Greek sculpture catalog

New york kouros

• Around 580BC, Athenian acropolis, Met

• One of the oldest kouroi in 6th century = see Egyptian influence

• Beaded hair & walking pose (but naked, without loincloth)

  • Extreme frontality of the sculpture (feet parallel even in walking pose)

  • Autonomy of sculpture - does not interact with the viewer

• Not exact copy of the Egyptians however, as no head-dress, back-pillar (Egyptians were usually extremely high relief instead of actually in the round) or stone between legs and arms

  • + Egyptian sculptures were for precincts that only priests & pharoahs could enter (but kouroi for all)

• Very unnatural proportions and anatomy

What is a kouros?

• Function as agalma (evoking pleasure in divinity) & anathema (votive gift)

  • Or as sema (marker or symbol) = prioritises function over identity = no suggestion that it is a portrait of the figure at all

• 388 examples (270 from sanctuary contexts, 220 of which are Apollo)

  • 50 from funerary & 65 unknown

  • Mid. 19th c. known as Apollos (as so many came from Apollo sanctuaries & description of Apollo in Homeric hymns)

  • But 1895 - also in funerary setting (= much more versatile)

• Nudity = either athletic nude (aristocratic young man = wealth) or heroic nude (of god and heroes) = open-ended suggestion of bodily power

Anavyssos kouros

• 530BC, Attica, NAM

• One of the later kouroi so more naturalistic use of planes (instead of incisions), but thighs unnaturally large

• Arms still stuck to sides & hair remains beaded

• Was on a road-side with the inscription - "Stay and mourn at the monument of dead Kroisos, whom furious Ares destroyed in the front ranks."

• = funerary function of kouroi (not just for votive offerings) & also emph. the publicity of death and memory

• Slight individualisation = pubic mustache (rendered in paint above genitals = self-care for aristocracy)

  • + potentially had cloth cap upon his head (to be worn beneath one’s helmet)

• Phile kore inscription similar ^ - ‘…set me up as a monument, beautiful to behold, of his daughter Phile; and Phaidimos !! made me'

Calf-bearer statue

• 570BC, Acropolis, AM

• NOT a kouros!

• Kouros is not just a statue of man, but has to fit into specific mold

• The calf-bearer has very thin cloak covering shoulders and crosses his arms to hold the calf (can have little characterisation eg. shoes on Cleobis and Biton)

Aristodikos kouros

• 500BC, Attica, NAM

• When we begin to see shift from kouroi into different free-standing statuery, embodied here = short hair (with snailcurls at front) and arms pulled back to allow separation from body but still splinted at the wrist

  • Has fashionable pubic mustache - reminants of Archaic

• No Archaic smile = movement into severe period? OR is this a consequence of the Greco-Persian wars?

Orchomenos kouros

• 590-70BC, Orchimenos, NAM

• Example of a kouros from Boeotia with very specific style = much harsher lines, the planes are sharp and unnatural

  • Sculptures like this that complicate creating relative chronologies (using style alone is quite oversimplistic)

• Pectoral muscles cut down from armpits and very flat face (with no archaic smile!)

• Also see regional difference in the stone used (much darker and granier)

• But later - in mid 6th c. the Boeotian style becomes softer eg. on NM10 = supports the view that regional distinctions begin to break down later in period (as cons. of travelling and exploration of new styles)

Melos kouros

• 550BC, Melos, NAM

• Another example of regional difference with the lighter stone but also the softness of the rendering

• Body is much skinnier (both torso and thighs), with little to no muscle definition and rounded cheeks

Ptoon kouros

• 530-20BC, Ptoon sanctuary, NAM

• Also from Boeotia but from 50 years or so later = still have ideal in sharp muscle definition, but now more naturalistically involved in the piece

• Subcutinary musculature = 8 pack!

• Also has his arms pushed back too (the sculpture is taking up space and not being limited by the block of stone it came from)

Sounion kouros

• 580BC, Sounion, NAM

• Shows aesthetic patterning: votive ears, snailcurls and beading, incised limbs and ribs on the back

• Also colossal (3m!) example

Ptoon kouros

• 500BC, Ptoon, NAM

• Evolution?

• Subcutaneous musclature and hip muscles instead of dorito body with incised Achillean crest = much more natural

• And short hair, but snailcurls (& archaic smile)

What is a kore?

• Also has votive & funerary function

  • 247 total - 183 for sanctuary (and 75 of these from Acropolis to Athene)

  • Only 11 for funerary and 53 for unknown

• Slightly more korai for sanctuary than kouroi

• Are they Athene? Or Artemis?

  • But lacking the attributes of Athene (eg. aegis an weaponry)

  • Or nymphs, but again no identifying characteristics

  • Portraits of donors? But sometimes dedicated by men! Like Antenor kore

  • = ideal young women, conceived primarily as beautiful = pleasing votive offerings (not meant to be specific portrait of any figures)

• Attic korai usually dressed in columnar chiton garment, but after mid 6th shift to Ionian style (chiton as base-layer, with cross-mantle over top)

  • = can have different types of folds (dif thicknesses and directions)

Nikandre kore

• 650BC, Delos, NAM

• Possibly the first kore (or even free-standing stone sculpture) we have = incredibly restricted to one plane (very flat and frontal)

• Not much any detail, simply an outline of a woman

Antenor kore

• 530/20BC, Acropolis, AM

• Incredibly emphatic patterning of the dress with many layers = overlaying himation with ruffled edges on a chiton which she pulls at and thus the folds are pulled up (= attempt at utilising gravity within the piece)

• Snailcurls on her forehead that fall into three logs of beads on her shoulders

• = see how aesthetic patterning comes into play in female figures (as have to be dressed, can use clothes to pattern instead of the bodies themselves)

• Largest kore dedicated to Athene

  • Inscription on base = dedicated by potter

  • = not an aristocrat (eager new-money from artisans)

  • See also Naulochos dedicating statue to Poseidon (for good catch)

• Chian kore from decade later has similar layering (Ionic chiton, cross-mantle and skirt) and reminants of patterning

Phrasykleia kore

• 550’s BC, Attica, NAM

• Found in put with kouros (brother)

• Long chiton, which she pulls to the side (attempt to moving fabric off of the body?)

  • Length of the dress is also part of aristocratic element - Sappho 57: ‘not knowing how to draw up her long robe to her ankles?’

• Very columnar but bring out patterning with the paint! (Has rosettes & swastikas all over the dress, and potentially gold dec for earrings and bracelet)

• Also is holding a lotus bud = not flowered yet? = was unmarried (and has crown of lotus flowers and buds on her head)

• Statue base built into early Byz church (sema of Phrasykleia - receiving name of kore from gods instead of marriage)

Peplos kore

• 530BC, Athenian Acropolis, AM

• Despite preference for Ionian dress, some still have olf style (530s but long chiton with peplos = different trends overlapping)

  • Very columnar like Phrasykleia (and would have also been decorated with bright colours and patterns = no need to utilise folds)

  • Snailcurls over her brow, that move into braids down her chest (3 each side) that fall to her arm pits due to her breasts (= gravity!)

• Drill holes in head = headress? And cutting in right hand = attribute (dealing with a special figure like Artemis)

  • Can korai be specialised to their context?

Euthydikos kore

• 480BC, Athenian acropolis, AM

• Inscription on base - Euthydikos, son of Thaliarkos, dedicated me (a man! = not a rep of dedicator)

• Debated date - earlier hair and drapery / no Archaic smile and much more realistic eyes, and the hair moves more naturally (outer locks fall to crevice between breast and armpit due to gravity)

  • If late, shows that the kore type potentially persisted longer than the kouros (could also be an evidence for the evolution argument)

• Interesting use of patterns - different in dif areas = alway sunray pattern on shoulder, narrow vertical folds, and higher relief incisions on the cross mantle ridge

Red shoes kore

• 510BC, acropolis, MofAc

• Tiny kore (= range of size from Suonion to this)

• Also shows how korai could have much more characterisation as has red shoes & holding a vase (?)

• And range of fabrics attempted to be represented = dappled mantle over peplos

  • But peplos with vertical lines and wet drapery around back (unique) of legs but gathers to extreme extent on front (forms a wedge that sticks out = not natural)

• Face is very masculine = squat and very stick-outy (cheeks, nose and chin are very free from the plane of the face)

Lyons kore

• 550-40BC, Acropolis, museum of fine art in Lyons

• Like red-shoes, has further characterisation (wearing the Ionian headress and has bird)

• Also incredibly muscular, especially in the arms (shows defined biceps even when not flexing)

  • = has clear influence from the muscular kouros

  • Different ideals for women?

  • And has buttocks present at the back… (not hidden like the peplos kore)

Temple of Artemis Corfu

• 580BC, Corfu, AMofC

• Oldest Doric order temple!

• Shows Medusa iconography (snake hair and snake as belt + has flying shoes??)

  • Also has her son Chrysaor (assume Pegasus on other side) but he is just a tiny man = no attempt to represent actual child (because born fully formed or just limited?)

• Also running is shown in very exaggerated pose (always like this if running = ‘symbol’ of movement, instead of actual movement)

  • Actually kinda impossible to run like that

• Also has snailcurls and three thick braids on each side of the head

Temple of Apollo, Eretria

• 520-490BC, Euboea, sculpture now in Chalcis museum

• From temple of Apollo at Eretria, an example of late Archaic temple (6×14 columns, distyle in antis, with pronaos & opisthodomos)

• And unusually faces south-east / north-west

• Sculpture of Theseus and Antiope (from Amazonomachy scene on western pediment) are the only successfully surviving pieces

  • The temple was destroyed in 490BC (back-date) by Persians on their invasion (Eretrians provided the Ionians with forces in their revolt, so their city was destroyed and plundered in the attack)

• Thus can exist as good example of the late archaic =

  • Both have archaic smile (even though Antiope is being kidnapped = clearly not a sign of happiness)

  • Theseus has short hair, but detailed snail-curls at brow (and Antiope has very schematic hair - waves finely engraved and fall in fine braids that are brought back up to form layers of bow-shapes on neck)

  • Planes of the face are rounded and blend well into each other = faces are becoming more naturalistic but still stilted

    • Some of Theseus’ abdominal musculature can be seen (seems more natural but emphatic)

    • No folds on Antiope’s dress (maybe not finished?)

  • Lack of movement in the embrace - Theseus’ arm wraps round her and we see his hand, but there is no compression of the fabric to emphasise his grip (esp since he is lifting her into chariot)

    • No attempt to add dynamism or tension to battle scene

• Athene would have stood at the centre, as Amazonomachy surrounds her (seems to be theme to have divine figure at centre of pediment while mortal action surrounds them - see temple of Olympian Zeus also)

Temple of Zeus at Olympia

• 450’s BC, Olympia, AMofO

• Made by Eleans from spoils when Pisa was crushed (conquest happen just after synoikism - many small cities formed one state)

  • Thus temple as representative of demos-based victory over traditional oligarchy (seen in defeat of Pisan king in east pediment)

  • But Pisa quite poor = also from touristic funds?

  • Elis administered whole of sanctuary as Olympia was not a polis in itself

  • 471-456BC by Pausanias (apex of temple held Spartive votive shield over Athens at Tenega = 456BC latest & have supporting block with little inscription!)

• Temple made by Libon

  • Architectural elements of local limestone (very shelly) + stucco BUT statues of imported Parian marble

  • Parian sculptors (sim. between Apollo’s face & blonde boy)

• Contemporary temple of Hera that still stands would be similar - heavy, squat proportions with thick columns

• Pediments at west and east shorter ends (12 metopes on inside)

• Pausanias gives two names for sculptors but most likely wrong (century after)

  • Probably wrong because of Nike statue whose base stated that these people helped with roof statues (placed later)

• Issue of order of the sculptures on the pediments (which side is Oinomaos - on left of Zeus, but Zeus’ left or our left?)

• River gods?

  • Very common assumption, but would need to be lying down to be in corner, and river gods at time presented as bull-headed youths (Sicilian coins) & no aquatic attributes

Temple of Olympian Zeus - west pediment

• 450’s BC, Olympia, AMofO

• West pediment shows what we believe is the chariot-race between Pelops and Oinameos (Oinamaos had prophecy that he would die by son-in-law, so created chariot race which if he won, could kill suitor (had magical horses so has won 12 times before?)

  • Relevant to the temple as there is a foundation myth of the Olympian games which has Pelops creating the games as thanks for his victory in this chariot race

• Scene is just before race so Pelops and Oinamaos stand to either side of Zeus - still unknown which side (Pausanias just tells us to Zeus’ left, but from which perspective)

• Very static (but quite common for the front-facing pediment = majesty and elegance, with battles on back or friezes) but incredible characterisation in the styling

  • Pelops - muscled but in my youthful manner with a more V shaped torso, no beard or cloak

  • Oinamaos - much stockier with thick muscles, prominent beard and emphatic mouth shape and cloah over shoulder = seniority (like riace A, but less detail as would be high up)

• And female bodies also differentiated, by clothes instead of body shape (and with pose! - Hippodamaia reaches for the fabric on shoulder = sign of bridehood, while Sterope crosses her arms in anxiety)

• Have other figures on the pediment inc. seated boy (holds foot = sign of prophetic ability) and old seer (first inclusion of furrow on brow to show anxiety) with poor hairline = characterisation!

Temple of Olympian Zeus - east pediment

• 450’s BC, Olympia, AMofO

• Battle scene at the back - much less static than the east and demonstrates the skill of dynamism and movement of the sculptors

  • As the first may symbolise order, this can symbolise chaos

• Apollo, like Zeus, stands as central figure, but now has motion as he points his hand to the right - perhaps to indicate to Peirithoos that he wife is being kidnapped by a centaur (Theseus stands on the other side)

  • Pausanias identifies this figure as the Lapith king, but would have been Apollo (hole in ahnd for bw, and tensing of finger as pulling bow-string up)

  • Does identify Theseus correctly - hands up behind him which could have held double-handed axe (characteristic of him)

• This is a new form of the centauromachy, as the old one included Herakles (centaurs enraged that Herakles drinks their wine = battle)

  • Here, marriage becomes symbol of social order, disrupted by the bestial chaos of the centaurs

  • + parallels to the east frieze (also about achievement of marriage disrupted)

• Lapiths could potentially act as paradigm for the athletes (see grappling and valour of men / cont to biting - which was not allowed in games = meant to be discourage as would be like centaurs)

  • + one Lapith has cauliflower ear

Temple of Olympian Zeus - east pediment Lapith seized by Centaur

• 450’s BC, Olympia, AMofO

• One example of the impressive interaction of bodies on the piece (made from one marble block!), as three figures interact here - Lapith woman seized by foot and by chest by a centaur who is being stabbed by a Lapith youth

• The Lapith woman pulls herself away in a backwards lunge, as she grapples with the hand of the centaur = active attempt to disengage herself (instead of waiting to be freed)

  • But still no emotion on her face (moral superiority) in comp to realistic and aged centaurs

• The drapery is thick and holds itself as a separate entity from her body, and glides out on the floor where she is kneeling

• No sword anymore as many metal attachments were stolen and repurposed

• The contrast of narrative strategy between the pediments is common on vases (see Niobe’s children dead / Heralkes and heroes, with Athene - before action)

Temple of Olympian Zeus - metope with bull

• 450’s BC, Olympia, AMofO

• 12 metopes showing the 12 labours of Herakles - why? (covering the geography of Greece = panhellenic, or because Herakles founded the Olympian games = representing the origin of their significant pan-hellenic games)

• Very interesting use of space upon the piece as the bull and Herakles move in opposite directions with their bodies tilted away to form X shape = filling the space and conveying the fast-paced action

• + this scene follows the pattern of the West pediment in which the snapshot is of the action itself occurring

• Herakles’ metopes could also act to provide models for the athletes, as he is seen grappling, overcoming and succeeding in different athletic tasks

  • Some evidence to show that he has cauliflower ear in this metope = portrayed as boxer

Temple of Olympian Zeus - metope of Stymphalian birds

• 450’s BC, Olympia, AMofO

• Here we have an earlier labour (6th) of Herakles, seen in the less emphatic working of the beard = smoother face suggesting his youth

• Also taken after the action of catching the birds, and now handing to Athene, his patron goddess

  • Pausanias states that this is the Stymphalian birds, cannot tell from the actual sculpture

• Athene sits on a rock, with legs tucked up, and the fabric over the legs moves with her, folding beneath her leg (folds are thick and reveal the bare movement of the leg but not its shape or form)

  • Wearing the typical peplos (severe style)

• Archaic tradition of portraying Herakles perpetually as mature man & in climax of fight = here disrupted, as portrays the aftermath of battle

  • + first depiction of deity sitting on a rock (very popular in the Hellenistic period)

Kerameikos votive lion

• Sacred gate lion, 590-80BC, Kerameikos, KM

• Reveals that not only kouroi and stelai were dedicated in funerary contexts, but also stone objects such as lions or even horsemen

  • Lions have throughout time associated with guardship, and thus might be a protective feature for the grave

  • Unnerving symmetry to the face, with deep-set circular eyes surrounded by very schematic, and detailed incised mane (not in relief)

  • Body is disjointed, as the parts do not move as a whole, but rather in sections (no utilisation of planes to convey subcutaeneous musculature)

Kouros base

• 510-500BC, Themistoklean wall, NMofA

• Reveals another area of sculpture (not just on the kouros, but on its base = whole thing is sculpture)

• Anything built into the Themistoklean wall has to be pre-480 as is all funerary objects destroyed by Persian assault

• This base also reveals an interest in conveying motion that would be rejected by the strict rules for the kouros

  • Ball-game = some standing still to catch and some throwing = allows for lots of different poses

  • Very shallow relief = lots of incisions (eg. the most right man with incised shoulder blades & buttocks)

  • Some attempt to show muscles moving with pose (one man’s abs disappear off his side as he turns)

  • Bodies also highly idealised as very large thighs and buttocks with deep abdominal musculature

• All have these bee-hive esque hairstyles with rings of snailcurls just upon the head (= not long!)

Temple of Olympian Zeus - metope of Nemean lion

• 450’s BC, Olympia, AMofO

• First labour of Herakles, and this is conveyed in the youthfulness of Herakles (has no beard unlike the later scenes and face is smaller and rounder)

  • Not common to see Herakles portrayed as younger man (without beard) = active diversion from the norm

• He also looks the most defeatist here with head low, and foot placed on lion & Athene standing over him = less experienced and having to rely on the goddess more (see difference in positioning to later birds metope)

  • Similar to the Stymph birds however, shows a scene after the climax of battle

  • Red-figure pottery!

Siphnian treasury

• 510BC, Delphi, AmofD

• Best surviving treasury from the Delphic sanctuary

  • Ionic order, distyle in antis (2 columns - but actually caryatids)

  • Marble imported from Siphnos itself (low-quality & hard to work with & expensive to import = ideological function, so to be conspiciously Siphnian within panhellenic centre)

  • But would people notice? Many features of temples would not have been recognisable to observer - why?

• Precise chronology as Herod says they had profitable silver / gold mines (but ravaged in 525BC = must have been constructed before)

Siphnian treasury - East pediment

• 510BC, Delphi, AmofD

• Archaic period pedimental sculpture, and seen in the rigidity in their attempts at movement

• Scene of Herakles attempting (and consequently failing) to steal the tripod (his movement is conveyed by his wider step - than Apollo - and his body facing away even though his arms and his head face back to Apollo)

• Attempt at interaction also seen in Zeus who stands over and grasps his son’s hand, perhaps to cool his ardour before he threatens Herakles

• Tale is a memorial to the power of Delphi, in which even the most powerful demi-god was not allowed to disrupt (perhaps also a contemporary allusion to the Peisistratids who attempted to found their own oracle in Athens!)

Siphnian treasury - East frieze

• 510BC, Delphi, AmofD

• Shown here is the left side of the frieze, which has a battle for the will of Zeus and a battle for the body of Antilochos occurring contemporaneously

• Homeric scene from the Aethopid about Memnon’s involvement in the Trojan war

• Glorification of the homeric duel style (and double motivation explicit)

• Names given for each person = clear identification (could the observer recognise this?)

Siphnian treasury - north frieze

• 510BC, Delphi, AmofD

• Would have been parallel to the sacred way = conspicious

• By same sculptor as East (from shield on this frieze - could be Aristion of Paros, but most name missing so speculative) and seen in the style

  • West & south has distinctively different style (west migh be judgement of Paris or the apotheosis of Herakles)

  • Master A - less busy, flatter with sharp edges like cookie-cutter / master B - emphatic modelling, high relief with muscular bodies, real sense of depth and attempt to overlap planes

  • = different geographical identity? Conveys how different styles could exist in tandem from different schools

• Gigantomachy with gods fighting giants in phalanx style (almost the only example of this iconography)

• Attempt at dynamics, with different levels (lion of Themis (goddess of justice) rearing up to bite giant, giant dead on floor and the layering of giants coming to attack Apollo and Artemis)

• Watrous - individual giants as allies to Peisistratus = coded anti-Athenian / Peisistratid

  • But very speculative - is this not Athens-centric?

Siphnian treasury - caryatid

• 510BC, Delphi, AmofD

• Distyle temple but instead of columns, have 2 caryatids (which were women, and very kore-like)

• Quite broken, but can see remains of emphatic drapery on the female figure (with the layering of fabric and the folds and ridges = aesthetising even the architectural elements of the treasury)

  • Characteristic Ionian costume (thin chiton, with cross-mantle / himation on top & holes drilled into head for metal attachments)

  • Comparable t many korai (servants of temple divinity)

  • + other caryatids in treasuries like from Cnidian treasury (pulling dress like korai) & another ex-Cnidian (no longer thought to be Cnidian)

• Caryatids also seen in a tomb on acropolis of Limyria

  • People compare these to the Erechtheion caryatids but very different design

  • Have logs of hair on either side, very under-detailed in terms of folds, and had veils

  • = range of figures that could be used as caryatids throughout sculptural landscape

Athenian treasury

• 490?, Delphi, AMofD

• Around the bend of sacred way, and also distyle in antis (with actual columns)

  • Doric order so has metopes (the pediments only survive in fragmentary condition = speculative)

  • Made from imported Parian marble (not own marble) but does have an inscription identifying it

• This inscription has helped with chronological issues

  • Pausanias - built from spoils from battle of Marathon (+ long statue base on south side which at one time supported 10 statues - 10 tribe leaders?)

  • Inscription also identifies as built from marathon spoils

  • Some believe that it is too archaic for 480’s, and that statue base is later addition BUT it is connected to the foundation = integral to original treasury

• As well as metopes, also has Amazons on horseback for the akroteria = some sense of thematic succinctness (+ connection to marathon, with allignment of the foreign & feminine as common theme for Persian wars)

Athenian treasury - metope of Theseus

• 490?, Delphi, AMofD

• Athenian treasury has metopes of Theseus (Athenian) and Herakles (panhellenic) = conflation of Athens and Greece as whole?

  • Theseus was previously only really portrayed on red-figure pottery (elite) = new authoritative state presentation of importance of Theseus to Athens as whole

• Both completing their own labours - one of Theseus’ being to capture Antiope (and here he does, conveyed by the dynamic insinuated in the looming presence of Theseus)

• Even in this moment of battle, still have archaic smiles = not meant to be an actual smile! Just meant to convey life

• And intricate aestheticising of both Antiope and Theseus - although Theseus is in the heroic nude (abdominal muscles cut abruptly into the flesh), his hair is separated into diagonal trains down each shoulder, and has little ringlets upon his brow

Athenian treasury - metope of Herakles

• 490?, Delphi, AMofD

• Now see the metope of Herakles (and compare to Olympia) in which he is capturing the stag of Artemis

• Body is very unnaturalistic with the emphatic abdominal muscles and the twist of the torso that does not impact the muscles at all

• Interesting use of space to position Herakles above the hind, to suggest that he is leaping for it?

• None of these metopes were found in situ (and many have attempted to organise them to create a narrative, or to emphasise importance of some over others)

  • But only one can be assuredly placed = Athene and Theseus meeting (as Athene taller than Theseus + helmet also! = would have extended above panel)

  • = There is a clear cutting in the cornice = to accomodate the helmet?

  • = metope 5 on the south side = more conspicious side = Athenian hero prioritised

Brother and sister stele

• 540’s, Attica, Met

• Example of a funerary monument that portrays multiple people in Archaic period, but in contrast to the Classical period, no interaction occurring (both stare at their own attributes, side by side)

• + entirely unnaturalistic portrayal of youth = just shrunken version of regular person

• Brother is holding lotus bud and girl holding ____ (only difference between physiognomy is the length of hair and nudity)

Old man and dog stele

• Early 5th, Boeotia, NAM

• Start to see interaction between parties - here a man and his dog (the man leans down with scrap to feed his dog which leaps up, using the side of the stele as an aid)

• Older man dressed in drapery (infrequent folds from the corner flow down) to convey his age, as does his walking stick

• Begin to have naturalistic bodies and portrayal of older men

Stele of Aristion

• Late 6th, Athens, NAM

• Portrayal of a young warrior for funerary purposes (and with same stance as kouros), but different to the kouros in how he is clothed and has military attributes (has greaves and holds a spear = why the greater characterisation?)

  • Later creation? Kouros stuck in its ways?

  • But same underlying ideals to the kouros, just actualised

Stele of Mnasitheos with cockerel and flower

• 520BC, Akraiphia, AMofThebes

• Holding cockerel and a rose, which he smells (man in action, rather than stationary pose)

• Made by lover for dead youth - does this play role in the attributes?

• Similar unnaturality to the body but late 6th = different places developing at different rates?

Dexileos stele

• 384BC circa, Kerameikos, MofK

• Becoming late classical and can be seen in the higher relief (and new shape of the stele)

• Died in battle, and although buried in mass monument elsewhere, still given a monument in family tomb

• Action sequence and not just stationary scene (Dexileos rides on reared horse which looms over nude enemy whose body is displayed to the viewer)

  • Dex’s body is unnaturally big for horse (to make him seem superior) and also twisted to the side (to show off body? But also dressed in chiton…)

  • Cloak billows behind him to demonstrate movement and speed

Stele of man with strigil

• 430’s, Kerameikos, MofK

• One of the first stelai from after the sumptuary ban was taken down = liminal space between the old ideals and the new skill

  • (430-320s were when Classical stelai were present = very tight time of presence)

  • But have 3000, instead of only 100 = at least one reason would be the increased accessibility of stelai (the democratisation)

• = subject remains to be young man in typical scene (strigil) but now is in action as he stares thoughtfully at his strigil, which he lifts with left hand

• New techniques seen in the almost wet drapery treatment of fabric on back leg (clinging in folds)

Hegeso stele

• 410-400BC, Kerameikos, NAM

• Stele of an elite woman looking at her jewellery which she takes from a box held by her slave-girl

  • Display of nobility & wealth in topic (has time to sit about and think about decoration, not meant to be actuality but an idealisation!)

  • And also in the details of the fabric - waterfalls of fabric down her body (the detailing = wealth to be able to commission this)

• Also shows topics of stelai changing (not only for young men, but also women)

• In family plot = meant to be a portrayal of not only Hegeso herself but also all the wives of the household?

Aristonautes naiskos

• 320’s BC, Athens, NAM

• Very late Classical → Hellenistic and start to see even greater depth to the point of being in the round = no longer a stele, but a naiskos

  • Can plot an evolution of depth and relief

• In little temple-style building = funerary and votive sculpture closer than one might think?

Stele of young girl

• 450-4BC, Paros, Met

• Portrayal of different ages (conscious attempt to portray a child)

  • Appears more realistic as less like they’ve just shrunk a human = the body appears podgier as child-like fat remains (esp on arms)

  • And body as whole is squatter

• Also reveals age via the two birds she holds = meant to symbolise childhood (pets?)

• Still detail has been utilised in the fabric (thick folds that still reveal the front of her legs) and the incisions in her hair-style to show the detailing (= wealth)

Stele of family

• 360BC, Attica, Met

• Whole family present on the stelai = is it difficult to understand who the dead person is?

  • Esp as portrayed in life and as alive as all other figures

  • Some signifiers = seated, the object of majorities’ gaze, giving the dexileos (can also be a sign of family cohesion)

  • Also would it have mattered much? These stelai would have been used for family grave plots (peribaloi) so were never really for one man

  • Function as individual memorialisation but also family commemoration which would become more emphatic as plot increased

• Incredibly improportionate child in the right corner (just a small adult really) but have shown elsewhere that they can depict children…

Stele of Ampharete

• 430-20BC, Kerameikos, Athens, KM

• Although they have been able to portray a young girl, they apparently cannot portray an older woman

• Inscription - ‘My daughter’s beloved child is the one I hold here, the one that i held on my lap while we looked at the light of the sun when we were alive and that I still hold, now that we are both dead’

  • Reveals that the woman is not the mother as many have assumed, but the grandmother and although Amph could be 30 at min if she and her daughter gave birth at 15, this would have been considered old for a woman - yet she is still portrayed in the midst of her youth

  • Wet-drapery technique over breasts and front of her legs

  • Soft facial expression with no wrinkles or defects

• Quite shallow relief, but perspective is well-done (with the folds of the fabric being used to emphasise her pose)

  • The baby is also inordinately small, and its head too (babies have larger heads than ‘proportional’)

Stele of female youth

• Hagnostrate, 380-70BC, Attica, NAM

• Portrayal of young woman next to lekythos which were used in the wedding ceremony = symbolising either that she was just married, or pathetic reminder of what she never got (= unmarried)

  • The lekythos also has a scene on it (meta!) = appears to be young man and older man shaking hands = decision for marriage

• Detailing of the fabric is impressive, with folds draping over her breasts from a amulet piercing the fabric, to the shorter layer of dress with neat folds, and the wet drapery style on bottom which reveals her left leg as it glides in front (no weight on it)

Contrast of Archaic & early classical

• Use Anavyssos kouros & Riace warrior to compare

• Posture & physiognomy

  • AK - artificial combination of actual bodyparts (doesn’t engage with real world), face like mask with surface of eyes at same relief as cheeks & foreheads, archaic smile

  • RW - parts of body respond to each other (contraposta + weight on one leg, some muscles relaxes & others tensed = realism & same world as viewer) & face has eyes tucked under brow, pouted mouth

• Personal styling

  • AK - schematic hair, very symmetrical & styled (shaved into shape) pubic hair = individual with time to look after body in conspicious manner

  • RW - natural pubic hair, with more ‘realistic’ hair, but still slightly stylised

• Clothes (these are naked so pertains to others)

  • A - youth wears himation and nothing else - 420BC / aristocratic rider with bright, patterned trousers (from acropolis 500BC)

  • C - only himation (parthenon, east frieze block IV)

• Also for women (hair styles become plainer, jewellery reduces, ornate Ionian dress → thick, woolen peplos = modesty, colours became plainer too)

Evolution / revolution:

• Neer = not radical break, but ongoing adjustment of emphasis

• Stewart = severe (early classical) appears suddenly, spring fully armed from the head of Zeus

• Evolutionaries often point to transitionary pieces like the Miletos torso (hint of weight-bearing leg → contraposto)

  • Thought to be post-480, but argued to be before 500

  • Kritios boy too (titled hips, legs shifted - before 480 - buried in destruction of Acropolis?

Reasons for change:

• Persian wars

  • Recalibration of what it meant to be Greek (need to shift away from Persian styles & tastes = Archaic style as too similar)

  • Modest & puritanical = not excessive and loose like Persians

• Change in technology as movement from marble to bronze

• + change in style habits (eg. state dedications, so not just from aristocracy now)

• Might have been some backlash against early classical style, eg. in Sparta - see ‘Leonidas sculpture’ (480-70)

  • Interesting mixture of styles

  • Twisted shoulders, dynamic posture, but archaic face (archaic smile, long hair from helmet, features on same plane, symmetry)

  • = due to conservatism of Spartan society (kept hair long even after other states began to cut it - Herod)

• Tyrannicides as influential in incipient change (rep old & new)

Classical and its characteristics

• Idea behind statue production = visual truth (aletheia) and life-likeness & realism (no longer for aesthetism and stylisation)

  • Verifiable relationship with subject = first emergence of this idea

  • + accompanied by explicit sculptural vocabulary eg. symmetria

• Symmetria - developed in 470s

  • Does not mean symmetry = more like commensurability & proportionality

  • These sculptures are actually meant to entirely lack symmetry (realism)

• Rhythmos

  • Character or movement of figure’s pose

  • In world of viewer, not vacuum

• Akribeia - accuracy & precision (of details, proportions, observation)

• Foundry cup = newfound interest in sculpture-making (statue holding spear and shield + has scaffolding still + two artisan sculptors doing the coldwork)

  • The buyer watching = involved in the process

  • Other side has bronze-making furnace & statue being made (in shape associated with long jump = athlete)

Symmetria in certain texts

• Galon quoting Chrysippos - commensurability of finger to finger, to hand to wrist… (proportionate)

  • Connects to canon of Polykleitos

  • But Diogenes mentions Pythagoras as first to aim at rhythmos & symmetria in 470 (pre-Polykleitos)

  • Pliny also mentions Pythagoras (drawing on older Hellenistic witers) as first to render sinew, veins and hair more accurately (akribeia)

• Pliny also on Myron - ultimate aim was to recreate lifelikeness (veritatem)

  • Used more rhythmos than Polykleitos & more symmetria

  • Myron’s diskobolos - tight hair plastered to scalp & pouty lips (holding discus to represent pentathletes)

• Diodoros contrasts Egyptian & Greek (characterised by Greek early classical severity)

The rise of the athletic victor statue

• The early classical → classical period abounded with athletic scupture, although not much survives in its original form because of the reutilisation of bronze sculpture

  • But do have original Delphi & Motya charioteer (+ Silanion’s boxer head from late

  • And Roman marble copies of Myron’s discoboulos and Polykleitos’ diadoumenos

  • Also have inscribed bases, showing where they could have been eg. of Kyniskos, a boy boxer

  • Pausanias also discusses 200 athlete dedications at Olympia

• As well as these, we have many original bronze statuettes, though their design is limited by their lesser size

  • See the statuette in picture - long jump figure (stands ready, holding what would have been halters in his hand, as he prepares to leap forth)

  • Very symmetrical as from early classical (500BC) on acropolis

• Also, need to remember that sculptures like these were made for specific people (not general or for art-sake, but religious and specific)

  • Roman copies are damaging in the sense that they entirely remove this aspect from their pieces

The Doryphoros

• Roman copy (1st c BC) of oring from 440BC about, Pompeii, NMof Naples

• Polyclitus, famed Peloponnesian sculpture of the high classical period

  • Wrote the Canon and this sculpture is meant to be an embodiment of the values espoused in that book

  • Statue is based on mathematical calculations = the perfect nude form

  • But still has the high classical idealisation = unrealistic musculature (as in not everyday naturalistic) - ‘supraverum’ (sense of improvement on reality which isn’t perfectly middle)

  • Emphasises the contraposto pose by having much all weight on the right foot with the left trailing behind and forms an X (chiasma) with the left arm which is tensed while the right is slack (both ready and relaxed at the same time)

  • Has a thickness to the body = not too lithe and not too heavy (see Lysippos’ Herakles for contrast / Praxitles’ Apollo Python-slayer)

  • Intricacies of veins and rib-cage muscles

• But creates homogeny if there is one perfect body for everyone - who is this? (no characterisation)

• Was very popular however - see this form copied on eg. late 5th horseman relief from Argos (clear importation of Doryphoros into relief)

The Diadumenos

• Roman copy (140-50BC) of orig from abou 420s, ___, Prado Museum

• Another of Polyclitus’ works and showing the median of muscled body again (but this time appears lither - from the curved torso perhaps)

  • Curvature of torso as consequence of the weight-bearing leg forward = subcuturary definition of abdominal curves too (body responds to movement)

  • Now both arms are engaged in the tying of the head-band, but his gaze that looks down de-activates the dynamism of the scene

  • But also adds realism, as he is not looking straight ahead in unnatural manner

• Volumonous hair with more distinct curls (+ diadem close to scalp as if pulled, with hair spilling over top)

  • Hair as tight & flat → ruffled

• Meant to be a softer youth (with lighter musculature than the manly-looking boy that is the Doryphoros - Pliny)

Aphrodite of Praxiteles

• Roman copy of original from 340’s, Rome, Roman national museum

• First depiction of a nude female since cult symbols in 7th century!!

  • Incredibly novel and understandable that it is Aphrodite who is an inherently erotic being

    • But still so shocking that was originally for Knos but they didn’t want it = went to Knidos

  • One leg trails behind as the other stands strong = one hips shifts up creating curvature to the body

  • No proper definition of musculature but the stomach still has soft movement of planes

• Although an erotic scene, she is attempting modesty by covering her genitalia and reaching for what we would assume is her dress = action, but also emphasises that she is not an active participant in her nudity as we are encroaching on her space)

• (Remember! Also a Praxiteles from Hellenistic period that some people have attributed statues like Hermes with Dionysus too, but unlikely)

Apollo Python slayer

• Apollo the Python slayer, 4^th c. BCE, Praxiteles, Athens, MofArtCleveland !!!

• Change analysis

• Another of what we believe is a Praxitelean work - of a different deity - Apollo

  • Also a scene, instead of a pose = chasing a lizard on a trunk (allusion to Pythos? but also could be ref. to his speed in how he is playing with such a small animal knowing he can destroy it at any moment)

• Left leg trails behind, but is pressed close to right leg which means as the body curves = forms a strong S shape (instead of forming X like Doryphoros) = emphasis on the litheness of his body (youth! and homoerotic)

  • Long, curled locks characteristic of Apollo

• Although same period to Lysippos, very different characterisation - because of sculpor’s personal style OR subject: cont of boyish god to strong athlete (apoxymenos)

• Very different to other portrayals of Apollo such as Apollo Patroos (much more mature - as god of music)

Parthenon Athene

• Mid 5th BC, on Acropolis, but now destroyed

• Destroyed so have no evidence of what it looked like, but do have info from Pausanias on the piece = 11.5-12m & very expensive

  • Shield positioned near her feet with amazonomachy & gigantomachy carved

• Smaller statues have been found that many have connected to the cult statue of AP

  • Parthenos, Varvakeion statuette seems close (much of the same features) - but not direct replicas!

• Ivory face from Anguillara taken from antiquity smugglers

  • Shows passive face of classical woman

• Parthenos reconstructions = Toronto model of (smaller) Athene & in Nashville, Tenessee with whole parthenon temple of actual sized Athene statue

Olympian Zeus statue

• About 435 BC, Olympia, but now destroyed

• Again, do not have any reminants but Pausanias saw it AND have some coins that show a Zeus seated in similar style to how Pausanias describes = suggestion that this is what he looked like

Apoxymenos statue

• Roman copy of original from 320BC, Trastavere, Museo Pio-Clementino

• Lysippos of late Classical

  • Made his sculptures seem leaner by decreasing the size of the head (and thus allowed for defined muscles while removing that thickness that characterised Polylitean pieces)

  • Also in action of cleaning himself with a strigil and thus holds his right arm out, which extends into the space of the viewer

  • But his gaze is turned away, as if pausing in thought while scrubbing himself (= similarity to the Diadumenos)

  • Also forms X shape of Polyclitus (what else??)

  • Meant to be a more realistic form than Polyclitus (Doryphoros now less adequate and more unrealistic)

• There is also an Ephesos Apoxymenos which is broader and stockier = from Polykleiton vein (so should not be assoc with Lysippos = not the Apox. that Pliny discusses)

Head of Socrates portrait

• Roman copy of original from 4th c. BC, Rome, Louvre

• Shows Lysippos’ skill to portray wide range of figures (not only the athletic youth, but also the elderly philosopher = magic of the Late Classical and its preoccupation with typifying instead of idealising)

• Larger forehead, but with his hair pulled around the face into long beard with matching mustache of tussled locks

  • Cheek flesh hangs and eye creases = age, and his ‘ugliness’ conveyed in the squat nose and open mouth

  • Challenged the Greek idea that goodness is seen in beauty

  • Said to look like Silenus (comes through in face - satyr with near to no hair, large beard and flat wide nose with deep-set eyes)

  • Also a statuette that softens these features even more & adds organised himation

• Lysippos is unique in 4th century in that he has more sculptures plausibly connected to him (+ Praxiteles too), as most sculptors can only have one

Alexander - Hermes Azara

• Roman copy (1st-2nd c. BC) potentially of late 4th c. bust of Alexander, Tivoli, Louvre

• Lysippos had connection to Alexander and is credited with creating the iconography of Alexander that is recognised to this day

• This herm is meant to be a recreation of a bust done of Alexander by Lysippos, with the iconic long tussled locks (and clean face! No beard like with other kings) that fold over themselves

  • And long face with sharp straight nose

  • Beardlessness might have been to retain his youht (Achillean pshysiognomy)

Boxer head

• 330’s BC, Olympia, NMA

• Silanion

• Bronze original! Rare, but shows the continuation of the material and how skills improved to show different features (like the rugged spiked hair and mustache/beard to show the age & profession of the figure)

  • Age also conveyed in the heavy scrunched brow darkening the eyes (and the eye-bags)

• Cauliflower ears & flattened nose = characterisation as specific athlete (not just ‘athlete’ as distinct from ‘warrior’)

  • Shows the further categorisation in ‘types’ (not just 2 now)

Aphaia temple pediments

• Different dates proposed - 490BC with later early classical additions or both from later from different schools

  • Munich Glyptothek

• On the different pediments, have very different portrayal of dying Trojan (more sculptures found than could fit into just two pediments = remake of set of sculptures in 480? But have no reason why they would only change one of the pediments)

  • One consciously Archaic - snailcurls and long hair out, remains mostly on one plane with chest straight, head up with Archaic smile independent of the flesh wound (but does have some subcutaneous musculature on the left side when slightly tilted)

  • The other severe - no long hair as covered by helmet, chest twists to face the ground as if collapsing and hand in the shield is lax as if energy lost and having to hold self up with right hand that is placed the ground, more severe expression (still placid though)

• Cross of the Archaic legs makes no sense for pose, so is simplified for the Severe, but now legs come forward as if pulling himself close together by the pain (planes shift = not frontal!)

• Shows very different styles on one piece - why???

Tyrannicides, originals ded. 477BC bronzes, Athenian agora, copies NAM in Naples

• Bronze originals dedicated to replace the Archaic originals taken back by Persians

• Represent the killers of the Athenian tyrant in 515BC = emblem of Athenian liberation (and rise of democracy)

• Aristogeiton (older and holding chlamys almost as shield to protect younger man) & Harmodius (younger and strides forward to attack)

• Potentially comes from story where the tyrant is killed because he is attempting to seduce the younger man = not actually a political motive

  • But was used on multiple mediums afterwards eg. relief & pottery

• New characterisation of the men in which age is not only hinted, but clear through the depiction of the body

  • Older man has very bushy beard, with thicker muscles less defined on the body = sense of the body aging

  • The younger is clean-shaven, with pectorals defined (might be consequence of treatment of the sculptures through time though)

  • Sees attempt to characterise that will be developed through the classical style

Riace bronze A

• 460-50BC, found in Med sea (means context is unknown), NMofMagna Grecia

• Iconic piece of the severe period!

  • Use of bronze instead of marble (lost-wax technique)

    • Consequently, can imbue the figure with more movement, as arms no longer need to be supported = one arm relaxed down by side, while other lifts up (= engaging viewer)

    • Legs also in contraposto but now his forward leg turns out (no longer fully frontal)

    • Leans back onto right leg, which pushes right hip up (but torso still heavily muscled and static = not entirely responding to lower half)

  • Lack of Archaic smile, now replaced with severe, more sorrowful look

• Although lost at sea, know where these were from as have looked at the chemical composition of clay inside = Argos

  • Some have extrapolated to say Polykleitos, but no actual evidence of this…

Riace bronze B

• 430-20BC, found in Med sea, NMofMagnaGrecia

• Very different characterisation to the Riace A

  • Has helmet covering hair, but long tussled beard

  • His body flows together better (consequence of reduced projection of musclature, instead quite stocky, and of the flow of the abdominal muscles = coordinated with the contraposto pose of legs)

  • But has sharper contraposto

• Meant to convey mortal warrior instead of divine (long-hair meant for gods or heroes)

  • Other also meant to be younger and full of life, this one is more grizzled and mature

• Eyes would be glass-paste and semi-precious stones to add to realism (+ feet had prominent veins that peek through surface of skin = emph. presentation as breathing figures)

  • But current colour is not accurate to how it would have been presented either - as bronze oxidises to form patenas

  • Would have been made to glow a deep tan bronze, like how the ideal male skin did

Kritios boy

• early 5th, Acropolis, AM

• Called Kritios boy because it has a similar face to the younger man in the pair of tyrannicides (Harmodios) which Kritios sculpted (+ K boy has inlaid eyes which is very common in bronze which H worked with)

• Boardman argues that the Kritios boy is an example of the slowly changing sculptural landscape as he dates it to the late 6th century, before the inception of the severe period

• It is unique from the Archaic style, as there is no archaic smile, the hair is not patterned and now short, the body’s muscles are softer and appear subcutuary & the thighs have been naturalistically lengthened (archaic have longer calves)

• But many others see this as an example of the new severe style that came about after the Greco-Persian wars (found buried in acropolis, but could have been destroyed in the rebuilding of the architecture, NOT nec. by Persians)

Blond boy

• early 5th, Acropolis, AM

• Another example of pos. ‘Archaic’ or new Severe style (dep. when dated)

• As only head, can not judge much, but lack of Archaic smile and instead a detailed treatment of the lips to create fullness (this fullness also seen in the thick lids of the eyes and the detailing of the hair)

• Face is much more rounded than the frontal-facing heads of Archaic kouroi

Nike of Paros

• 4706-BC, Paros, AMofParos

• Early portrayal of Nike which in later periods has a very specific portrayal (wet-drapery technique almost overused to convey fast movement)

• But here almost none of the body is revealed (the marble over legs slightly reveals outline of legs, with very light incisions to show the bowing folds)

  • Very rare folds, only have some on chest when fabric folds as consequence of breasts (which are only slightly in relief)

• Know it is Nike as reminants of wings (only winged female goddess)

Delphi charioteer

• 470BC, Delphi, AMofDelphi

• Excavated (from large pit, where everything destroyed in 370’s earthquake was placed) overlooking temple of Apollo

  • + inscribed block with two dedications (original = ruler of Gela, but then cut back for second dedication = Polyzalos, tyrant)

• Basic form = charioteer in chariot, led by at least 4 horses attended by groom (characteristic charioteer costume with long chiton to ankles)

• Some fragments of horses (more finely worked than charioteer himself = paid-up lacky contrasted to horses as star of show in chariot races)

  • But chariot-races were very important (first day of the Olympic games!)

  • And the size of this monument with horses of such detail = greatest honour given

• Head - severe look, pouty lips, cap of short hair close to scalp (= cold-work of curls), eyes of glass-paste & semi-precious stones, eyelashes of copper & silver teeth inside mouth (and has slight stubble inscribed)

• Feet - finely observed with veins and bones clearly shown (contrast to very typical fluting style on dress = would have been hidden by chariot, so emphasis on face and feet which would have been revealed more clearly)

• Also wears a fillet = after the race? Would have reworn his fillet from last race, so could be before also

• Contrast to marble Motya charioteer from similar time (470-60BC) with dynamic pose (weight shifted, arm is akimbo to hip that is pushed out, right leg pushed forward = is the aristocrat himself?)

  • Has snailcurls = archaic style to accentuate aristocratic figure

  • Face very reminiscient of Harmodios of tyrannicides!

Myron’s discoboulos

• 460-50BC, found Palombara, first Roman copy in MofRome

• Very dynamic pose! Chest is pulled in on itself so the muscles are broken up

  • Lucian - ‘gently bending the knee, ready to rise and cast’

    • Very different portrayal than before as statuettes we have show man simply holding the discus

  • High level of subcutaneous detail (veins, rib bones, and stretches of muscle such as on the glutes and long thigh muscle)

  • Also has the bone between the two pectorals peaking out

• Shows everything that could be present (but wouldn’t necessarily be on the average person) = idealised form

  • Also idealised as this is not actually a pose a human could achieve (nor hold)

  • ‘Pregnant pause’ (fraction of a second before he throws)

• In the moment of tension before the action (common Greek narrative technique)

• And back foot glides back as the weight is emphatically on the bent right leg as twists (moment before he twists back)

• But can only be appreciated fully from one angle → will move into late classical which have more perimetrel compositions

Nike of Paeonios

• 420’s, Olympia, AMofO

• Example of the end to the High Classical, nearing the Late Classical period

• Wet-drapery technique is almost over-used here, to convey the speed of her movement (drapery pushed back by wind)

  • Although one breast and her left leg are actually revealed, hard to actually see any differentiation to the covered body (fabric is close to skin, only visible at the edges and in the few ripples of folds over her legs and flowing from breast)

• Sees the revealing of the female body, but still retaining an element of modesty (women are not meant to be naked, but does not mean we cannot see their bodies - element of non-consentuality to it)

Caryatid from Erechtheion

• 420-10, Erechtheion, BM

• On acropolis, and shows similarity to parthenon pedimental sculpture

  • Emphatic fine folds all over the body (like material was intentionally crinkled beforehand)

  • One leg slightly revealed as it steps forward (adds to relaxed vibe = not overwhelmed by weight = power)

  • But right is completely hidden by thick vertical folds that almost replicate the flutes on the columns that would have been in place

• Details on hair too (tendrels detailed) but face quite bare (quite placid ^ relaxed vibe) and arms out as wearing chiton

• Portrayal of women!

Plato portrait

• Roman copy of original from 370’s, Athens, Aglytothek of Munich

• See the late classical period, and its turn to generalisations (instead of idealisations)

  • Showing greater range of subjects, but still form ‘stereotypes’, thus the Plato here is a noticeable ‘philosopher-figure’ with his long tussled beard, aged face (eye-creases and cheeks hang) and the scrunching of his brows

• Contrast to the Euripides portrait (strikingly individualistic hair - sparse at front but long at back)

  • Cannot plausibly say that this is meant to tell us something about Euripides’ character = might have been attempt at realism

  • Lysias portrait is bald - convey age? Or accuracy

Themistokles portrait

• 1st c. copy of 5th c. bust, found Caseggiato del Temistocle

• Rare 5th c. portrait of contemporary figure (much more common in 4th c.)

• Has detailed beard and mustache with same texture as his hair = older and experienced man

  • Quite round head, with minimal details (= not wrinkled so not very aged)

• Meant to emphasise his experience, but not enought to be philosopher

  • Also could be lacking more details than others as in 5th when individualisation was much less emphasised in sculptural pieces

Pothos of Skopas

• Roman copy of Greek original by Skopas, 330s BC, Imperial Period, Rome, Capitoline museum

• Good example of Late Classical

  • Very unbalanced pose = almost like DNA (narrow waist to pushed out hip to knees together to calves crossed over to feet pointing together = in-out-in-out-in) = body literally flows together like undulating wave

  • Adds to the relaxed nature of the body (very lean, with little muscle = not Polyklitan, and more Praxitelean = similarity to the Apollo lizard hunter)

  • Incredibly light musculature on torso with very soft thighs

  • One arm seems to have been crossing the body, and head is titled up so eyes would go over the view = not static, body is in movement

Hermes with baby Dionysus

• 4th c, Olympia, AMofOlympia

• Actual Greek! Thought to be Praxiteles, so another representation of the gods!

• Very soft s-shape created by the uptilted hip and then the torso straightening itself so points back up instead of to the left (and weight-bearing right leg, with left thigh coming forward and then bending back to a lightly placed foot on the floor = not yet gliding though)

  • + light muscles (not defined six-pack but very much there, and hip muscle sticks at as hips tips up)

• Head not frontal but shifts to the left to look past the baby he is holding in his left hand - looking at the viewer?

  • Baby is Dionysus (head too small = not Hellenistic as they understood how babies worked by then)

Piraeus Athene

• 350BC, Piraeus, MofP

• Bronze! AND not a copy!!

• Has clear Athena iconography (aegis swung across shoulder & has her Corinthian helmet

• Wearing chiton that flows in deep folds over her right leg, but reveals her left (wet drapery) as the thigh comes forward and bends at knee (is the non-weight-bearing leg so visible)

• Also extends an arm into our space = engaging with the observer BUT head is tilted slightly to right and up so eyes will not connect with the viewer (present but no connection)

• Left arm is also relaxed and bent at the elbow (not static = clearly in rest)

• And breasts revealed with wet drapery technique = still a woman

Menander

• Roman copy of 3rd c. portrait of Menander, Panisperna, Vatican

• Although 3rd c., this statue type (also retained in 70 heads found) began in 4th century

• Seated on chair = position as intellectual (role as to think)

  • Also wearing chiton (disappeared in 5th century as seen as effeminate, but appears again in 4th)

  • Beardless - something completely new for citizen figures (but most likely not political and instead part of trend to portray him as modern man)

• Can be contrasted to portrayals of Demosthenes (Athenian statesman) who has older physiognomy, receeding hairline and furrowed brow

• And can also be compared to more generalist portraits from Attic grave stelai (full beard, cropped hair, generic face & were most likely mass-produced)

  • Although cannot say that this Menander portrait IS what Menander looked like, it is a conscious attempt to portray an individual man, instead of just ‘man’

Mausoleum - Amazon frieze 1

• 350’s, Halicarnassus, BM

• One of (and the most surviving) friezes of the Mausoleum, and shows battle between Amazons and Greeks

  • Is a common theme for Greek temples etc. but usually has implications of Greek / barbarian (with the foreign presented as the feminine - demeaning)

  • But would be odd to apply this understanding onto a piece that is not made by Greek people (Mausolus was the satraps of Halicarnassus)

• But piece has clearly been made by Greek sculptors, as it is very reminiscient of certain monuments like the temple of Athene Nike or the temple of Apollo at Bassae (also Amazonomachy)

  • See a range of narratives in this one scene, but all connection (feet overlap, and we follow along)

  • One Amazon (with movement emph. by the billowing of fabric) stretches up ready to strike a cowering Greek (also clothed)

  • While another Amazon makes to strike a nude Greek leaning forward (drapery as indicative of power?) and gripping a pleading Amazon’s hair

  • Muscles of the man flow with his dynamic pose (not static)

Mausoleum - Amazon frieze 2

• 350’s, Halicarnassus, BM

• Another scene from the Mausoleum, where the Greeks are overwhelmingly winning

• Two Greeks surround a pleading Amazon, while another Greek pulls an Amazon from her horse (the horse is way too small - naturalistic proportions of the horse, but just shrunk down, perhaps to fit the frieze)

  • Lack of expression on the man pulling Amazon off horse (very stoic)

  • Sword of Greek on left has been carved! Not always metal attachments

• Pliny & Vitruvius name specific sculptors for these friezes, but very problematic to definitively argue that any of the panels are specific sculptors

Mausoleum - Mausolus?

• 350’s, Halicarnassus, BM

• One of the colossal statues that may have been placed around the rim of one of the layers

  • Some have seen this figure as Mausolus (though others see a statue of a sitting man as Mausolus)

  • No key identificators so just guessing

• Interesting iconography of man - has mustache and long, undecorated hair (like a mane) - not usual for portrayal of king

  • Also with his wife, but her face is missing (had snailcurls though - archaising or local trend?)

  • The two of them are overwhelmingly wrapped in drapery - many layers (almost as if showing off skill of detailing, rather than actually portraying the clothing they would wear)

  • Wearing chiton beneath himation - Greeks did not show this in sculpture currently

• Do we think that these are the main figures because they are best preserved? Would be very odd coincidence = mgiht just be ancestors / family

Mylasa hecatomneion

• This frieze is from the tomb of Hecatomnus, Mausolus’ father and shows a scene of mourning

• It has often been suggested that the figure reclining is Mausolus himself, with Artemisia standing to his left

  • Shows a detailed individualisation to Mausolus’ character (or potentially the character of the ‘Carian king’)

  • Beard, with mustache, prominent lower lip and long tussled hair (not tied up)

• Holds his cup in typical Persian style with three fingers (also seen in the wall-paintings of Karaburun)

• In this tomb, also have wall-paintings of amazonomachy and centauromachy with almost identical scenes to the Mausoleum

  • See man lunging with shield / women leaning back with arm up to strike (would have had metal attachment on frieze)

• This tomb as generational and artistic precursor to the Mausoleum

Mausoleum - horse

• 350’s, Halicarnassus, BM

• One of the free-standing sculptures, of an animal this time

  • Naturalistic portrayal of horse, as the body flows (planes glide effortlessly, and skin wrinkles where the head leans down)

  • Clear effort into accuracy and thus skill involved in each piece

• As well as horse, also have lions that people believe were on the roof (slightly less realistic, but same attention played to the planes of the body, and individualising the strands of the mane & can see the ribs beneath skin)

Mausoleum outline (most plausible)

• 350’s, Halicarnassus, BM

• 45m tall, on large courtyard (4-5 football fields wide)

• Colonnade topped with pyramid roof and chariot (upon layers of slightly smaller podiums)

• 392-1 = Persians created new satrapy and son of new satraps married sister Artemisia and changed capitol to near Halicarnassos (position of tomb in centre of city = conceptualised as founder)

• Mausoleum was designed most likely during Mausolus’ lifetime and thus would have been a memorial in the form that the man himself desired (memorial to whole family)

• Was incredibly huge and was ancient wonder of the world, but was buried, pillaged and broken apart to the point where we don’t know what it actually looked like (this is most plausible reconstruction, but have so many sculptures and architectural sections that could have many possibilities)

  • Layer of colossal (1 2/3) sculptures - eg. Mausolus

  • Layer of 1 1/3 sized sculptures

  • Layer of 1 sized sculptures

  • And large chariot upon the top - most often people believe that Apollo is riding the chariot

  • And three friezes - centauromachy, Amazonomachy and chariot race

Nereid monument overview

• 390’s, Xanthos, BM

• Would have been placed upon a tall masonry pediment (like tombs used in Xanthos eg. Harpy Tomb with 5m stone pillar with chamber and roof-like capstone fitted on top + alos had sculptural reliefs)

  • Solid block pillar with burial part on top

• Temple section on top seems reminiscient of temple of Athene Nike (Greek culture did not have much architectural sculpture exc. for religious = have to use temple for grave monument which would be quite iffy)

  • And nothing separating friezes above columns = no akroteria

  • + two friezes running around bottom so pediment separated from floor not by one layer but two

• Statue of Erbinna - poems about the statue base, with 2 in Greek & 2 in Lysian

  • Fragmentary poem A is Greek hexameter verse + name of Greek poet who composed, Symmachos, son of Eumedes of Pellana = shows his desire to hire up Greek artists for his tomb

  • Positively presented as forcing his dictatorship (unthinkable in Greek context)

  • + Achaemenid fighting skills with archery & horsemanship

  • + on pediment, looking straight to viewer (only for dead people for Greeks, but here power)

• But should not over-emphasise the Greek element (Lycia had its own alphabet, language and minted coins)

  • And for Persia, only politically subjugated (not nec. culturally)

Nereid monument ‘Nereids’

• 390’s, Xanthos, BM

• Nereid monument was a tomb made for Erbbina, last Lycian dynast (clearly in most troublesome political situation, as made a much larger monument than previous rulers, to legitimise his power)

• Built like temple, as Greeks did not have much other architectural sculpture than temples, but would be quite odd for Greek audience (has two layers of friezes at bottom, and then outer and inner top and pediment)

  • Also had what many call ‘Nereids’ on the outside of the tomb, between the columns

  • But some believe that we are pushing the Greek connection too far, and should instead see them as Eliyana who were Lycian water-nymphs (and were servants of Leto, to whom Erbbina dedicated a votive just a couple kilometers from this tomb!)

  • Imposing Greek perspective onto entire piece (but NOT Greek, very much inspired and most likely done by Greek sculptors, but not Greek) + women here portrayed with range of sea animals eg. cuttlefish, whereas Nereids (on pottery) only with dolphins and sometimes Hippocamps

• Clear inspiration in the stylisation of these by the Nike of Paeonios / Acropolis parapet with the wet drapery technique (actually insane levels on most right figure)

Nereid monument - siege scene 1

• 390’s, Xanthos, BM

• Erbbina is sat on his throne, with small cloth over private parts, one arm in air while other lounges over legs = clear imitation of Olympian Zeus sculpture!

• But also clearly Lycian, in how this is taken from battle-scene and he is sat down awaiting embassy (like Xerxes in Persian wars) and like the portrayal of Darius in Persepolis (and has little parasol)

• This is meant to portray contemporary battle / cont to larger frieze below which is meant to portray some sort of heroic and mythical battle (duels & nude with long hair)

  • Details of fallen soldier as he collapses to knees

  • Transparent tunic reveals details of his body

• (Also had scenes of hunting in the architrave frieze and procession & feast in cella)

  • + pedimental sculpture was of Erbinna and wife and also in relief, not in the round like with Greece

Nereid monument - siege scene 2

• 390’s, Xanthos, BM

• Erbbina had to overthrow the current ruler to gain back the throne (which had been taken from father)

  • Either when died or deposed

  • Thus had to attack and take three cities under his control in 1 month, inc. the one this was built in…

  • = this scene of sieging a city is a little dodgy (thus why it is smaller, no dead people portrayed nor any actual violence occuring = just before battle)

• Interesting layering of the city walls to portray depth of city

• Elsewhere has whole rows of hoplites in phalanx formation which is unpresidented on 5th century sculpture (perhaps Erbinna’s men trained by hoplites OR even Greek mercenaries = meant to portray reality)

Parthenon overview

• 432BC, Acropolis, AM

• Temple of Olympian Zeus as point of reference for the temple (attempting to be bigger and grander)

• After success at Marathon, Athenians went about rebuilding parts of architecture, but then Persians destroyed = new parthenon (extended of pre-parthenon to North)

  • Doric proportions - x by 2x + 1

  • But innovative design features such as a reared chamber with support by ionic columns (intrusion of the ionic)

  • + Doric refinements - entasis (tapering of columns) = no single straight line in the whole

  • Organic sculptural form

• Was built very fast - inscribed building accounts (know how much sculptors were paid per day, so can estimate how many days it took)

  • Democratic accounting of large public projects (not just Perikles! Plutarch is translatinf Greek culture for Roman audience = centralises Perikles)

  • And statue was dedicated in 438BC so roof must have been put on = metopes done

• Pheidias as overseer of whole project, but cannot have been responsible for whole sculptorship (but his program)

• Potent. Nikai acroterion on the sides = sense of thematic succinctness

Parthenon - west pediment

• 432BC, Acropolis, AM

• Parthenon had pediments on east and west, showing the birth of Athene and here the battle for Athens

• Many recreations constructed from fragments (and Pausanias’ minimal account) that shows Athene and Poseidon standing head-to-head in the centre of the pediment (height of torso can tell us their position)

• And 1674 drawing of pediment by French Carrey (= water spring & olive tree known to be in background)

  • Also see static-ness of the wings = emphasis on central battle

  • + male figure with younger female (+ potent. snake?) = could be Kekrops watching = Athenians to vote

• Although very fragmentary, highlights the very strong connection between Athene and Athens (& the greatness of Athens to be fought over so much)

• Novel topic too (don’t have any other examples), but matches the novel temple with both Doric & Ionic friezes (and 8 frontal columns instead of 6) and all taper out = flow

Parthenon - east pediment (Aphrodite)

• 432BC, Acropolis, AM

• East pediment is the facing pediment (and like many temples is a little more static than the Western) - here shows the birth of Athene, fully formed from Zeus’ head

  • Again, very fragmentary so don’t have much to show and no drawing from 17th c (but do have two very different figures)

    • Many different versions of recon (one has Zeus flanked by Athene and Hera centrally)

  • Two figures sit and may have had their heads turned towards Athene, one sits facing forward and the other twists her body, leaning back with her arms lifted in surprise = very visible reaction of shock to Athene’s appearance (watching a scene, not a ‘pose’)

• Contrast to Aphrodite, shown here who lounges back facing away from Athene (revealed to be Aphrodite through the falling drapery from her shoulder and the emphatic wet-drapery technique that reveals her body (but for sensuality, not for movement) = clearly into High Classical)

  • But still a thickness to the material (entity of its own)

  • Aphrodite turning away (and some people see Dionysus too, but short hair??) = Athene as rational being, separate from the irrational forces of desire (and drunkenness?)

Parthenon - north metopes .1

• 432BC, Acropolis, AM

• Only properly surviving metope of the 32 on North which represent the fall of Troy (lack of battle scenes = just after?)

  • This scene specifically is of Hera talking to her daughter Hebe (Hera seated as superior)

  • Survives only because the Christians held some special meaning (when converting into Christian churches) - perhaps meant to see Gabriel

• Interesting treatment of fabric - thick but flowing folds (folds lay in Hera’s lap and flow down her leg / Hebe’s billowing cloak as she lifts her arms)

Parthenon - south metope .2

• 432BC, Acropolis, AM

• Mostly survives (in best condition out of all of the metopes - also have Amazonomachy & gigantomachy)

• And shows battle scene (unlike Trojan war) with graphic altercations (here a Lapith is strangled by rearing centaur)

  • Contrast of the facial expressions of the centaur (mouth agape, heavily wrinkled with scrunched eyes) to the Lapith (very placid look although being choked) = commentary on sophrosyne?

    • But some centaurs have quite calm faces = consequence of needing 92 metopes (have many different sculptors working)

  • Body of man also doesn’t respond to the action (not pushed back, very static even when balanced on one leg as the other leans up to knee the centaur)

  • The centaur’s horse body is also way too small in comparison to humans = would be too imposing? But also a pattern on reliefs

  • Heavily muscled bodies on both = idealism

Parthenon - ionic frieze (cavaclade)

• 432BC, Acropolis, AM

• Low relief 1m, 165m long Ionic frieze (with 370 human figures) on the inside of the temple (around the cella) = would have been hard to see as the view would be too steep inside, but also fragmented by pillars from exterior (why?)

• Many believe this is a representation of the panathenaia, but weak evidence (a cavalry procession is never evidenced in the festival) = could instead be an allusion to the strong cavalry force that Perikles funded for battle?

• Horses like on metopes are way too small

  • But otherwise, nice detailing

  • The manes are treated well (but in different ways = different sculptors!)

  • One man is nude and twists round to reveal his torso (and cloak, only material, billows behind him to show speed)

• But some believe that it would be odd to have aristocratic charioteers & riders (for contemporary democratic state with citizen fighters) = mythological scene? (could explain the inaccuracies)

Parthenon - Ionic frieze water-bearers

• 432BC, Acropolis, AM

• Procession of male water-bearers (adds difficulties as female water-bearers were used in the panathenaia!)

• Quite high relief in contrast to the cavaclade = different sculptures again

  • And thickness to the material (and use of wet-drapery style in areas like the front man’s front leg)

  • And see man at back leaning over pot, as if taking break or about to pick up = seeing actual scene, not just an imagined ideal of procession

• It is the dress here that distinguishes people, not the body (all idealised)

  • Contrast to Olympia, with the chubby seer, while here not even a portrayal of an elderly man

Parthenon - Ionic frieze (peplos folding)

• 432BC, Acropolis, AM

• This is the pinnacle scene of the Ionic frieze (was thr entrance) - peplos folding scene which can be agreed by all to be part of the Panathenaia

• Also could reveal something about function of the frieze, as it doesn’t depict the revealing of the peplos to the audience of the festival, but instead being folded up to be dedicated to Athene’s temple (just like the beauty of the peplos is for the eyes of Athene, not the internal or external audience to the frieze, as is the frieze for the eyes of Athene)

• See the frieze as dedication to the goddess (esp. with some similarities to private votive offerings with processions ending with the deities lit. being present to recieve them)

• Young boy folding the peplos, not young girl = not contemporary (to show off body?)

  • + 12 Olympian gods watch (only at the first Panathenaia = a representation of the mythological first festival)