Читать книгу Greek Sculpture - Edmund von Mach - Страница 8

Greek relief sculpture is closely related to architecture. In the Parthenon frieze frieze (Illustration 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) the artists never forgot that their figures were seen as carved on the temple walls. Moving figures are readily imagined as passing by a solid wall; trees or other indications of landscape are out of place. A few large stepping-stones, which in the absence of stirrups in ancient times were used to mount on horseback, are introduced, although they do not disturb the uniformity of the conception. The close adherence to such limitations of design imposes great restrictions upon the sculptors; for while they must refrain from filling occasional gaps with trees, houses, and the like, they must also design the ground upon which the figures move as a perfect plane. Uneven ground cannot be permitted to bring variety into the grouping; whatever variety exists must result from the figures themselves.

The sculptors of the Parthenon seem to have accepted these laws as binding principles. Once or twice, however, even they deviated from strict adherence. On the southern frieze, in front of the cavalcade and ahead of the chariots, is the slow procession of men bringing cows and sheep to sacrifice. Men and chariots proceed at full speed; cows naturally walk slowly. The difference in rapidity between these two integral parts of the pageant would have been noticeable, and probably painful in its effect, if easy transitions had been lacking. The second cow, therefore, is represented as bolting. She has almost broken away from the man who is holding her by a rope. He throws the entire weight of his body against her, but is irresistibly swept along, when suddenly his right foot strikes a boulder in the road, against which he can brace himself. The cow’s headway is broken; the next minute she will be under control. The bracing attitude of the youth is splendid – human skill against brute force and victorious! Without the slight unevenness of the ground such a figure would have been impossible. The entire group is so full of life that one forgets the device of the artist.

Warriors, slab 868b, second frieze of the pedestal, Nereid Monument, Xanthos, c. 390–380 B. C. Marble, h: 55 cm. British Museum, London.

A similar instance occurs on the west frieze, but such deviations from strict principles on the Parthenon are rare. They occur with increasing frequency in the later buildings, where the copious representations of battle scenes offered unusual temptations. No Greek battle scene is complete without numerous dead or wounded on the ground. When the ground is flat the comparative similarity of all these figures becomes monotonous. Reclining figures, moreover, which are flat on their backs on a horizontal plane appear out of proportion if accurately represented, because the human eye moves on horizontal and vertical lines with unequal rapidity. The Greeks obviously felt this, although it was left to modern experimental psychology to explain it.

The conscious, or perhaps unconscious, desire of the Greeks to comply with this law of nature made them at first carve the dead in contorted positions; for instance, on one of the metopes of the Parthenon, where a victorious centaur is swinging his panther skin in exultant glee over the dead Greek. Later, in an attempt to avoid such awkward positions, they resorted to the introduction of uneven ground in their temple reliefs.[10] On the poorly preserved but splendid frieze of the little Athena-Nike temple in Athens (Illustration 1, 2, 3), some of the most pleasing lines are seen in the conquered warriors who in death have fallen over the slight hillocks which break the ground’s dead level.

The frieze was designed to encircle the outside of the low temple. The figures, therefore, which could be seen at rather close range and under strong light, had to stand out in bold relief. They are not undercut, but they nevertheless throw noticeable shadows, and are designed in open action. Since the frieze is Ionic, continuous, and not broken up in triglyphs and metopes, as the Doric frieze on the outside of the Parthenon, the strict adherence to the principles of high relief would have resulted in occasional spaces of absolute emptiness between the figures. This led to further deviation from the laws observed in the Parthenon; for the gaps could not always be filled with fluttering folds of drapery, such folds at times contradicting the figures’ action. In such cases the well-known Greek horror vacui tempted the sculptors to introduce trees. These were treated with such tact that they cannot be said to interfere with the uniform enjoyment of the composition. The inevitable result of such moderate deviations from a law, which once must have seemed irrefutable to the Greeks was the gradual introduction of other, less judicious practices. Two of the most important examples are found on the Athena-Nike temple frieze. Several warriors (Illustration 1, 2), are represented with their backs to the spectator, a design which under ordinary conditions would compel one to think of them as actually pressed against the background. They are, nevertheless, shown in violent motion and with sufficient freedom of action to continue a vigourous fight. Other warriors spring from the side of the background. In both cases one is expected to imagine the figures somewhat in front of the temple; there is space between them and the wall. It matters little that the wall continues to be the background of the composition; what matters is that in several cases air has been substituted; the relief is no longer an integral part of the architectural structure.

Amazon Frieze, Mausoleum of Halikarnassos, Bodrum, c. 360–350 B. C. Marble, h: 90 cm. British Museum, London.

Nereid 909, Nereid Monument, Xanthos, c. 400 B. C. Marble, h: 140 cm. British Museum, London.

Most of the Greek reliefs were placed on straight surfaces; but when cups or other rounded objects were decorated, a new technique was required. Low relief, with its many devices intended for the production of an illusion, was obviously out of the question because of the proximity and the strong light under which these objects could be seen, and high relief was equally inadmissible since its prominent figures would have destroyed the proper profile of the rounded surfaces. The ancients therefore resorted to another kind of relief, in which all the figures were equally detached from the surface to about half of their thickness. This relief is called mezzo-relievo. Several marble vases of a later day exist in this style, although it failed to attain popularity in classic times. If the Greeks had followed the practices of the Egyptians, who decorated their columns with sculptured figures instead of simply fluting them, as was done in Greece, the case probably would have been different.

The discussion of Egyptian practices casts little light upon Greek sculpture; here though, it is rather suggestive. Since the Egyptian columns were often seen in strong light, low relief was inadmissible. On the other hand, as with the Greek cups, high relief would have spoiled the columns’ architectural profile. The use of mezzo-relievo would also have meant a great waste of labour and material; for supposing the height of the reliefs to have been only three inches, this would have meant an additional thickness of six inches to the diameter of the column, all of which had to be neatly cut away everywhere except where the figures were represented. The Egyptians found a way around this difficulty, which is surprising, because it implies an acute observation of the frailty of human vision. They drew the outlines of the figures on the columns and surrounded them with a deep groove. Inside this groove they applied as much modelling as deemed necessary. The figures, being thus surrounded by a channel of considerable depth, were completely isolated. This style of relief sculpture, therefore, may properly be called the island relief. Like those of low relief, it aims to create an illusion. If one steps away to the proper distance, one no longer sees the figure as it is, sunk into the column, but prominently standing out from it. This is due to the grooved outline of the figure nearest the light showing a deep shadow, while its opposite side is fully lighted.

A similarly strong contrast between the two sides of a figure is noted in high relief, with the only difference being that the side nearest the light is bright while the other is dark. For the casual observer who pays no attention to the light’s direction, and provided he is not too near the composition, the two types of relief are identical. The Greeks, doubtless familiar with the Egyptians’ island relief, never introduced it into their own work. Their columns were to be seen both from a distance and close at hand. Their temples were public buildings, and the colonnades were intended to serve as shelter against the heat of the sun and the inclemency of the weather. The Egyptian island relief, which looks good at a distance, is painful to a sensitive eye close up. This is why the Greeks decorated their columns with simple flutings and not figures. The differences in the Egyptian and the Greek practice offers new, invaluable proof of the Greek taste’s gracefulness.