'Phidias' sculptures are more aesthetically pleasing than those of Lysippos.' Discuss why you consider this opinion to be correct or incorrect.
That the works of Phidias, of which none remain, were considered beautiful and awe inspiring by contemporaries and later ancient authors is an understatement. It is evident that many felt unable to express fully in words the illustriousness of the colossal ivory and gold statues of Zeus and Athena, and the effect they had on those who had the privilege of gazing at them. Phidias is credited with being the first Classical sculptor and his work represents the beginning of a period in antiquity that arguably brought forth the most breathtaking sculptures in all of human history. To declare, however, that Phidias' sculptures surpassed all others in aesthetic beauty, especially those of Lysippos, whose work is considered by many as the epitome of high classical sculpture, is a far from accurate presumption. While it is true that the Phidian works were exquisite, the sculptures of artists such as Polykleitos, Praxiteles and not forgetting Lysippos, were also described as outstanding and incomparable for reasons that were unique to their own personal styles. It is preferable to say that Phidian sculptures were just as aesthetically pleasing as those of Lysippos, and also of those of Praxiteles and Polykleitos.
The ancient writers reveal that Phidias modelled his colossal Zeus on how Homer described the god in the Illiad and Odyssey (Strabo, 8.3.30), and that Zeus himself gave his approval by sending a lighting bolt that struck the marble floor of the temple that housed it (Pausanius 5.11.1-11). Phidias was the first to develop the classical style, which may have been a response to subtle changes taking place in religious thought at the time (Hallett 1996:72). If so, then as the first tangible expression on a grand scale of this new ideology, Phidias' work would have impacted Greeks from far and wide. They were works of such great importance that they appeared on coinage for many generations, and apparently all who saw them were changed by the experience (Pollitt 1990:63). Quintilian went as far to say that Phidias' work increase the general awe of the gods and that the dignity and reverence portrayed in the statues of Athena and Zeus was unrivalled by any other sculptor (Quintilian Or. 12.10.7). Pliny gives detailed descriptions of Phidias' work (Pliny N.H. 34.54), but his critique emphasises how he was able to capture the grandeur and majesty of the gods rather than an account of the artists personal style (Ridgway 2005:64). But clearly, his work was not admired simply because of the artistry; the statues were said to have omitted 'light and grace' (Dio Chrysostom Or. 12.50-2) because of who they depicted, and where they were housed. Their shear size combined with their marvellous settings played a decided role in furthering the pleasing nature of their aesthetics (Pollitt 1990:63).
A comparison between the work of Phidias and Polykleitos was made when the later produced something that was comparable; The statue of Hera. The colossal ivory and gold statue was crowned and seated on a throne, adorned with "graces and seasons' and carried a golden sceptre in one hand and a pomegranite in the other (Pausanius 2.17.4). It was considered to be in the same league as the Phidian works because of the way it expressed the beauty and granduer of the goddess. Polykleitos' Hera was described by Strabo as the most beautiful work of art in the world, only inferior to Phidias' work by 'costliness and size' (Waldstein 1901:33, Strabo 8.6.4). The only image of this magnificent statue that survives is on this Argive coin (fig. 1). Although it is a mere shadow of its original exquisiteness, it does at least provides a clue as to its aesthetic popularity (Waldstein 1901:34).
Fig.1
Head of Polykleitos' Hera from Argive coin.
Head of Polykleitos' Hera from Argive coin.
Polykleitos was, however, better known for his sculptures of athletes, and his canon of proportions that revolutionised the art (Coulson 1976:362). Quintilian in particular thought that Phidias' work carried greater granduer than his, and perhaps he had the Hera sculpture in mind when writing his apraisal. He concluded that the gods were better represented by Phidias, who captured their majesty, but that Polykleitos was superior in depicting the gracefulness of the human form (Quintilian 12.10.7).
This gracefulness is epotimised in the Doryphoros (fig.2), the illustration for Polykleitos' canon of proportions (Burn 1991:60). The use of athletes in sculpture opened up the art and allowed movement and naturalism to be more fully explored because of the agile subject matter. The idea of creating the illusion of motion in sculpture was not conceived of by Phidias, but it is fundamental in the work of Polykleitos (Vassilika 1998:60). In the Doryphoros 'contrapposto' is evident in the slightly raised leg and gentle twist of the torso. The lift of the arm and the head turning as if his attention has been directed elsewhere gives realistic curvature to the figure. This combined with 'rippling musculature' breathes life into the figure and strongly implies motion (Hallett, 1996:81). Polykelitos created aesthetic beauty through a mathematical formula applied to the human form and believed this to be the answer to representing ideal proportions in a realistic manner (Stewart 1978:166). That his sculptures were considered aesthetically pleasing is evident in the praises of ancient art critics and the many copies of his work that ensued (Quintilian 12.10.7).
Fig.2
Doryphoros, Polykleitos
Praxiteles was equally admired by ancient authors, some suggesting that his work equalled and at times even rivalled that of Phidias'. Pliny, for example, believed the Aphrodite of Cnidus (fig.3) to be the most outstanding piece of sculpture in the entire world (Oxford Art Dictionary 2006:online).
Fig.3
Aphrodite, Praxiteles
Aphrodite, Praxiteles
The Aphrodite represents a move away from depicting the gods as distant and detached, as Phidias' work embodied them, to revealing their humaness through a style that expresses a more intimate and approachable side to their nature. For Praxiteles this resulted in the perfect blend of the divine with humanity (Oxford Dictionary of Art 2006:online). Praxiteles work was distinct from others in that he used delicate and supple poses to express human emotion, producing statues that exhibited a new type of realism not seen before in the art of sculpture (Stewart 1978:169). His most noted contribution to the art was his skill in producing smooth, finely detailed surfaces which added to the overall sensuousness of his pieces (Britannica 2011:online). Although a copy, this subtleness is beautifully depicted in Apollo Sauroktonos (fig.4). The god, who was usually portrayed as a resolute avenger, is here depicted as a more amiable youth. Although his action towards the lizard is one of violence, which is in character, his stance, the smoothness of his skin, the subdued expression on his face and the resultant earthliness it creates makes Apollo appear more human and approachable than previously imagined (Oxford Dictionary of Art 2006:online). That Praxiteles worked primarily in the round, and meant for his pieces to be viewed from all angles adds to this striking realism; another element not seen in the work of Phidias.
Fig 4.
Apollo Sauroktonos, Praxiteles
Apollo Sauroktonos, Praxiteles
It was ultimately Lysippos though, who is credited with perfecting this 3 dimensional qualities of statuary and taking realism to new heights. As as a result he created astonishing works adored for their naturalness and exquisite attention to detail (Stewart 1978:168). As discussed earlier, Phidias was concerned with representing majesty and grandeur, whereas Lysippos solely concerned himself with naturalism. Unlike other sculptors he did not try to make his sculptures as beautiful as possible but rather strove for authenticity. By doing so he produced what many have described as unadulterated beauty through the intensity that resulted (Morgan 1949:233). Inclusion of elements such as rolls under the eyes, and the 'cauliflowered' ears of boxers were evidence that he was a portraitist and wanted to represent men ' as they appeared to be' (Morgan 1949:229, Pliny N.H. 34.65). He aspired to capture true human expression through his work and his primary subject, the athlete, allowed him to explore and express this. He modified Polykleitos' canon and made the heads smaller still and the bodies more sinuous and elongated. These proportions were even less truthful to real life (Stewart 1978:168), yet they worked perfectly to accomplish the illusion of genuine motion (Pliny N.H. 34.65). Lysippos' figures have a fluidity about them not seen before and a new type of aesthetics is evident. He excelled at creating beauty in a 'snap shot' of a moment in time. His statues truly represented athletes as they naturally appeared (Hallett 1986:82).
Fig 5.
Apoxyomenos, Lysippos
Apoxyomenos, Lysippos
It is Pliny who praised the natural and raw beauty of the Apoxyomenos (fig. 5), decribing the new canon of proportions. By comparing the Apoxyomenos with Polykleitos' Doryomenos it is clear that the head is smaller, the body slighter and more sinewy and the height is increased (Gardner, 1905:235). Although his main object of attention was the athlete, he was favoured as a portraitist by Alexander the Great and his associates. While others were creating sculptures of Alexander that made him appear god like, Lysippos captured his humanity as a brilliant statesman and a great military leader, but nevertheless as a man (Bieber 1965: 183). Perhaps Alexander felt that Lysippos was able to see into his soul and express who he truly was in sculpture, and this was the reason why he was favoured over all other portraitist (Britannica 2011:online).
The colossal Athenas and the Zeus created by Phidias at the beginning of the Classical period were without a doubt awe inspiring and unmatched in expressing the majesty and grandeur of the gods. They clearly appealed to the senses of all the ancient art critics that commented on them. They were said to have had the gods own approval, and were deeply influential in how people perceived their deities. Although they were highly esteemed, there were not, however, more loved than those works of Lysippos. Lysippos sculptured in a different style, for a different reason and therefore a comparison between the two cannot be clearly made. Lysippos was loved for his stark realism that revealed the beauty of the human body in its natural state. Polykleitos' sculptures were also equally admired as those of Phidias', but his work was appreciated because of his ability to express realism through his canon of proportions and his pioneering of the use of counter pose to reach this end. Praxiteles was praised for his rendering of the gods humanity, something that lacked in Phidias' work. Praxiteles brought the gods closer and allowed people to believe that they were like them in many ways. He was uniquely accomplished in the skill of transmuting emotion and tenderness in his pieces. Therefore, no one sculptor of this period can be declared to have produced more aesthetically pleasing pieces than any other, only that they were all appreciated for their own unique reasons.
Bibliography
The Natural History. Pliny the Elder. John Bostock, M.D., F.R.S. H.T. Riley, Esq. B.A. London. Taylor and Francis, Red Lion Court, Fleet Street. 1855.
Pausanias. Pausanias Description of Greece with an English Translation by W.H.S.Jones, Litt.D., and H.A. Ormerod, M.A., in 4 Volumes. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1918.
Strabo. ed. H. L. Jones, The Geography of Strabo. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press; London: William Heinemann, Ltd. 1924.
------------------------
Bieber, M. 1965, 'The Portraits of Alexander', Greece & Rome, Second Series, vol.12, no.2, pp.183-188.
Burn, L. 1991, The British Book of Greek and Rome Art, London, British Museum Press.
Coulson, W.D.E 1976, 'The Realiability of Pliny's Chapters on Greek and Roman Sculpture', The Classical World, vol.69, no.6, pp.361-372.
Gardner, P. 1905, 'The Apoxyomenos of Lysippus', The Journal of Hellenic Studies, vol.25, pp.234-259.
Hallett, C.H 1986, 'The Origins of the Classical Style in Sculpture', The Journal of Hellenic Studies, vol. 106, pp. 71-84.
Lysippus. (2011). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/353152/Lysippus
Morgan, C.H. 1949, 'The Style of Lysippos', Hesperia Supplements, vol.8, pp.228-234+460-461.
Praxiteles. (2011). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/474116/Praxiteles
Praxiteles. (2011). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/474116/Praxiteles
"Praxiteles." The Oxford Dictionary of Art. Ed. Ian Chilvers. Oxford University Press, 2004. eNotes.com. 2006. 10 Sep, 2011 <http://www.enotes.com/oxford-artencyclopedia/praxiteles>
Pollitt, J.J. 1990, The Art of Ancient Greece, Sources and Documents, c. 1400-31 BC, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Ridgway, B.S. 2005, 'The Study of Greek Sculpture in the Twenty-First Century', Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, vol.149, no.1, pp.63-71.
Stewart, A.F. 1978, 'Lysippan Studies 1. The Only Creator of Beauty', American Journal of Archeology, vol.82, no.2, pp.163-171.
Vassilika, E. 1998, Greek and Roman Art, Cambridge University Press , New York.
Waldstein, C. 1901, 'The Argive Hera of Polykleitos', The Journal of Hellenic Studies, vol.21, pp.30-44.
