DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.68516#0225
ARCHAIC ART
appearance of freshness and surprise. It added, too, the pleasure in
richer, more coloured decorative effects.
Such a work as this panther from Corfu, since we have not known it for
very long, has still an air of something exotic and surprising. The fact
that it is covered with circular spots gives it a kind of decorative colour
such as we enjoy in Byzantine or early Gothic works of art but which we
rarely get in Greek. But if we study it we note that it is executed in a
very different spirit. Note the desire for mechanical evenness in all the
lines, the lack of sensibility—though we must, I think, admit that the
action of the head does give a suggestion of vital energy unusual in early
Greek art. There is here no suggestion of Egyptian influence. There
seem to have been other influences at work at this period, presumably
Oriental, such as are very evident in the Rhodian pots (297)—where, by
the bye, we find a greater idea of decorative unity of treatment than at
any other period of Greek pottery.
In the early Attic statue (298), no doubt the general design may well
be of Egyptian origin, but the type is very distinct and presumably
original. Again we notice the rigid mechanical execution of the drapery.
In the head (299) from the three-headed monster of the Hekatompe-
don pediment on the Acropolis we get the bulging-eyed Attic type,
deliberately exaggerated to make a monster of him. This again shows no
Egyptian influence and seems to belong to an altogether peculiar
traditional influence. We note that the dominant idea is rather the
sphere than the cube. It also shows a curious, almost grotesque
imagination which is quite unfamiliar in Greek art. It is evident that at
this moment the preoccupation with physical beauty had not yet be-
come universal.
With this archaic lion (300) we are at last on familiar ground. This
belongs to the late sixth century, and the ideal of later archaic art is
already evident. I assume that the authorities are justified in regarding
this as genuine, though it is really rather hard to believe. It is appro-
priately enough in Berlin, and when one sees it there one can hardly
help wondering whether it was not made for the Museum by a modern
< 189 >
appearance of freshness and surprise. It added, too, the pleasure in
richer, more coloured decorative effects.
Such a work as this panther from Corfu, since we have not known it for
very long, has still an air of something exotic and surprising. The fact
that it is covered with circular spots gives it a kind of decorative colour
such as we enjoy in Byzantine or early Gothic works of art but which we
rarely get in Greek. But if we study it we note that it is executed in a
very different spirit. Note the desire for mechanical evenness in all the
lines, the lack of sensibility—though we must, I think, admit that the
action of the head does give a suggestion of vital energy unusual in early
Greek art. There is here no suggestion of Egyptian influence. There
seem to have been other influences at work at this period, presumably
Oriental, such as are very evident in the Rhodian pots (297)—where, by
the bye, we find a greater idea of decorative unity of treatment than at
any other period of Greek pottery.
In the early Attic statue (298), no doubt the general design may well
be of Egyptian origin, but the type is very distinct and presumably
original. Again we notice the rigid mechanical execution of the drapery.
In the head (299) from the three-headed monster of the Hekatompe-
don pediment on the Acropolis we get the bulging-eyed Attic type,
deliberately exaggerated to make a monster of him. This again shows no
Egyptian influence and seems to belong to an altogether peculiar
traditional influence. We note that the dominant idea is rather the
sphere than the cube. It also shows a curious, almost grotesque
imagination which is quite unfamiliar in Greek art. It is evident that at
this moment the preoccupation with physical beauty had not yet be-
come universal.
With this archaic lion (300) we are at last on familiar ground. This
belongs to the late sixth century, and the ideal of later archaic art is
already evident. I assume that the authorities are justified in regarding
this as genuine, though it is really rather hard to believe. It is appro-
priately enough in Berlin, and when one sees it there one can hardly
help wondering whether it was not made for the Museum by a modern
< 189 >