DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.8577#0164
X
FLORAL ORNAMENTS
IHAVE nothing to add to Johansen's analysis of Protocorinthian ornament,
and shall therefore confine myself to the Corinthian material. None of
the Corinthian, or of the contemporary Attic, ornaments approach the level
of the finest Protocorinthian work, but many of the Corinthian designs
have a distinctive charm. Corinthian artists were much interested in this
form of decoration; they constantly used floral ornaments of various kinds
as the central element of decorative groups,1 and as continuous motives to
decorate the secondary areas of a vase. Many of their designs can be traced
back into the Protocorinthian period; many, on the other hand, are inven-
tions, and apparently Corinthian inventions,
of the late seventh and early sixth centuries.
There is one point in which the Corinthian
style almost invariably presents a contrast
with the Protocorinthian, and that is a matter
of technique: Protocorinthian ornaments are
Fig. 51. Floral ornaments from Rhodian scarcelY ever rendered in silhouette, with
vases. incision, which is the usual method in the
Corinthian period;2 they are almost in-
variably in the outline technique.3
Attic vases of the late seventh and early sixth centuries show far fewer and
less varied floral motives than Corinthian, but such motives as occur are
almost all borrowed, with or without modification, as the case may be, from
Corinth. This mainland tradition makes a profound contrast with that of con-
temporary Ionian vase-painting. The differences of form are innumerable, and
cannot be discussed here; suffice it to call attention to one particular aspect of
the subject which is characteristic of the general contrast between the mainland
and the East Aegean temperament—the principle on which substantive com-
plexes are constructed. In fig. 511 show two characteristic Rhodian ornaments
which, like many of those illustrated in this chapter, form the central motive
of animal groups. They are perhaps more decorative than the correspond-
ing Corinthian ornaments, but they lack the balance, and, above all, the
structural clarity of these. The central theme, by which the design should
be supported, is weakly expressed, and there is a tendency to fill out the
pattern with subsidiary motives which are not organically related to the whole.
The pattern is really scarcely more than a surface symmetrically decorated.
1 Floral motives are rarely used in this way on Pro- the degradation, of a Protocorinthian design,
tocorinthian or Transitional vases: cf. p. 30, note 1. 3 Rare examples of b.f. ornaments in Proto-
2 The only important group of exceptions is that corinthian: Johansen fig. 41, kotylai and oinochoai
illustrated in fig. 54: here the Protocorinthian mentioned on p. 8 (cf. pi. 5, 2 and fig. 4); oinochoe
technique is retained for the development, or rather no. 34; Transitional, fig. 118 a; pi. 16,14; no. 176.
FLORAL ORNAMENTS
IHAVE nothing to add to Johansen's analysis of Protocorinthian ornament,
and shall therefore confine myself to the Corinthian material. None of
the Corinthian, or of the contemporary Attic, ornaments approach the level
of the finest Protocorinthian work, but many of the Corinthian designs
have a distinctive charm. Corinthian artists were much interested in this
form of decoration; they constantly used floral ornaments of various kinds
as the central element of decorative groups,1 and as continuous motives to
decorate the secondary areas of a vase. Many of their designs can be traced
back into the Protocorinthian period; many, on the other hand, are inven-
tions, and apparently Corinthian inventions,
of the late seventh and early sixth centuries.
There is one point in which the Corinthian
style almost invariably presents a contrast
with the Protocorinthian, and that is a matter
of technique: Protocorinthian ornaments are
Fig. 51. Floral ornaments from Rhodian scarcelY ever rendered in silhouette, with
vases. incision, which is the usual method in the
Corinthian period;2 they are almost in-
variably in the outline technique.3
Attic vases of the late seventh and early sixth centuries show far fewer and
less varied floral motives than Corinthian, but such motives as occur are
almost all borrowed, with or without modification, as the case may be, from
Corinth. This mainland tradition makes a profound contrast with that of con-
temporary Ionian vase-painting. The differences of form are innumerable, and
cannot be discussed here; suffice it to call attention to one particular aspect of
the subject which is characteristic of the general contrast between the mainland
and the East Aegean temperament—the principle on which substantive com-
plexes are constructed. In fig. 511 show two characteristic Rhodian ornaments
which, like many of those illustrated in this chapter, form the central motive
of animal groups. They are perhaps more decorative than the correspond-
ing Corinthian ornaments, but they lack the balance, and, above all, the
structural clarity of these. The central theme, by which the design should
be supported, is weakly expressed, and there is a tendency to fill out the
pattern with subsidiary motives which are not organically related to the whole.
The pattern is really scarcely more than a surface symmetrically decorated.
1 Floral motives are rarely used in this way on Pro- the degradation, of a Protocorinthian design,
tocorinthian or Transitional vases: cf. p. 30, note 1. 3 Rare examples of b.f. ornaments in Proto-
2 The only important group of exceptions is that corinthian: Johansen fig. 41, kotylai and oinochoai
illustrated in fig. 54: here the Protocorinthian mentioned on p. 8 (cf. pi. 5, 2 and fig. 4); oinochoe
technique is retained for the development, or rather no. 34; Transitional, fig. 118 a; pi. 16,14; no. 176.