Greek Sculpture. Edmund von Mach

Чтение книги онлайн.

      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.

      Physical Effort and Pleasure in Viewing Extended Compositions

      A major distinction can be made between looking and seeing. One often sees in spite of one’s self; but it takes a certain degree of mental and physical energy to look at an object. If a statue is placed in one’s way, one cannot help but see it. To understand its message implies a certain mental effort, but it would be improper to speak of a physical effort on the spectator’s part. An extended composition in either high or low relief, on the other hand, cannot be seen at a casual glance; one must look at it. The eye focuses on the relief; it stays there and follows the sculptor’s lines, up and down and from side to side, until the entire relief has been surveyed. This requires a physical effort on the part of the spectator, who would quickly weary unless the artist has utilised all possible devices to render viewing easy and pleasurable. In addition, the spectator’s attention should not centre in his sight, as this would impede his understanding the artist’s thoughts.

      If human vision were unlimited, and followed as readily the impulse directing it up as the one urging it down, or moving as willingly on the zigzag line as on the straight, the sculptor’s task would be comparatively simple; since our vision, however, is erratic and subject to many limitations, the work of the sculptor becomes complex. Although the Greeks seem to have felt them instinctively, it is only recently that experiments have ascertained the physical laws governing eyes movement. To be sure, the Greeks introduced numerous techniques into their sculpture that can only be explained if regarded as the semiconscious endeavour to comply with the requirements of these laws. It must not be believed that sculptors deliberately deviated from their original designs to make allowances for the peculiarities of the public eye. They identified with the public; what displeased the eyes of the people was also unpleasant to them, though perhaps to a greater degree. The original designs, then, doubtless embodied many if not all the devices exhibited in the finished works.

      Even the earliest Greek art displays such fine taste that it is a pleasure to let one’s eyes glide over their decorations. Often, circles are found, rarely mathematically accurate, but infinitely more gratifying and restful to the eye than those on later vases, drawn with compass. It is hard to imagine a simpler geometric figure than the circle; every point of the circumference is equally removed from the centre, and the curvature follows a continuous fixed and never changing ratio. One imagines that one’s eyes can run its circumference with perfect ease. This is not the case, because the eyes glide more readily to the right and left than up and down, and more swiftly up than down. The time and effort spent in scanning the left semicircle varies from that spent on the right. The eye running the circumference of a mathematically correct circle receives the impression of having run an uneven course. The mental image and the actual visual impression through do not tally. If one knows the circle to be accurate, one tends to compel one’s eyes to run its circumference with even rapidity, an uncomfortable exercise for the natural character of one’s vision. The resulting sensation of discomfort, if not actual physical pain, is unpleasant at best. The Greeks drew figures to avoid this phenomenon. The difference in rapidity with which one’s eyes glide over a circle is reflected in corresponding deviations from the mathematically correct shape; the result is not only thorough agreement between the mental image and the visual impression but also a sensation of both mental and physical pleasure. Today when people push their geometry studies far enough to become thoroughly familiar with its figures, the early Greek circles prove wrong even before the eye has run their circumference, so that they often fail to give satisfaction. Sufficiently restraining the accuracy of one’s scientific mind to obtain the physical pleasure with which the eye scans figures designed to meet its peculiarities, produces a favourable impression of the Greek practice.

      Zeus and Porphyrion during the Battle with the Giants, pedestal frieze, Great Altar of Zeus, Pergamon, c. 180 B. C. Marble, h: 230 cm. Pergamonmuseum, Berlin.

      Fight Scene: Herakles and Triton, Temple of Athena, Assos, c. 550–525 B. C. Trachyte, h: 81 cm, l: 294 cm. Musée du Louvre, Paris.

      Banquet Scene, Temple of Athena, Assos, c. 550–525 B. C. Trachyte, h: 81 cm, l: 287 cm. Musée du Louvre, Paris.

      What СКАЧАТЬ