Leonardo_37-4_265- 7/21/04 9:48 AM Page 332 Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/0024094041724472 by guest on 24 September 2021 Leonardo_37-4_265- 7/21/04 9:49 AM Page 333 AB GENERAL ARTICLE RI TO L AO NG Chimera Contemporary: DY The Enduring Art of the Composite Beast ABSTRACT The author examines the history of artists’ depictions of Dave Powell fanciful organisms that are formed by combining parts of various species. Broadly tracing the progression of this pursuit from prehistory through the Ancient, Renaissance and Romantic Periods and up to the 20th century and contemporary he aesthetic of the composite animal form has the different branches are gov- T genetic art, the article analyzes been a persistent presence from the primordial depths of erned by distinctly different genetic the seemingly consistent effort human culture to the present dawn of the genetic age. codes. to render these forms simultane- Throughout the course of history, whenever artists have ren- ously nonthreatening or vulnera- dered subjects by melding the physiology of different species, ble in attitude and visually HIMERIC ENDITIONS realistic. The author asks they have almost invariably utilized techniques to render the C R : NCIENT THROUGH whether this practice, which subject visually plausible and pseudo-realistic. Yet perhaps A seems to stem from aesthetic more importantly, chimerical creatures are also commonly CLASSICAL concerns, is sufficiently critical rendered as vulnerable: depicted in either playful or serene Some 10 to 15 millennia have in regards to current trends in genetic engineering. poses, in a state of dying or suffering defeat, or as simply nonag- passed since the stag-antlered, tail- gressive. The consistent recurrence of the synthetic modifica- sporting “Sorcerer” was painted on tion of natural fauna bears witness to the apparent utility of the wall at Trois-Freres, and though this aesthetic endeavor, yet we must also recognize the self- conjecture regarding the image as depicting a shaman in rit- imposed guidelines within which artists have created such ual garb is reasonable, there can be no concrete evidence that works. the artist did not intend to render a chimera or creature un- Due to the evolution of the word chimera, it is necessary to dergoing an interspecies metamorphosis. Importantly, the clarify the difference between its meanings. The (capitalized) handful of cave-painted images depicting human beings were proper name from which chimera is derived is mythological, almost invariably executed with a marked lack of realism, fail- the classical Chimera being the fire-spouting monster said to ing to exhibit the same level of naturalistic proportion and have terrorized the Lycians of Asia Minor before being slain pose often invested in depicting other species. Furthermore, by the young, unwitting Bellerophon. This composite beast in addition to the partial animalism of this particular subject possessed a goat’s body, the head of a lion and a serpent’s tail (oftentimes this is depicted as a serpent-headed tail, and the designation serpent properly refers to a dragon’s physiology Fig. 1. Pheidias (attributed), Centauromachy, detail from the rather than to that of a snake). Although I do not use it di- Parthenon’s southern metopes, Pentelic marble, approx. 120 ϫ 125 rectly in this article, the popular secondary definition of cm, ca. 445 B.C. A Lapithian warrior gains a seemingly unlikely chimera (as it has existed for centuries) is “an illusion or fabri- upper hand in combat versus his centaur foe. (Public domain image cation of the mind; especially: an unrealizable dream” [1]. It courtesy of the Art Images for College Teaching [AICT] web site: is not, however, without a dab of intentional authorial irony <http://arthist.cla.umn.edu/aict/html>.) that I chose the title of this article for precisely the contextual connotation of the word’s secondary meaning. The contemporary scientific meaning of chimera is rather specific and is intimately related to genetic criteria. To sum up, technically speaking, a chimera is any organism that in- corporates discrete populations of cells with different genomes (whether within the whole of the organism or merely a con- stituent part thereof). A simple example would be a lemon tree with the bough of a lime tree grafted to the stock; once the graft has taken, the tree is indeed one living organism, yet Dave Powell (artist), 2013 Yale Avenue, Dunedin, FL 34698, U.S.A. E-mail: <dave@ artcats.com>. Article Frontispiece. Joshua Levine, Dock, flexible polyurethane foam, 2002. (© Joshua Levine. Photo © David Powell). The artist deliberately fashioned his creations out of pink and yellow thermal foam to make them seem less threatening. © 2004 ISAST LEONARDO, Vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 332–340, 2004 333 Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/0024094041724472 by guest on 24 September 2021 Leonardo_37-4_265- 7/21/04 9:49 AM Page 334 AB RI TO seeming to free the artist to work with Ancient Egyptian art frequently cou- portion, perspective and other devices L some level of visual objectivity, this theri- pled the head of one species with the contemporary to the period (less so the AO NG anthropic figure does not seem to be im- body of another (one part or the other proportions of the monumental Sphinx DY bued with any intentional sense of often being human). Whether in the at Giza, most likely due to the limitations menace (as are some of the other ani- tomb paintings of the jackal-headed Anu- of the natural outcrop of stone). mals; for instance, charging bulls) but is bis, or upon the numerous sculptural Particularly when representing a po- posed in either a dancing or fleeing sphinxes, to the best of our knowledge tential therianthropic proportional mis- stance while making eye contact with the the artists utilized the most realistic tech- match (e.g. humaniform deities like viewer. Relatively speaking, the image (al- niques of depiction available to them at ibis-headed Thoth and hippopotamus- beit an imaginative construct) is exe- the time of execution (albeit with some headed Taweret), Egyptian artists took cuted with a high level of visual notable, and likely stylistically inten- pains to fit the head onto the dispropor- verisimilitude to actual organisms, while tional, exceptions). Despite the seem- tionately sized host body. Furthermore, the seemingly nonthreatening posture ingly fanciful content, the resultant whereas actually encountering a living was probably intentional. figures exhibit a masterful usage of pro- creature with the body of a human and the head of a crocodile or asp would likely be quite horrifying, the Egyptian subjects do not seem to be depicted in an Fig. 2. William-Adolphe Bouguereau, Nymphs and Satyr, oil on canvas, 260 ϫ 180 cm, 1873. overtly threatening manner; deities were The painting features a reticent chimerical male figure at the center of four females’ de- shown busily engaged in ritual proces- sirous attention, executed with a high degree of realistic finish. (Image appears courtesy of sions, and sphinxes were posed placidly. Carol L. Gerten-Jackson’s CGFA web site: <http://cgfa.sunsite.dk>.) Again, chimerical realism is coupled with an apparent lack of danger; in the rare instance when the subject appears threat- ening, realism is quickly abandoned (e.g. fratricidal Seth, the chaotic-evil slayer of Osiris, was “portrayed as a man with a head of undeterminable origin ...He had a curved snout, erect square-tipped ears and a long forked tail” [2]). The Greeks continued this exploration while abandoning exclusively theri- anthropic themes and the nonaggressive nature of other depictions of chimeras. Some mythological creatures melded parts of two different nonhuman crea- tures, such as the winged horse Pegasus; some repeated the natural organs of one species, such as the three-headed dog Cerberus; others were the synthesis of nu- merous beasts, such as the griffon, which possessed a leonine body, a scorpion’s tail and an eagle’s wings and talons; still oth- ers incorporated wholly mythical fea- tures, as in the various creatures with draconic organs. Again artisans fre- quently depicted these imaginative con- structs utilizing the most advanced rendering techniques for achieving real- ism. The most famous example might be the Parthenon’s southern metopes de- picting the Centauromachy, where the Lapiths are portrayed in heated combat with their half-equine foes; both parties exhibit such physiological and kines- thetic believability that these works are frequently included in the curricula of foundation art history courses as prime examples of High Classical Greek realism (Fig. 1). Granted, the composite beasts of Greek mythology are often flagrantly ag- gressive, but notably, these baneful crea- tures are almost invariably defeated at the hands of a noble hero. Whether visually depicted on an Attic black-figure am- 334 Powell, Chimera Contemporary Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/0024094041724472 by guest on 24 September 2021 Leonardo_37-4_265- 7/21/04 9:49 AM Page 335 AB RI The upheaval accompanying the 20th TO century, particularly as brought about by L AO both world wars, likewise triggered a shift NG in the depiction of chimera. In fact, con- DY trary to the vulnerable nature of the composite beast as seen throughout the historical course of Western art, the new chimera took on a seemingly invul- nerable, juggernaut-like countenance. Whether it is Picasso’s numerous mino- taurs (particularly the seemingly human- eyed bull of Guernica), or Max Ernst’s frequent depiction of bird-headed and other demihumanoid creatures, these subjects either are threatening or else bear witness to that which is gruesome (e.g. the carnage of total war). Salvador Dalí is also noteworthy for his indulgence of weird biological constructs.