted, but waxed, over (for the Greeks but not >> the >> > Romans) carefully "fractured" stone to enhance the >> > apearance of living flesh. By fractured is meant >> a >> > chiseling technique that causes tiny superficial >> > "crazing" in the stone that refracts light, >> absorbing >> > some of it, softening the look of the surface. >> Over >> > that went the waxed pigments. (see Rhys >> Carpenter). >> > The Romans mostly "pointed" their work, copying >> Greek >> > poses by measuring and drilling to a depth and >> then >> > clearing away the surplus, then refining the >> surface. >> > Leon Battista Alberti described this in his book >> on >> > sculpture. But the Romans added a highly >> convincing >> > degree of illusionism in relief sculpture and in >> > portraiture. I used to tell my students that the >> > ancient Greeks would have had moving, speaking >> > sculptures on the Parthenon if they had the >> technology >> > (as in Las Vegas!). We're still trying to come up >> with >> > convincing virtual sculpture in digital games, >> etc. >> > The ancient Greeks would love it. Incidentally, >> > painted architecture was also popular as evidenced >> by >> > traces found on ruins, etc. >> > >> > >> > >> > WC >> > >> > >> > --- aesthete aesthete <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> > >> >> >> > >> > http://www.projo.com/art/content/lb_ancient_color_art_05-28-08_96A0OKP_v15.23 >> >> 7e99f.html >> >> >> > >> > _________________________________________________________________ >> >> Give to a good cause with every e-mail. Join the >> i m >> >> Initiative from >> >> Microsoft. >> >> >> > >> > http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Join/Default.aspx?souce=EML_WL_ >> >> GoodCause >> > >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Derek Allan >> > http://www.home.netspeed.com.au/derek.allan/default.htm > > -- Derek Allan http://www.home.netspeed.com.au/derek.allan/default.htm
