Art and Experience in Classical Greece by J. J. PollittReview by: Robert ScrantonThe Art Bulletin, Vol. 55, No. 1 (Mar., 1973), pp. 138-139Published by: College Art AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3049072 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 08:33

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

College Art Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The ArtBulletin.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.137 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 08:33:32 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

138 THE ART BULLETIN

Tall-i Takht, a large unfinished platform at Pasargadae, and he dates it to the reign of Cyrus, thus resolving earlier disagreements about the origins and age of this monument. He sees in the tomb of Cyrus a thoroughly Greek structure, although he might have searched further for Persian burial traditions which could have inspired the Greek form (as Karl Jettmar, "Mittelasiatische Bestattungsrituale und Tierstil," Iranica Antiqua, vi, 1966, 6-24). The palaces of Pasargadae, in the author's opinion, are partly Greek and partly Iranian in plan, and Greek in techniques of construction. However, he considers the sculptures of the city thoroughly oriental, with only superficial resemblances to Greek art apparent in the reliefs of Building P.

The fifth chapter summarizes the author's findings and his conclusions. "There is... much Ionic and Anatolian influence in Pasargadae from the manual stone-working to the architectural planning and creation" (page 145). On the other hand, the build- ing types are "predominantly oriental" as are the sculptured decoration and certain details of the columns. "The aspects of content and meaning predominate in those architectural elements in Pasargadae which are Iranian or generally oriental" (page 145), while the elements of technique and form are Greek. The planning and direction were Persian, the execution Greek, always excepting the sculptures which were probably the work of Iranian or Mesopotamian artisans.

Professor Nylander is to be congratulated for his treatment of the architecture of Pasargadae. No longer can it be disputed that Greeks played an important part in the development of Persian architecture, for the extent and nature of their contribution have now been made admirably clear. Several lesser problems of long standing have also been solved: for example, it will no longer be necessary to argue about the presence or absence of Urartian masonry traditions in early Persian architecture.

However, I must take exception to those few sections of his monograph which treat the sculptured decoration of Pasargadae. If Professor Nylander's arguments are valid for the architecture, they must be valid for the sculpture as well, since Greek masons and sculptors were generally one and the same. Greek structure appears in the genie relief of Building R, in the rendering of the upper arm within the confines of the body to give a true profile view. This typically Greek representation is never found in human figures in Near Eastern art, and the Building R relief can be considered a product of the same blend of Greek workmanship and Iranian direction as the architecture which it decorates. The Building P reliefs are probably to be dated to the reign of Darius the Great rather than Cyrus, and indeed they fit nicely into the series of Persian robes developed in the reign of the later King. The author's arguments for their superficial resemblance to Greek art seem to spring rather from his desire to prove these reliefs non-Greek than from convincing evidence. If he had compared the Building P reliefs with contemporary Greek relief rather than sculpture in the round, he would have seen that some of his "fundamental differences" are not valid distinctions. For instance, he maintains that the Persian robe type was a conceptual arrange- ment of frontal and profile views instead of an example of the visual approach characteristic of Greek drapery (pages 135-36). Yet this very device does occur in Greek art, and at a later date than he would allow for the Building P reliefs. Gisela M.A. Richter, in A Handbook of Greek Art (N.Y., Phaidon, I959, 8o), states that "In the friezes from the Siphnian Treasury at Delphi

. . , the three-quarter view is still rendered by placing a frontal

trunk on profile legs." Rather than proving the absence of Greek workmanship in Achaemenid art, the Building P reliefs might be interpreted as demonstrating the persistence of such workmanship in Persian sculpture of the reign of Darius, the continuation of a tradi- tion initiated in Cyrus's time. In general, it seems helpful for our understanding of early Persian art to consider it, like the architec- ture, a union of Greek technique and form with Iranian content and meaning. It is not fruitful to quibble over labels like "provin- cial Greek" or "native Iranian," in reference to Pasargadae. Such terms give the impression that royal architecture in the ancient Near East could have been something other than a manifestation

of native ideas and traditions of kingship. If Greek artisans are to be found in the employ of the Persian King, this quite possibly reflects the preference of Cyrus, who might also have directed the construction of his city.

Readers of this monograph might take exception to some of the author's subjective judgments (as in pages 70-72). They might also conclude that archaeology is an abstract discipline much like pure mathematics, with absolute answers, eternal truths and perfect proofs. Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth. Archaeology treats of concrete things; and what we know of these things, particularly in Near Eastern archaeology, is uncertain, ambiguous and subject to change. Today's obvious conclusions are swept away by tomorrow's excavations, and any Near Eastern archaeologist who imagines that he has produced anything more than inspired guesses in his reconstructions of history and culture is imagining a great deal.

Aside from these details, Professor Nylander is to be commended for his presentation of Persian architecture, made by Greeks, to suit Persian tastes and traditions. His monograph will surely become one of the standard references for early Achaemenid architecture consulted by scholars and students in future.

ANN FARKAS

Columbia University

j. j. POLLITT, Art and Experience in Classical Greece, London, Cambridge University Press, 1972. Pp. xvi+206; 72 ills., $3.95. This is a very worthwhile book indeed. It provides a careful, reliable and readable interpretative account of Greek art from the Geometric period to Alexander, set in a context of the political and social history of the times, and of parallel developments in liter- ature and philosophy. As the author says, it is not a handbook of the history of Greek art, but rather an essay on the subject followed chronologically. It will indeed serve well the "general reader" for whom it is intended - the person who needs help in understanding the art in its cultural relationships, and even the one who simply wants a general account of Greek culture.

Actually, it will be useful also to the more particular student of Greek art, in more ways than one. For instance, the more recent discoveries and the treatments of the conventional sort of art- historical problems are recognized and the author occasionally makes interesting suggestions of his own on such matters. The date of the temple at Bassae, for example, and who designed it, is dis- cussed interestingly, among other problems of chronology, attribution and influence. In the pleasant flow of the prose, how- ever, the less alert reader may sometimes find himself taking hypothesis for fact, although the author in his own quiet way tries to guard against this.

More importantly, even the serious student may profit from Pollitt's discussion of traditional terms and concepts that have come to be used as commonplaces but uncritically and sometimes even incorrectly. The term "classical" itself is discussed at the outset, and developed throughout the book. Because of Pollitt's attention to such ideas as order and chaos, specific and generic ("realistic" and "idealistic"), physical and psychological, they will be taken, as they should be, more carefully and thoughtfully, regardless of the validity or quality of his definitions.

There are, perhaps, some instances in which the author seems to stop short of the logical consequences of an argument. In discussing the date of the temple at Bassae, he says, among other things, that "unless... Iktinos consciously rejected his Parthenon experience and deliberately designed an old-fashioned temple based on Peloponnesian prototypes, [he could not have] designed the Bassae temple after his work in Athens," but that the interior of the Bassae temple shows such originality as to suggest that Iktinos might have designed it. The apparent conclusion is that another architect (Libon) designed the exterior of the building, and the interior was finished later under Iktinos. But might not an artist who was truly "original" have done both - designed an exterior to express a conservative environment, and an interior to

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.137 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 08:33:32 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BOOK REVIEWS 139

reflect a newer spirit? Or must we assume that once having designed a building with curvature, an "original" artist had no

option but to continue designing so? "Originality" ought to mean the capacity to conceive and execute the unusual, the unexpected.

The discussion of symmetria in several places is especially im-

portant in reviving our awareness of its true meaning and import- ance. Pollitt defines the term correctly as "commensurability," and discusses its role in relation to certain philosophical concepts of number, proportion and harmony. He suggests that this commen-

surability is exemplified in the prevailing system of proportions in the Parthenon - "one by two-plus-one" (e.g., colonnade

eight by seventeen; stylobate and other elements four by nine). This, he says, was "done not simply as a metrician's game, worked out as an intellectual exercise, . .. but as a potential source of philo- sophical illumination because it made manifest the abstract ideas which formed the substratum of immediate existence." But he does not tell us how this was "made manifest" to an observer simply looking at the Parthenon, and not counting the columns or

measuring the other elements. In discussing symmetria in relation to Polykleitos's Canon he refers again to the meaning of the word as "'commensurability," but here goes on to say that "the basic idea behind the symmetria principle [is] that an artistic composition should consist of clearly defined parts." Surely these are different

things, and his ultimate definition of Polykleitos's style in terms of a "feel" of harmony is not really connected up with either.

More generally, and fundamentally, there seem to be similar loose connections in the development of the whole book from what are given as its basic premises. In the Preface, as one of his many very wise observations, Mr. Pollitt says that "a development in the direction of a more naturalistic representation of anatomy, drapery and the like is afact of Greek art; whether it was always its aim is more doubtful." He urges that "like art in most ages, the visual arts in ancient Greece were vehicles of expression," and announces that his purpose is "to suggest some of the basic cultural experiences which the arts were used to express."'

Literature too, he says, expresses the same experiences, and is therefore related to art. His concern in the book is to show how art reflects these experiences (he does not speak of showing how literature reflects these experiences; he may think this would be taken for granted) but he is explicit in saying that he is not con- cerned with how art and literature are related. Already, it is noticeable that there is a strong effort here to be tidy and precise and logical, but at the same time, that there are some important ambiguities and omissions.

Even if we take Pollitt's main theme as simply "how Greek art

expresses the experience which it intends to express," the ambiguity may throw us off. Does "how" mean "by what means" or "in what manner' or "in what respects?" In any case, much of Pollitt's discussion of the works of art has to do with the "literary" aspects of the work, more than with other aspects. His description of the Olympia pediments, for example, is concerned almost

exclusively with their narrative content, as though the figures were actors in a play, not sculptures in stone.

And, finally, in the Epilogue, the summary of the book is given in terms of a definition of "classical," on the basis of the monu- ments reviewed. Pollitt emphasizes the diversity seen in Greek art in such terms as "dramatic tension, moralistic austerity, manner- ism, visionary aloofness, passion for elegance, academicism, sensuousness, pathos" - almost all of them qualities that might be called "literary" - but he seems to say that this diversity is not useful in defining "classical." What is "classical" about the "Classical period" (i.e., that of the Parthenon) is that the works of art "evoke an awareness of both the ideal and actual, ... to convey what in philosophical terms might be expressed as a consciousness of the absolute inherent in and pervading the relative."

In other words, the book does not really do what it purports to, actually to show how the art reflects the experience. Nor does it

explicitly take into account that the "experiences" which are described as those which the art expresses are themselves relatively superficial, from one point of view at least, and that there may be

something behind them which they - and the art - reflect and

express. But to do all this would be a fretfully complex undertaking,

perhaps more arid than most readers would care to follow. Pollitt has fully succeeded in a more humane objective - to make one think again about some deeply meaningful concepts, and at the same time, to make Greek art live in an environment of real people.

ROBERT SCRANTON

University of Chicago

DARIA DE BERNARDI FERRERO, Teatri Classici in Asia Minore

(Studi di Architettura Antica promoted by the Instituto di Storia dell'Architettura del Politecnico di Torino, II and iv), Rome, L'Erma di Bretschneider, 1969, 1970. Vol. 2: Citta di Licia, Pisidia e Caria, pp. viii+218; 33 p1s. L. 60,ooo. Vol. 3: Citta dalla Troade alla Pamfilia, pp. viii+ 218; 44 p1s. L. 70,000

Thirty-four theaters of Asia Minor are represented, sixteen in the first and eighteen in the second volume. Each is described suc-

cinctly, with introductory paragraphs on the city proper, giving the theater's location there, a brief historical summary, and a

commentary on the ruins of the site. Following this comes a

description of the theater itself: the cavea, the approaches, the scene building, frequently of two periods. There is little or no

attempt to discuss particular problems; the presentation is severely factual. Each monument is illustrated by a number of photo- graphs, many of which, taken a number of years ago, were con- tributed by the Academy of Science, Vienna. They often provide interesting information on aspects of a theater no longer preserved, and also make interesting contrasts with other pictures taken after some reconstruction had been effected.

The plates give plans which have been brought up to date, but

they sometimes reproduce old drawings, taken from Texier and others. Few reconstructions on paper have been attempted, but as is often the case in Asia Minor, the buildings have been only partially, or barely excavated. By and large, however, there is useful information to be gained by a perusal of the illustrative material. At the conclusion of each text, the author gives a

chronology, based on her own observations or on observed

parallels. There is hardly a bit of critical analysis to be found. On the other hand, a useful bibliography accompanies each monu- ment. In connection with the name of each city itself there is a

very full notation of the visitors to it from the eighteenth century to our own times. It is no part of a review to count up typographical errors and list them all carefully like pheasants after a hunt; but some of the more egregious should be noted.

The excellent summary of the history of studies on Ephesos from the time of Du Loir (1761) is marred slightly by a typographical error where the reference is to Wheler and Spoon (sic) instead of

Spon. Under Miletos we have again "Dr. Spoon" when quoting G. Wheler, A Journey trough (sic) Greece . . . . Under the entry Aspendos there is a reference to B. Ward-Perkins, more generally known as J. B. Ward-Perkins. The plan of Nysa (Vol. 3, pl. xxI) has a very vague indication for the stage, but the photographs, figs. i16 and 117, show what should be a sufficient amount of

stage building to deserve more accurate presentation on plan. There is a very full bibliography on the coins from each site at

the end of each bibliography. One may wonder, perhaps, what this has to do with the theater buildings themselves. The listing is

impressive, but in most cases of dubious import. Nevertheless, the recorded material of the two volumes forms a

welcome addition to our knowledge of the theaters of Asia Minor and provides a source of information that can be drawn on for fuller study of the many monuments that remain to be fully excavated. In the meantime, thanks to the notes, photographs and

plans (even those that are incomplete), we are given the assurance that what is preserved now will be available in secondary fashion for later scholars to work upon.

RICHARD STILLWELL

Princeton University

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.137 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 08:33:32 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions