The sun., 1910-05-08

s,x Gre,E ssulptsrs.

An.intsrosting study Of Sir Grssk Sculp-
fora Imported by Charles Scrihner's SonsI
has lust been published by EESEsT A
dAnnNna, NJ. A.. Yates professor Of
archaeology In the University of London.
formerly Director of tho British school at
Athons. The work. while Il is brief. 10
valuable for those who wish 70 know soma
thing 0i the great epochs in Greek art
without diving into the subject moro pro-
foundly students need hardly be told
that the earlier worls 0f Prof Gardner.
hil sHandbook Of Greek sculpture and
@Anoisnt Athens. are drawn upon for he
material in this presszA volume The six
noulneors % whom h. deyOtea separate
chaptsIs arc Myron. Ph,dihs Polyslitus.
Praxiteler. Scopas and Lysippus. As he
points out In hE preface, a volume might
we'll have been assigned in a series such ~
the present " each ~ the above artists.
but ~ many people wish 60 acquire some
uaRp Of tho character of tho chief sculp-
torA without following the whole course
Of he history OF Greek sculpture from i,s
oriEin 70 its deCadenCe this study ot six
Waa written.
Prof Gardner loses no time in pMng-
Ing into hia theme His Introductory
chapler touches on the characteristics
of Greek sCulpture. about which ho has
partinsnt and wiss things to say. One
point that be makes II capital. Il relates
20 uaEtain prsiudioes that eXlst and thai
hAvs BEEN indorsed in whole or part
: By none Of the creates, art teachers Of
} our time Chief among these is a false
ouncaption Of -the antique ~ Il is COM
monly presented to students In art schools.
TOO fraausntly without any teaching
: 90 mAhs its study Intelligent and educA-
tive Sometimes casts Of Greek sculpture
are unsd ~ mere exercise in drawing.
and The intellectual and aesthetic train
IND 4 subordina;ed 20 the purely mechan-
licAi: froquently. too. the prejudice against
them u increased by the suppOsition that
thoy arc held up for imitation to the
exclusion Of the student q own observation
Of naaure. Moreover. the casts 30 So
Iocasd are not infreqnsntly from works
Of inferior merit restored 30 ~ 60
have no claim 10 BE- called 'antiqus'
q all. They are indeed mostly taken
from well known statues. but how remote
these statues may be from the originals
that they represent may be realized by
- most instructive comparison in the
; uass Of one Of them. the sMeleAger' Of the
Vatican. Other COPIES exist Of the head
Of this statue. and Ons OG them now placsd
on n statue 20 which Il does not belong
IN the villa Medic a. Rome is II not
the oriwinAl Rt least 10 near Il in the date
Of its execution and IN the spirit Of its
expFessi0n a. 10 enable W TO realize what
tho original was liks. We have only 20
place these two examples Of the same head
sids by side to - what n the relation
of aGuego-R Roman copy 10 ai(lreak statue.
Tho Vatican -NleleAGsr' hows Just the
psrfectiOn u form. the absence Of in
dividuality. ths vacancy Of expression
and character. the vapld generalization
df type which modern critics are too
oftsn wont 70 regard ~ the usual qualities
of,-ths Rntique
We have only TO lOOk az tho Medici
head 20 SO that these qualities do not
bolung 70 che original but have been
imported into IL by the .cOpyist, who
evidently had a conception Of tho Greek
ars hs was copying not unlike that Of
manE modern critics and Of some imi-
tAt0Fs Ol classical art. In the Medici
heAd.ws -es the very opposite Of all these
quAlitiaA the forms show less perfection.
more individuality, and. above all, the
expression 10 full of character and shows
a passionate. Gery nature. realized and
reproduoed with q marvellous direct
nass OF observation both are In a
sense IDEAL works; but the one Is tho fresh
ana vigorous embodiment Of the master
conception u this passionate head; tho
other h the cold academic generalization
Of a conventional school.
From these and other causes there Ia
no doubt a general feeling. even among
sdnoated people who have made no study
Of ea~ ecbjsot. that Greek sculpture
daala with cold and colorless Renerali-
nAtion; that. to quote Ruskin, There is
no personal character in true 0reek
art--ahstract ideas Of youth and age.
strength and swiftness. virtue and vios-
yse; but there is no Individuality This
absurd judgment Prof. Gardner chal-
IeuRss and domOlishss. Though he does
n0s naV 90 We hold that there IL more
Greek spirit IN the modern works q
Rodin than was ever displayed in the
auttre range of Canoya and Thorwald-
sens productions. those graceful. insipid
FeDroductiOns Of the smooth mechanical
perfsctiOas Or ths Greeks.
five would appreciate Greek sculpture
a. a whole. our author declares. We must
not regard IL ~ beginning and ending
within q period ot thirty years in the
nnaddle Of tho fifth century b. &. There
were earlier masterpieces. But there
ls . tendsncy. especially a; the present
day. o. withhold due appreciation not
onlY from tho ordinary run Of Hellenistic
add GrJscO-Roman work but even from
PrnxitsIes himself. To a Greek such a
prsfsrsnOe would have seemed an alb
suudity; hs would not have dreamed Of
comparing mere architectural sculptures,
such a. those OF the PArthenon, with the
masterpieces Of the fourth century: Il
hs were asxad to name the most repre-
sentative sculptors Of Greece he would
very likely have named Polyclitus.
Praxiteles. Scopas and Lysippus even
before Phidias himself when his colossal
statues were still eHtAnt-
Prof. Gardner holds that apart from
tho Imagination and invention of the
artist and his technical skill In dealing
with The material in which his work -
10 BE- executed there arr thres main fac
tors that contribute 10 tho creation u a
work Of art convention. observation