Introduction: An Overview of Sculptural Developments

Over the course of centuries, the ancient Greeks created countless sculptures. Modern art historians have classified the development of monumental sculptures into three distinctive periods: Archaic, Classical, and Hellenistic. The Archaic period roughly lasted from 750 to 480 BCE. The sculptures from ancient Egypt heavily inspired the ancient Greek sculptures crafted during the archaic period. Similar to the ancient Egyptians, the ancient Greeks craved their pieces out of stone. Most of the subject matter for Greek sculptures was human figures. The figurative subject matter may stem from the fact that the Greek gods were represented in human form, making the human anatomy something both sacred and secular to Greeks and the perfect candidate for artistic endeavors. Two types of stone human figures prevailed during the Archaic period: a frontal standing nude young male known as kouros and a draped female counterpart known as a kore.  The kouros and kore the Greeks composed were quite stylized as their poses were stiff and uniform and their anatomical features sharp and geometric in nature.

As the artistic and technical skills of the ancient Greeks exponentially grew, the Archaic period eventually gave way to the Classical period. The Classical period lasted from roughly 479 to 323 BCE. Historians often regard the Classical period as an artistic revolution in terms of sculptural design. During the Classical period, the Greeks developed a deep appreciation for idealization. Such idealization can be seen in one of the key subjects of this paper, the Doryphoros. The Doryphoros is a sculpture by Polykleitos and displays a man with an idealized muscular physique. The Doryphoros demonstrates how the ancient Greeks wanted to create pieces that resembled the epitome of beauty, youth, and athleticism so that viewers of said pieces could strive to achieve a similar level of perfection.[1] However, it was difficult for the Greeks to incorporate such idealized details in the stone material they worked with during the Archaic era. This conundrum led to the first revolutionary change during the Late Archaic and Early Classical periods: the conversion to bronze metalworking. Bronze is a very malleable metal making it much easier to work with than stone. The ancient Greeks were able to achieve an unprecedented level of detail in their sculptures thanks to a technique known as the lost-wax process. In short, the ancient Greeks would create a mold made of clay and wax, fire it, and fill it with molten bronze. Once the bronze had cooled, they would chip away mold, revealing a perfectly cast bronze statue. The wax would be lost during the firing and chipping process; hence the name lost wax. The Greeks would also employ the lost-wax process in several pieces if the sculpture they were trying to make were particularly large.[2]

The second revolutionary innovation that occurred during the Classical period was the creation of the Polykleitos Canon. Polykleitos was a renowned art theorist and sculptor; his Canon was a set of guidelines and rules based on bodily proportions and symmetry that would allow an artist to create the ideal human figure.[3] The Doryphoros by Polykleitos is actually one of the first pieces that fully embraces the element of contrapposto. Contrapposto is used in a sculptural scheme that resulted from Polykleitos’ Canon.  Contrapposto is a pose in which the figure rests weight on a straightened leg while their other leg is slightly bent at the knee. This pose created a slight twist in the hips which helped the Greek sculptures appear more natural and life-like. The idealization and naturalistic posing found within the Doryphoros is quite an evolution from the stylized and uniform sculptures of the Archaic period.

The Classical period lasted for several centuries until around 334 BCE when Alexander the Great laid siege to several countries and began to expand his empire. Alexander’s expansion brought Greece into unprecedented contact with a wide variety of cultures. This newfound contact had a substantial influence on Greece and its arts which led to the artistic era known as the Hellenistic period.[4] A renowned sculpture from the Hellenistic era, Laocoön and His Sons by Athanadoros, Hagesandros, and Polydoros of Rhodes, will be discussed further in detail. Laocoön and His Sons depict three men ensnared and trapped by snakes, a scenario that is present in a tragedy from the Greek Epic Cycle on the Trojan Wars.[5]

Laocoön and His Sons is the quintessential example of how pieces founded in the Hellenistic period greatly expounded upon the themes found within Classical sculptures. While the sculptures from the Classical era were very life-like and natural, the human figures depicted in the sculptures were emotionally reserved and lacked personality. In contrast, Hellenistic sculptures like Laocoön and His Sons were very dynamic and emotive. The human figures in these sculptures were often displayed in anguish or in the midst of action, almost as if the statues themselves were in motion. Such themes were not found during the Classical era either due to the lack of certain technical innovations and a cultural propensity towards restraint and symmetry. The Hellenistic period finally came to an end around 31 BCE when the final Greek dynasty fell to Rome.[6] The juxtaposition of the Classical Doryphoros with the Hellenistic Laocoön and His Sons shows the ways in which Greek sculptures evolved not only technically but also culturally.

The Doryphoros and the Laocoön

The gradual shift between the artistic eras of Ancient Greece resulted in the stylistic and thematic evolution of Greek artwork, particularly sculpture. For instance, during the Classical period of Ancient Greece, artists were heavily focused on the idealization of the human figure and the ability to accurately portray human anatomy in a naturalistic manner. Such characteristics can be seen in Polykleitos’ Doryphoros. Conversely, during the Hellenistic period, sculptors wanted to convey more flagrant emotion and theoreticality within their pieces. Such elements are overtly displayed in Agesander, Athenodoros, and Polydorus’ Laocoön and His Sons. In a sense, classical pieces such as the Doryphoros were the foundation for zestful works like Laocoön and His Sons.

The Roman copy of the Doryphoros by Polykleitos depicts a nude man displayed in a casual stance. The original bronze statue would have included a spear that was firmly gripped in the man’s left hand and lightly rested on top of his left shoulder. The Doryphoros was chiseled to have precise contours that served to enunciate his abdominal muscles, pectorals, and biceps. The Doryphoros was also sculpted to have a very smooth texture void of any wrinkles or deformations, which helped to exemplify the youthfulness of the subject. The youthfulness and muscularity of the Doryphoros are consistent with the Greek aesthetic of beauty during the Classical era. The Ancient Greeks believed that there was no better subject for fine art than the human body as they had the philosophical belief that a person’s psychical appearance was indicative of their mind and that a beautiful body equaled a beautiful mind. The Ancient Greeks valued athleticism and vitality above all else when it came to the idea of beauty. It is suggested this is why Olympians such as disc throwers, wrestlers, or spear bearers like the Doryphoros trained in the nude, so that their beauty would be on display for all to see.[7] However, a physique as depicted in the Doryphoros would be challenging if not impossible to maintain, and the Ancient Greeks were aware of such. In the view of the Ancient Greeks, perfection did not exist in the natural world, and it was up to artists to cultivate and craft the idealized specimen for people to strive towards.

The idealized beauty of the Doryphoros is not the only stylistic characteristic indicative of the Classical Era. The Doryphoros also possesses a life-like stance that embodies the Classical artists’ drive to create works of art that were not only aesthetically pleasing but also naturalistic and anatomically precise. The Doryphoros was purposefully posed so that his right arm was freely hanging at his side, and his left leg was positioned in front of his right. These elements create a subtle yet natural twist in the torso of the Doryphoros and give the illusion that he is resting his weight on one leg as a human would naturally do. As previously stated, the pose of the Doryphoros is a concept called contrapposto created by Polykleitos himself. The natural and life-like stance produced through contrapposto is a monumental step up from the geometric and uniform stances of the previous Archaic period statues.[8]

As the Classical era comes to an end and the Hellenistic period develops, pieces like the Doryphoros become a thing of the past, and artworks like Laocoön and His Sons present a revised artistic norm. Laocoön and His Sons depicts a man thought to represent Laocoön, a Trojan priest from an Epic Cycle, ensnared by serpents.[9] Flanking Laocoön left and right are two men also entangled in the snakes who are thought to represent Laocoön’s sons. While Laocoön and His Sons possess idealized muscular physiques similar to that of the Doryphoros, there are other formal elements that set the two statues apart. A prime example is the contouring and lines used to simulate the appearance of a beard and wrinkles on Laocoön’s face, conveying that he is an old and mature man. A previously mentioned, the Ancient Greeks used to idolize youthfulness heavily; unlike the youthful spearman in the Doryphoros, an elder such as Laocoön would have never been the subject matter of a sculpture from the Classical era.

Additionally, the wrinkles in Laocoön’s face help to emphasize his look of abject horror. Such an emotive facial expression is a stylistic choice found extensively in the Hellenistic era as artists strode to incorporate more drama and theatrics into their pieces.[10] However, such emotion was severely absent from the Classical era pieces as sculptures from that time possessed generic and apathetic faces like the Doryphoros. Another formal element from Laocoön and His Sons that portrays the aesthetic of the Hellenistic period is the posing. Laocoön is posed sitting on a pillar with his legs set far apart and his torso twisting sharping to the right as his right arm reaches behind his back to grasp a snake, while his left arm grabs a snake located to his side. Furthermore, the son on Laocoön’s right is balancing on his right leg while trying to unwrap a snake from his left ankle, while the son on the left is desperately trying to untangle a snake wrapped around his back using his right arm. Although the contrapposto displayed in the Doryphoros was groundbreaking for its time, the posing in Laocoön and His Sons expanded on the concept of contrapposto so significantly that it presents movement on another level. The bodies in Laocoön and His Sons are so freeform and languid that they feel like they are in actual motion compared to the still and static Doryphoros.

Ancient Greek sculpture is one of the most iconic art forms in history. However, the Greek artistry of sculpting had very humble beginnings, with some of the first works being very geometric and austere. It was not until the classical era that we begin to see breathtaking works such as the Doryphoros that reflected the Ancient Greeks’ romantic and critical view of the human figure. Nevertheless, the style of the Doryphoros was only the beginning. The Hellenistic era resulted in exquisite pieces such as Laocoön and His Sons, which took the romanticized bodies from the previous age and wove them into intricate and dynamic positions that could convey stories full of drama and emotion. Although many original Greek statues were destroyed, it is also thanks to the efforts of Roman artists that marble copies were made of the most notable Greek sculptures, allowing these iconic statues to indirectly withstand the passage of time.

[1] Percy Gardner, “Idealism in Greek Art.” The Art World 1, no. 6 (1917): 419.

[2] Colette Hemingway and Seán Hemingway, “The Technique of Bronze Statuary in Ancient Greece,” Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. (New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2003). http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/grbr/hd_grbr.htm  

[3] Amy Schuman, “Polykleitos: A Canon Of Beauty And Perfection,” Student Research Papers, (Lindenwood University, 2013): 2.

[4] Colette Hemingway and Seán Hemingway, “Art of The Hellenistic Age And The Hellenistic Tradition,” Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. (New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2007.) https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/haht/hd_haht.htm.

[5] Victoria Kubale, “Laocoön And His Sons. The Myth About The Myth,” Fresh Perspectives on Graeco-Roman Visual Culture: Proceedings of an International Conference at Humboldt-Universität, Berlin, 2nd–3rd September 2013 |2013, (2015): 61. https://doi.org/10.18452/1399

[6] Colette Hemingway and Seán Hemingway, “Art of The Hellenistic Age And The Hellenistic Tradition,” 2007.

[7] Gardner, “Idealism in Greek Art,” 420.

[8] Schuman, Amy. “Polykleitos: A Canon of Beauty And Perfection,” 5.

[9] Victoria Kubale, “Laocoön And His Sons. The Myth About The Myth.” 61.

[10] Colette Hemingway and Seán Hemingway, “Art of The Hellenistic Age And The Hellenistic Tradition,” 2007.

References

Casson, Stanley. “Technique of Greek Sculpture.” American Journal of Archaeology 38, no. 2 (1934): 280–84. https://doi.org/10.2307/498082.

Gardner, Percy. “Idealism in Greek Art.” The Art World 1, no. 6 (1917): 419–21. https://doi.org/10.2307/25587818.

Hemingway, Colette and Seán Hemingway. “Art of The Hellenistic Age And The Hellenistic Tradition.” Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2007. https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/haht/hd_haht.htm.

Hemingway, Colette, and Seán Hemingway. “The Technique of Bronze Statuary in Ancient Greece.” Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2003. http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/grbr/hd_grbr.htm  

Hurwit, Jeffrey M. “The Kritios Boy: Discovery, Reconstruction, and Date.” American Journal of Archaeology 93, no. 1 (1989): 41–80. https://doi.org/10.2307/505398.

Kubale, Victoria.. “Laocoön And His Sons. The Myth About The Myth.” Fresh Perspectives on Graeco-Roman Visual Culture:Proceedings of an International Conference at Humboldt-Universität, Berlin, 2nd–3rd September 2013 |2013, (2015): 59-68. https://doi.org/10.18452/1399

Schuman, Amy, "Polykleitos: A Canon of Beauty and Perfection" Student Research Papers. 15, 20013. https://digitalcommons.lindenwood.edu/student-research-papers/15

Citation: Noland, Jamari. “The Stylistic Evolution of Greek Sculpture: Examining the Doryphoros and the Laocoön.” Journal of Art &Theatre, vol. 1, no.1 (2022): 14-22.