Nature, Culture and the Body in Classical Greek Religious Art Author(S): Jeremy Tanner Source: World Archaeology, Vol
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Nature, Culture and the Body in Classical Greek Religious Art Author(s): Jeremy Tanner Source: World Archaeology, Vol. 33, No. 2, Archaeology and Aesthetics (Oct., 2001), pp. 257- 276 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/827902 . Accessed: 09/07/2013 17:22 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to World Archaeology. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 192.215.101.254 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:22:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Nature,culture and the body in classical Greekreligious art JeremyTanner Abstract Thispaper explores the relationship between nature, culture and socialaction in cultstatues in archaicand classical Greece. Following the model of recent work in the sociology and anthropology of art,it shiftsthe focus from decoding the meanings of images,to understandinghow artistic languageswork to create expressive effects in particular institutional settings. Classical 'naturalism' is characterizedas an artisticlanguage with a heightenedcapacity for the appropriation of natural bodilyresponses - partlygiven in universalprocesses of maturation, partly socially specific to the codificationof suchmaturational processes according to therole system of ancient Greek society - inthe construction ofaffective commitment tosocial roles defined and validated within Greek myth andreligious culture. Keywords Art;ritual; body; aesthetics; naturalism; iconography; style. Introduction:the Greek revolutionand the conceptof naturalism The early fifthcentury BC saw a profoundchange in the languages of Greek art,often describedas the developmentof 'naturalism'.This transformedboth the 'presentational style'(Witkin 1995) of statuesof gods and theiriconography. Archaic statuesof Apollo take the formof 'kouroi',male youths(Plate 1). This statuetype was based on Egyptian models and characterizedby a closed and staticform: arms attached firmly to the side of the statue (obe sometimesbent horizontallyforward at the elbow to hold an attribute), bothfeet flat on theground creating a fundamentallyimmobile appearance; the head, like thewhole of thestatue, strictly frontal, staring into space; a hieraticimage distanced from and eschewinginteraction with the viewer(cf. LIMC Apollo: 5-6, 31). Classical statues of deities,by contrast,interact with viewers and share theirspace in a way whichtheir archaiccounterparts refuse. An Apollo by the fourth-centurysculptor Euphranor (Plate 2) has his weighton his leftleg and pivotson the ball of his rightfoot. His head turns towardsthe viewer,to whose approach he seeminglyresponds: the righthand raises his o0f)sWorldL4,6 Archaeology Vol.33(2): 257-276 Archaeologyand Aesthetics ? 2001Taylor & FrancisLtd ISSN 0043-8243print/1470-1375 online DOI: 10.1080/00438240120079280 This content downloaded from 192.215.101.254 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:22:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 258 JeremyTanner Plate 1 Tenea 'Apollo', c. 550 BC. (Munich, Glypthothek.After von Reber and Bayersdorfer 1898: pl. 457). plectrumto the lyreas Apollo burstsinto song or alternativelypours a libationfrom a bowl as a manifestationof godlypower (Palagia 1980; Himmelmann1998). Archaic gods are not immediatelydistinguishable from each other,or humans,except by contextor attributes.The goddesses representedon the relief-friezeof the Siphnian treasury(c. 525 BC), seated or combatantversions of the contemporaryfree-standing femalestatue or kore,can be distinguishedonly by attributesor painted inscriptions(cf. Lullies and Hirmer1957: pls 44-51). In classical iconography,by contrast,each deityhas a characteristicbodily physiognomy,most marked in the differentfemale deities,for example on theParthenon frieze, a 'matronal'Demeter, a 'boyish'Athena and Aphrodite 'a fullermore fleshyfigure', consonant with their particularreligious functionsas a goddess of fertility,a virgin-warrior goddess and the goddess of sexual love respectively (quoting Younger 1997: 134; cf. Himmelmann1998; cf. Jenkins1994: 78-81, figs26, 36, 41). This content downloaded from 192.215.101.254 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:22:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Nature,culture and thebody 259 Plate2 ApolloPatroos, Roman marble copy of Greekmarble statue by Euphranor, c. 340 BC. (Rome,Vatican. Photo Alinari 26936). Althoughhistorians of religionhave recognizedthat the cult images of the classical period continuedto be embedded in religiouspractices and ideas (Gordon 1979), thishas had little impact on the interpretationof the iconographyand style of such statues. Traditionally,the changeto 'naturalism'has been interpretedas the birthof autonomous art (Gombrich1960: 120), emancipatedfrom the theocraticreligious constraints charac- teristicof the Orientalcultures from which significant components of the visual language of archaicGreek art had been inherited(Metzler 1971: 60; Guralnik1978). Correspond- ingly,classical statuesof gods are interpretedaccording to the iconographicmethodolo- gies developed byPanofksy for the interpretation of Italian Renaissance art.Iconographic contentis decoded as a 'message' or an allegoryof contemporarypolitical ideology or philosophy(Fehr 1979/80;Harrison 1977: 412; Erhardt1997), while styleis interpreted iconologicallyas a symptomof an individualartist's or a particularperiod's mentality (Harrison1977: 413; Pollitt1972). This content downloaded from 192.215.101.254 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:22:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 260 JeremyTanner Followingthe model of recent anthropologicaland some older lines of sociological thought(Gell 1998; Parsons 1951), thispaper develops a new approach to archaic and classical Greek cult imagesby askingnot so muchwhat they mean, as whatdo theydo? What are the effectsof the differentstyles and iconographiesof archaic and classical Greece on the viewersof such imageryand theirrelation to religiousculture? How did naturalismwork as a style and an iconographicsystem? How did it functionas a componentof classicalGreek religiousculture, by way of contrastwith archaic style and iconography.I suggestthat the key differencesbetween archaic 'schematism' and classi- cal 'naturalism'lie in the semioticallydistinctive way each visual language appropriates the viewer'sbody in the constructionof affectivecommitment to contemporaryreligious cultureand social structure. My theoreticalassumptions are simple. 'Expressive symbolism',objectified as 'art' throughcultural technologies of aestheticrepresentation, is theprimary medium through whichaffect or feelingis culturallyshaped and sociallycontrolled. What art does is organ- ize affect,thereby motivating commitment to certainsocial roles or systemsof cultural representation.The abilityof art to do thisdepends on humanembodiment. The possi- bilityof aestheticexpression and responsivenessis groundedin a capacityfor sensuous pleasuregiven in thebiological fact of human embodiment. This places certainparameters on theways in whichcultures can utilizesensuous form to generateaesthetic pleasure and shape affectivecommitments. Conversely, aesthetic languages vary in thedegree to which theychose to, or are able to, exploitpredispositions for sensory response (built into the structureand functioningof the humanbody as it maturesover timein broadlyconsist- ent ways across cultures)for culturally specific purposes. Such a perspectivepermits a new conceptualizationof 'naturalism'.Whereas scholars groundedin traditionsof cognitivepsychology argued thatWestern traditions of bodily and spatial representationcorrespond to universalperceptual experience (Gombrich 1960, 1982; Deregowski 1989), recentwork in the anthropologyof art has stressedthe conventionaland culturallyarbitrary character of all representationalsystems. The formal elementin visual representationnecessarily involves cultural choices, underdetermined by the object in naturewhich is beingrepresented (Layton 1977). Moreover,our sense of the naturalobject worldagainst which we might,as Gombrichwould suggest,test visual representationsis itselfalready determinedby the culturalsystem in which we live (Mitchell 1986: 38). The monothetic,perspectival view of the world characteristicof Westernnaturalistic art appears 'natural'to us onlybecause it utilizesconventions with whichwe are familiar.Other systems, like splitrepresentation in North-westCoast Indian art,are no less naturalistic;they simply embody different kinds of 'visual information', accordingto an alternativecultural view of what the distinctivefeatures of objects are (Layton 1977: 42). Although in certain respects attractive,this conventionalistcritique of essentialist accounts of naturalismis not withoutproblems. In particular,it makes it difficultto comparestyles, whether across culturesor across time,since it affordsno groundfor an appropriate metalanguage that can impartiallyanalyse the distinctiveproperties of incommensurablestyles, except in the aestheticallythin terms of 'bits of information' (Layton 1977: 42). The distinctivenessof