DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.1021#0281
SOME PHASES OF MYCENAEAN ART 229
Examining now the technique of the Lion-relief at My-
cenae, we are at once struck with its marked superiority to
the tombstone reliefs in the plastic treatment o£ The Lion_
the limhs and the rounded outlines. But in com- Reli'i£
parison with the Vaphio bulls, the lions are in low relief
and show a far less distinct articulation, though we must
not forget that their limbs were brought out more distinctly
by the use of colors which have now faded away. The
brush helped out the chisel here, as we know it did in all
early Hellenic art. But even in their present state the
relation between the lions of Mycenae and the bulls of
Vaphio is obvious, particularly in the delineation of the
muscles. The artist of the goblets had grasped the great
importance of these organs in the movement and action of
men and animals; and, to express his notion of them clearly
and objectively, he made the muscles stand out with an
excessive and unnatural tension, and that, too, where the
situation demanded no such intensity. This is charac-
teristic of archaic art in general, which, in its effort to
represent an object distinctly and clearly, often runs into
exaggeration ; but it is peculiarly characteristic of Myce-
naean art in its later epoch. For example, the lead statu-
ette found in the vaulted tomb at Kampos, and reproduced
in Plate XVII., shows the same exaggerated tension in the
muscles of the arms and legs. This is true also of the ani-
mal figures on many engraved gems, which in other respects,
as in the plastic treatment of the body and the life-like
posture, are hardly inferior to the Vaphio bulls. Yet the
sculptor of the lion-relief is on the same road — although
he has not advanced so far — with the artists of the cups,
the Kampos statuettes and many of the gems. His concep-
tion and method are the same as theirs, only his power of
expression is less developed. And this is another indica-
tion that his work is earlier than theirs.
Examining now the technique of the Lion-relief at My-
cenae, we are at once struck with its marked superiority to
the tombstone reliefs in the plastic treatment o£ The Lion_
the limhs and the rounded outlines. But in com- Reli'i£
parison with the Vaphio bulls, the lions are in low relief
and show a far less distinct articulation, though we must
not forget that their limbs were brought out more distinctly
by the use of colors which have now faded away. The
brush helped out the chisel here, as we know it did in all
early Hellenic art. But even in their present state the
relation between the lions of Mycenae and the bulls of
Vaphio is obvious, particularly in the delineation of the
muscles. The artist of the goblets had grasped the great
importance of these organs in the movement and action of
men and animals; and, to express his notion of them clearly
and objectively, he made the muscles stand out with an
excessive and unnatural tension, and that, too, where the
situation demanded no such intensity. This is charac-
teristic of archaic art in general, which, in its effort to
represent an object distinctly and clearly, often runs into
exaggeration ; but it is peculiarly characteristic of Myce-
naean art in its later epoch. For example, the lead statu-
ette found in the vaulted tomb at Kampos, and reproduced
in Plate XVII., shows the same exaggerated tension in the
muscles of the arms and legs. This is true also of the ani-
mal figures on many engraved gems, which in other respects,
as in the plastic treatment of the body and the life-like
posture, are hardly inferior to the Vaphio bulls. Yet the
sculptor of the lion-relief is on the same road — although
he has not advanced so far — with the artists of the cups,
the Kampos statuettes and many of the gems. His concep-
tion and method are the same as theirs, only his power of
expression is less developed. And this is another indica-
tion that his work is earlier than theirs.