DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.8577#0048
Ill
THE TRANSITIONAL ORIENTALIZING STYLE
IT will no doubt seem at first sight that there is not much to choose be-
tween the late Protocorinthian vases which have just been discussed, and
those which I call Transitional. The vase-shapes are for the most part closely
similar in the two groups, the filling ornament usually consists of the fami-
liar dot-rosettes, and the drawing often has the same delicacy and precision
which characterize Protocorinthian work. And yet there are very real
differences which make it quite certain that the Transitional vases form a
separate group. Drawing, composition,subject-matter,and in many instances
the shapes as well serve to distinguish them as a later development.
Most of the Transitional vases arrange themselves naturally round the ary-
balloi illustrated in pis. 12, 2; 15, 2-3. Johansen places the first of these in his
late 'Sicyonian' (Protocorinthian) category; the second belongs to his hybrid
'dot-rosette' series. But it is really impossible to make a distinction between
the two, and when we compare the vase at Delphi (pi.12, 2) with the oinochoai
shown in pi. 11, 1-2 and 4-5 (vases not included by Johansen), we can see
that the styles are precisely alike (cf. also the details of pi. 11, 5 shown in
pi. 16, 3 and 5). These large vases with their richer decoration add greatly to
our knowledge of the style. We can see how they are inseparably connected,
first with the late Protocorinthian pis. 8, 1-6; 11,3, then with other Transi-
tional vases like those shown in pis. 13-14. These last bring us to the fringe
of the Corinthian period.
I think that any one who will form a general impression of the style
illustrated in pis. 11-16, and who will set this against his impression of the
Protocorinthian style, must realize that a change has taken place since the
Protocorinthian period proper; a change which is not less significant because
it has come about under the surface of a strong external similarity. It is not
that the average standard of draughtsmanship has fallen off: there is of course
no Transitional counterpart of the Chigi vase, but then there is only one
Chigi vase in the late Protocorinthian period. Nor is it that the Transitional
artist has learnt much about vase-painting that his predecessors did not know.
The difference is rather one of temperament. The drawing is a little sophis-
ticated after Protocorinthian drawing; it has lost something of the freshness
and spontaneity to which we have grown used. The contrast between the
two styles is conveniently epitomized in the photographs of details shown in
pis. 8, 1-3, 9, and 11,4.
Ultimately this contrast is intangible, because it is aesthetic in essence;
but lest for that reason it should be thought subjective, I would draw atten-
tion to one concrete fact which goes far towards explaining the different im-
pression which the Transitional series makes. The Transitional vases as a
THE TRANSITIONAL ORIENTALIZING STYLE
IT will no doubt seem at first sight that there is not much to choose be-
tween the late Protocorinthian vases which have just been discussed, and
those which I call Transitional. The vase-shapes are for the most part closely
similar in the two groups, the filling ornament usually consists of the fami-
liar dot-rosettes, and the drawing often has the same delicacy and precision
which characterize Protocorinthian work. And yet there are very real
differences which make it quite certain that the Transitional vases form a
separate group. Drawing, composition,subject-matter,and in many instances
the shapes as well serve to distinguish them as a later development.
Most of the Transitional vases arrange themselves naturally round the ary-
balloi illustrated in pis. 12, 2; 15, 2-3. Johansen places the first of these in his
late 'Sicyonian' (Protocorinthian) category; the second belongs to his hybrid
'dot-rosette' series. But it is really impossible to make a distinction between
the two, and when we compare the vase at Delphi (pi.12, 2) with the oinochoai
shown in pi. 11, 1-2 and 4-5 (vases not included by Johansen), we can see
that the styles are precisely alike (cf. also the details of pi. 11, 5 shown in
pi. 16, 3 and 5). These large vases with their richer decoration add greatly to
our knowledge of the style. We can see how they are inseparably connected,
first with the late Protocorinthian pis. 8, 1-6; 11,3, then with other Transi-
tional vases like those shown in pis. 13-14. These last bring us to the fringe
of the Corinthian period.
I think that any one who will form a general impression of the style
illustrated in pis. 11-16, and who will set this against his impression of the
Protocorinthian style, must realize that a change has taken place since the
Protocorinthian period proper; a change which is not less significant because
it has come about under the surface of a strong external similarity. It is not
that the average standard of draughtsmanship has fallen off: there is of course
no Transitional counterpart of the Chigi vase, but then there is only one
Chigi vase in the late Protocorinthian period. Nor is it that the Transitional
artist has learnt much about vase-painting that his predecessors did not know.
The difference is rather one of temperament. The drawing is a little sophis-
ticated after Protocorinthian drawing; it has lost something of the freshness
and spontaneity to which we have grown used. The contrast between the
two styles is conveniently epitomized in the photographs of details shown in
pis. 8, 1-3, 9, and 11,4.
Ultimately this contrast is intangible, because it is aesthetic in essence;
but lest for that reason it should be thought subjective, I would draw atten-
tion to one concrete fact which goes far towards explaining the different im-
pression which the Transitional series makes. The Transitional vases as a