DOI Heft:
Comptes rendus
DOI Artikel:Pietrzykowski, Michał: Ann Perkins, The Art of Dura Europos, Oxford 1973
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.26418#0170
ideas behind the artistic programme, composition of particular scenes and details
are shown.
The author tries, wherever possible, to connect sculpture monuments to the buil-
dings where they were found. She begins with the cult reliefs, an important and the
best dated category of Dura monuments. Of particular interest are attempts at
dating some reliefs by comparison with some other relics dated by inscriptions. Such
studies should be continued, as all the possibilities of comparative method are not
yet fully used, especially if monuments from Palmyra and other local centres would
be brought into account.
I would like to quote some of the general conclusions because of tiieir contro-
versial character. Formally, the typical features of Dura art are: frontality, lack
of the third dimension, and presentation of figures in a static way, according to
certain schemes. The above statement does not allow evaluations based on canons
of Graeco-Roman aesthetics. The part devoted to syncretic aspect of Dura-Europos
art starts with a strange statement that the major feature distinguishing Dura style
is an amalgam of heterogenic elements from Greece, Rome, Iran, and Western Asia.
We appreciate caution in isolating sources from which the inhabitants of Dura
took particular elements. It concerns mainly the architectural traditions of Mesopota-
mia and their influence on plans of temples in Dura. The only proof of a direct
influence in this case would be to produce an Assyrian or Babylonian building which
would have survived till the Parthian period. The reviewer agrees with the statement
that, despite of many adopted elements, one cannot speak of a Greek style in Dura
even in its peripheral form.
One of the key problems of the book is that of frontality. The author, quite
correctly, says that we cannot speak of frontality when only some of the figures
are depicted in a frontal pose, while other, from the same period and same cultural
environment are not. Frontality is a rigidly observed rule of presenting human
figures on a flat background. A. Perkins justly dismisses attempts of deriving fron-
tality from Greece or Ancient Oriental art. She believes that it is one of the basic
elements of the Parthian art. This does not settle the question, whether the Parthians
were creators of that style or if they took it from somewhere else, if not had just
nothing to do with its propagation.
The author fully recognises the role of Palmyra in the formulation of the art
of Dura-Europos. It is however difficult to agree with her overlooking in the Dura
art (in distinction to Palmyra) factors of development. We know the art of Palmyra
better, and we are better acquainted with its rules. It is doubtful if Dura-Europos
alone can provide sound basis for a synthesis.
Michał Pietrzykowski
are shown.
The author tries, wherever possible, to connect sculpture monuments to the buil-
dings where they were found. She begins with the cult reliefs, an important and the
best dated category of Dura monuments. Of particular interest are attempts at
dating some reliefs by comparison with some other relics dated by inscriptions. Such
studies should be continued, as all the possibilities of comparative method are not
yet fully used, especially if monuments from Palmyra and other local centres would
be brought into account.
I would like to quote some of the general conclusions because of tiieir contro-
versial character. Formally, the typical features of Dura art are: frontality, lack
of the third dimension, and presentation of figures in a static way, according to
certain schemes. The above statement does not allow evaluations based on canons
of Graeco-Roman aesthetics. The part devoted to syncretic aspect of Dura-Europos
art starts with a strange statement that the major feature distinguishing Dura style
is an amalgam of heterogenic elements from Greece, Rome, Iran, and Western Asia.
We appreciate caution in isolating sources from which the inhabitants of Dura
took particular elements. It concerns mainly the architectural traditions of Mesopota-
mia and their influence on plans of temples in Dura. The only proof of a direct
influence in this case would be to produce an Assyrian or Babylonian building which
would have survived till the Parthian period. The reviewer agrees with the statement
that, despite of many adopted elements, one cannot speak of a Greek style in Dura
even in its peripheral form.
One of the key problems of the book is that of frontality. The author, quite
correctly, says that we cannot speak of frontality when only some of the figures
are depicted in a frontal pose, while other, from the same period and same cultural
environment are not. Frontality is a rigidly observed rule of presenting human
figures on a flat background. A. Perkins justly dismisses attempts of deriving fron-
tality from Greece or Ancient Oriental art. She believes that it is one of the basic
elements of the Parthian art. This does not settle the question, whether the Parthians
were creators of that style or if they took it from somewhere else, if not had just
nothing to do with its propagation.
The author fully recognises the role of Palmyra in the formulation of the art
of Dura-Europos. It is however difficult to agree with her overlooking in the Dura
art (in distinction to Palmyra) factors of development. We know the art of Palmyra
better, and we are better acquainted with its rules. It is doubtful if Dura-Europos
alone can provide sound basis for a synthesis.
Michał Pietrzykowski