Honestly, I think Winckelmann's influence is quite impressive. The man stated and enforced his opinion which managed to shape the perspectives of viewers and artists up to centuries later so far. Even though he may have been incorrect about the basis of his argument, he still convinced pretty much all of Western Society that sculpture is most beautiful when plain and uncolored, as well as assisting in the beginnings of art history and archaeology.
It is hard to say whether or not our society would have eventually drawn the same conclusions about art and sculpture if the Greeks' paint and colors had remained on their works long enough archaeologists to see how Greek art looked originally. Perhaps the idea of simple white sculpture being the purest and most sophisticated would have come to us no matter what we found. I am sure this we would have reached this mindset at some point, but the real question is if we did not have white Greek sculpture to look at and consider "classical", would white become an ideal as a trend or as permanently or timeless as it has been? We may phase in and out of valuing busyness and colorfulness since the Greeks, but the cold white of marble has always been considered classic, timeless, and sophisticated - the epitome of sculpture. Personally, I prefer the white because it leaves room for shape and shadow to speak at first viewing, although color does add a lot of interest and can make an image easier to look at for longer time periods. I am inclined to think society would have come to agree with this whether we looked to Greek sculpture or not.
I wonder if it was popular at all for Greeks to color only simply or subtly or if all sculpture was as bright and interesting to the eye as some modern reconstructions are. For instance, the archer in the lecture (from the West pediment of the Temple of Aphaia) was shown next to a rather brightly colored reconstruction with busy patterns on the sleeves and leggings. The way the original looks today may be pleasant for our minds to appreciate, but the reconstruction appeals only to the eye by giving it plenty to look at as one walks by. I would prefer to have something simple and subtle for me to ponder at for a little while and assess what makes it beautiful, but I think modern reconstructions make Greek sculpture more logical for the time. The way that art functioned in that society was not for expression or contemplation necessarily. Artwork had purposes other than just existing. Ancient Greek art was there to make necessary, functioning objects (religious, spiritual, or mundane) more interesting to look at. The more color and designs included, the more an average type person could look at it and appreciate it without getting bored. You can see this from the statues of the Hellenistic period all the way back to the vases of the Geometric period. If artwork functioned then as it does now, then it would have made sense for the colors to be omitted right at the get-go. We look at those marble sculptures to analyze and appreciate raw beauty and form, but that just was not what the Ancient Greeks were necessarily after.
Winckelmann may not have had all the facts, but he had the good idea to appreciate what he had in front of him. I think the sculpture we have now is serving a purpose even without its original color for modern artists - so long as we keep current functions separate from historical contexts.
You're right, Carrie: Winckelmann's influence is very impressive. His 18th century ideas, unfortunately, were also bolstered by Renaissance artists (in the 15th century) that created white statues under the guise of "classicism." Perhaps if Renaissance artists had paid more attention to paint, then Winckelmann's ideas wouldn't have even caught hold. Either way, his ideas are still around today.
ReplyDeleteDon't you think that the Greeks would be appalled to see our museums filled with white statues (either from antiquity or later artistic periods like the Renaissance)? They would think that we were crazy.
-Prof. Bowen
I really liked your ideas on the function of the pieces. For us today art is not for any specific purpose and doesn't have to have any rhyme or reason. But back when these pieces were created they had a reason, they had a function. And you mentioned that there function might have been for a mundane task so painting it could have been a way to liven up that task. I had never thought about it like this and I really enjoyed seeing this view of things.
ReplyDeleteI've seen pictures in design magazines of gardens of dark green shrubbery silhouetting a white marble pool of blue water with Greek or Roman style columns and sculptures on a hill against a blue Californian (or Greek)sky. This picturesque image doesn't really lack color but the colors show in large blocks rather than in fussy details. The composition is simple and restful even in the bright light of a sunny climate but will tend to be ignored after a while by those who see it every day. This space will regain interest only if important or amusing events take place there. If the figures and columns were brightly painted however, the space would be less restful but hold the interest longer. It might even be seen as unique enough to look at just as a thing to do. It just goes to show that what we think of as good taste can be pretty boring.
ReplyDeleteHi Carrie,
ReplyDeleteI think that the historian has an interesting point about the sculptures being unpainted. If they are painted it takes away from their naturalistic appearance and beauty. If they where to be repainted it would not enhance the beauty because of the bright colors which give the artwork a tacky appearance. It makes them look like on of those figurines that one would see in a gift shop. In order for people to truly appreciate the beauty and details of the artifacts they should remain white.Or if one looks at it a different way leaving the sculptures white could give it a dull appearance and therefore they would not look lifelike but with the right paint they would look life like. It is all a matter of opinion.
Sabrina Sundell
Hello Carrie,
ReplyDeleteI think that you are correct that Winkelmann had some very interesting ideas about the basic white color. I find it interesting because in art classes that I have taken before, I have always found the simplicity of white to be so intriguing. Even looking at the Mac that I'm using right now, the white color is just so appealing to my eye because its so simple yet appealing. I can see with sculptures how the white would be even more appealing. Like you said, looking at a white sculpture, certain details would stand out based on the shadows. If a white sculpture were to be placed outside in one spot for a day, it would be interesting to see what details stand out during different times of the day.
I agree that white color leaves room for shape and shadow to speak at first viewing! sometimes color on statutes just cant present the solemn and elegant. people now use appropriated color for things not only make the things look interesting but also present the naturalism in the world. as we know, Winkelmann's ideas was not the exactly accurate but still influence our knowledge until present.
ReplyDelete