The evolution of the Pan Painter's artistic style.
In this article the author explores the decorative style of the Pan Painter in order to distance him from the so-called Mannerists and highlight the three-dimensional nature of his artistry. An analysis of his oeuvre reveals traits shared with the Berlin Painter and thus revives Christiane Sourvinou-Inwood's suggestion that the Pan Painter was a shop-boy under Myson and later an apprentice to the Berlin Painter. Attention is given to the Pan Painter's treatment of costume, which enlivened his figures and compositions in a manner suiting the range of iconographic types and vessel shapes with which he worked.
Thanks to the modern tendency in our publications to flatten images from Athenian pots by rendering them as two-dimensional artworks, it has become difficult to appreciate fully the artistry of vase painters. (1) I make this observation to bring attention to the fact that some Attic pot painters did not merely paint pictures on awkwardly shaped surfaces, but used their artistry to enhance the overall appearance of each individual pot. In this article I seek an understanding of the Pan Painter, the Classical Attic pot decorator named for his memorable depiction of the woodland god chasing a shepherd on a bell krater in Boston (Figs. 1, 2). (2) The Pan Painter probably worked in the Early Classical period, from 480 to at least 460 B.C. (3) I do not take it for granted that this painter--or any other, for that matter--chose to paint pots because that was all there was to paint. The skills of an artist who was as good a draftsman as the Pan Painter would have been useful in any medium. It seems, therefore, to have been more a matter of choice.
[FIGURES 1-2 OMITTED]
More so than other known Classical red-figure painters, the Pan Painter was keenly aware of the space and volume of the surfaces he painted, and of how best to use the decoration to complement the object and the object to complement the decoration. His decorative choices, some of which reflect Late Archaic styles, have led to his being classified as a Mannerist. I argue here, however, for his identification as a sub-Archaic painter and I explain his mannerism as a manifestation of his decorative tendencies.
BEAZLEY AND THE MANNERIST INTERPRETATION
In 1912 Sir John Beazley first defined the Pan Painter as follows:
Cunning composition; rapid motion; quick deft draughtsmanship; strong and peculiar stylisation; a deliberate archaism, retaining old forms, but refining, refreshing, and galvanizing them; nothing noble or majestic, but grace, humour, vivacity, originality, and dramatic force: these are the qualities which mark the Boston krater, and which characterize the anonymous artist who, for the sake of convenience, may be called the "master of the Boston Pan-vase," or, more briefly, "the Pan-master." (4)
I can hardly disagree with Beazley's brief comments. I seek rather to elucidate the Pan Painter's peculiar style and archaism, which seem to display a recognition that particular forms--whether clothing, attributes, or poses--suited some pot shapes better than others. How did the master known as the Pan Painter develop the style by which we identify him? How did his "backward looking genius" (5) come about?
A painter's training is a central concern in the exploration of his artistic style. In this context it is best to avoid Beazley's own terms such as "master," "school," or "teacher," for which he may have had very specific intentions and usages. (6) By training I refer rather to the evolution of the Pan Painter's artistic skills. Becoming a painter of any sort--let alone a pot painter who must acquire some knowledge of the potter's art as well--is a complicated process. The range of artistic skills entailed in pot painting probably precluded a one-on-one, student-teacher relationship, as even Beazley might have acknowledged. Yet I must reopen the question that Beazley ostensibly laid to rest for generations of students and scholars of ancient art: who was the teacher of the Pan Painter?
Beazley's own conclusion can be summarized as follows: the Pan Painter was a Mannerist, and Myson was the teacher of the Mannerists; therefore, Myson was the teacher of the Pan Painter. (7) Of course his opinion (as opposed to his conclusion) may have been better reasoned, as were his opinions on the style, character, and oeuvre of the Pan Painter, expressed in Der Pan-Maler. (8) As Christiane Sourvinou-Inwood has noted, however, with the Pan Painter as with most others, Beazley did not try to explain or analyze why he identified a particular painter as a teacher. (9)
Mannerism as applied to ancient Greek vase painting refers to the depiction of figures, and especially their attire, attributes, and other details, for decorative, that is, mannered effect, not necessarily as a reflection of contemporary styles. (10) Figures by the Classical red-figure Mannerists reminded Beazley of the Antwerp Mannerists, Dutch painters of the early 16th century whose slender figures and pleated garments were barely distinguishable from those of their immediate predecessors. (11) The comparison is apt. The Antwerp Mannerists, like the Greek vase painters, remain anonymous and mediocre. They were influenced by their contemporaries, while copying older compositions and styles.
A kalpis hydria in Boston exemplifies Early Classical red-figure mannerism (Fig. 3). (12) Here the Agrigento Painter, who worked ca. 470-440, (13) uses Archaic-style clothing and details (sharply pointed beards and cloth corners, loopy hems, and pleated drapery) without mastering the decorative spirit that buoyed the Archaic period. Despite great strides and raised arms, the doughy human figures are rigidly posed in three-quarter views. Affected drapery (whether or not Archaic in style), framed panels, and old-fashioned shapes are typical of the red-figure Mannerists. They often use the border ornaments shown in Figure 3, especially the pendant lotus-bud chain, with intersecting arcs, on the neck. (14) The Agrigento Painter shares with other Early Classical painters a tendency to crowd the composition with overlapping figures, fussy details such as the shrubbery beneath Argos, and sloppy bordering or filling ornament almost everywhere. Only the last of these tendencies characterizes the Classical Mannerists.
[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]
The appellation "Mannerist," usually taken as a pejorative term, restricts the Pan Painter's significance and confuses our understanding of his style. I prefer to call the Pan Painter a sub-Archaic painter, one who was at home with the Archaic style in its final phase. (15) Archaism is one of many means or aspects of mannerism practiced by the Pan Painter and other sub-Archaic artists in the Early Classical period (480-450). Beazley's Mannerist group (or school or workshop) practiced mannerism--sometimes through archaism--into the 390s. John Boardman's assertion that "sub-Archaic Mannerism may be rendered by slimmer figures, smaller heads, exaggeration of gesture, exploitation of pattern in dress for its own sake ... rendered by vitality of subject, with a touch of the theatrical." describes the archaism practiced by the Pan Painter and a few others in the 470s, rather than the mannerism practiced by later Mannerists. (16) The Pan Painter's sub-Archaic drawing of the choice of Marpessa on a psykter (Figs. 4, 5) shows all the jauntiness, coherent composition, and confident outline characteristic of the best work of the Archaic period. (17) The restrained ornament, the continuous scene, and even the shape--the sympotic wine cooler--distance this work from those of the Mannerists. (18)
[FIGURES 4-5 OMITTED]
PROBLEMS OF DATING THE PAN PAINTER
The contested date of the Marpessa psykter typifies the problems we have in charting the career of the Pan Painter from the evidence of his works. Like Beazley, (19) Anna-Barbara Follmann classes the Marpessa psykter among the Pan Painter's earliest works, but she sees its profile as Late Archaic rather than sub-Archaic, dating it to the last decade of the Archaic period (480s). (20) As Sourvinou-Inwood rightly notes, however, the choice of an old-fashioned shape is not unusual for an artist with a fondness for the past. (21) Lily Byvanck-Quarles van Ufford convincingly argues that the figural style of the Marpessa psykter combines old-fashioned traits with Early Classical innovations, dating it to ca. 460. (22) Because he combines new and old shapes, decorations, and even techniques, the sum of the Pan Painter's works cannot be ordered in a consistent developmental framework such as Beazley and his successors have built for most Attic painters. Nor does the quality of the Pan Painter's works vary greatly; one cannot project onto him the career path of gradual decline that Beazley saw for most vase painters. (23)
The internal development of a painter's oeuvre is normally charted through a comparison of stylistic tendencies (especially drapery) in sculpture and mural painting, some of which may be dated by external events. The Pan Painter's selective archaism defies such comparisons. A new analysis of the internal chronology of the Pan Painter is needed. (24) For now I avoid discussion of dates and concentrate rather on his decorative style. I agree with Beazley and Sourvinou-Inwood, however, that the Pan Painter's career is most likely to have started ca. 480, near the end of the Berlin Painter's career. (25)
The only argument for an external dating of the Pan Painter is made by Byvanck-Quarles van Ufford, who proposes that mannerism was an archaizing movement, a short-lived reaction against the statesman Kimon after his ostracism from Athens in 462. (26) In support of this "style archaisant," she dates the Marpessa psykter too late, at 460. (27) Her argument is circular, and Sourvinou-Inwood has correctly dismissed her so-called historical proof. (28) As Sourvinou-Inwood has also noted, unlike iconography, the advent of mannerism is a stylistic phenomenon that cannot be attributed to external, nonartistic causes. (29) Mannerism is not a short-lived style--it continues through to the beginning of the 4th century--and archaism is only one aspect of mannerism. The Pan Painter's use of Late Archaic elements was not unique, but it was not common enough to represent an archaizing style or movement. (30)
RECONSTRUCTING THE PAN PAINTER'S CAREER
The identification of Myson as the teacher of the Pan Painter classes the latter as merely another one of the Mannerists, although Beazley at least recognized that the Pan Painter was the only pupil who exceeded the accomplishments of his purported teacher. (31) Sourvinou-wood has rightly noted that the link between the two is based on rudimentary aspects of only a few formal similarities between them. (32) As she has argued, the identification of such a master's teacher should be based on similarities in types of figures and the composition of scenes, that is, "more sophisticated aspects of the vase-painter's craft," rather than on elementary renderings and consistent sets of formal similarities. (33) If Sourvinou-Inwood is correct, these complex similarities might reflect a mature mentor-advisee relationship. That is, the Pan Painter might have developed his formal similarities with Myson early in his career in Myson's workshop, while his compositional and figural similarities with the Berlin Painter developed through a later association. Accordingly, Sourvinou-Inwood proposed a career for the Pan Painter in which he was an errand- or shop-boy under Myson and a proper apprentice under the Berlin Painter. (34)
If we adopt Sourvinou-Inwood's hypothesis with regard to the career of the Pan Painter, we can keep the main contribution of Beazley's work on the master--his definition of that painter's style in the Morellian manner (35)--and accept Sourvinou-Inwood's cogent points of comparison of the Pan Painter with his supposed teachers, Myson and the Berlin Painter. In the remainder of this article, I follow this proposed career path of the Pan Painter. I begin with Beazley's identification of the formal tendencies of the Pan Painter and a consideration of which of them he may have learned from Myson. I then enumerate and explain connections between the Pan Painter and the Berlin Painter. These include the range of shapes decorated as well as compositional and formal similarities. This leads to an investigation of the ways in which the younger painter may have adapted lessons learned from the Berlin Painter to his own distinct artistic style, including specific anatomical renderings, the use of contour, emphatic (mannered) drapery, and black space. In the oeuvre of the Pan Painter, these tendencies manifest themselves in a decorative style through which images emphasize the shape of each pot. Using examples from across the Pan Painter's iconographic range, I will detail the four ways (volume, outline, texture, and detailed flourishes) in which he adapted costumes, attributes, and overall composition to complement the shape of each pot decorated.
The Pan Painter and My son
Beazley's points concerning the Pan Painter's style are easily summarized in his analysis of the painter's name vase, the Pan krater in Boston (Figs. 1, 2). (36) Noted in anatomical order from head to toe, these consist of (1) round skulls; (2) the outer contour of the hair, usually smooth; (3) small facial features; (4) eyes as on Artemis (upper lid never indicated, lashes indicated only once, eyeball rendered with a black dot); (5) short, round, conventional ears, rendered with black arcs; (6) short, flat noses; (7) large, round chins; (8) thick necks; (9) female breast large, not prominent, but deep; (10) detached black lines above the armpits as on the goatherd; (11) nipples indicated by black open ring or small arc, as on Aktaion; (12) frontal open hand as on Aktaion; (13) clenched hand as on Pan; (14) profile hip, as on the goatherd; (15) profile leg as on Pan; and (16) a tendency to favor profile feet, sinewy and graceful, with six or seven toes. Beazley also remarks on other, nonanatomical tendencies, for example, the rarity of inscriptions. (37) With regard to patterns, Beazley notes a preference for the stopped meander, often in pairs, sometimes alternating with cross-squares. (38) Regarding hair and especially attire, however, Beazley's description of the painter's style becomes diffuse, with many variants or alternatives. (39)
Of the formal characteristics of the Pan Painter's style discerned by Beazley, few are consistently found in the oeuvre of Myson. (40) Almost all of their similar traits are illustrated in Figure 6, side B of a calyx krater by Myson that depicts the struggle for the Delphic tripod. (41) For example, facial features are generally small, although Myson's noses are longer than those of the Pan Painter. While eyeballs are rendered with black dots, as in the work of the Pan Painter, Myson embellishes his figures with more eyelashes. Ears and chins are round, and the female breasts are large and deep. (42) Nipples are sometimes (not always) rendered, with the open round circles familiar from the Pan Painter's oeuvre. Most similar is their treatment of feet; both artists show such enthusiasm for long graceful feet that they forget to count the toes, which often number six or seven on a profile foot. Significant differences occur, however, in the treatment of the heads. Myson's profile heads taper toward the front, and the exterior contour is almost always rough.
[FIGURE 6 OMITTED]
The Pan Painter and the Berlin Painter
Sourvinou-Inwood's analysis of the more complex similarities between the Berlin Painter and the Pan Painter in terms of anatomy, clothing, and other attributes is summarized in Table 1. In addition to these formal correspondences, she notes similarities in spirit and figural types. For example, both the Berlin Painter and the Pan Painter do not abandon grace for liveliness. This Late Archaic tendency is exemplified in so-called staccato movement, as on side B of the Pan krater (Fig. 1). She also observes particular similarities in figure types, including the heroic or divine, such as Achilles, Poseidon/Triton, Perseus, Apollo, and Oreithyia, and generic types, such as the kitharoidos and flute-playing boys. (43)
I would add to these connections between the Berlin Painter and the Pan Painter further similarities in shapes, pattern, and style. Table 2 shows the overlap in shapes between the Pan Painter and his two putative teachers. (44) The two shapes in common that the Pan Painter and Myson most often decorated, the pelike and column krater, are the shapes that the Pan Painter seems to have preferred in his younger days, according to Beazley's stylistic observations. (45) This pattern supports Sourvinou-Inwood's proposal that the Pan Painter began as an apprentice under Myson. The Berlin Painter also painted a fair number of each of these shapes, however. Whereas Myson is not known for small pots, or even other large pots (small numbers of only eight other shapes have been attributed to his hand), both the Berlin Painter and the Pan Painter painted a wide range of small- to medium-sized pots, notably neck amphoras (32% and 9% of their oeuvres, respectively), lekythoi (14% and 18%), hydrias (8% and 6%), stamnoi (6% and 2%), and oinochoai (2% and 2%). While it is clear that both painted a wider range of shapes than their contemporaries, most of the shapes that they shared in common were popular among other painters.
More remarkable, however, is that both painted the extremely rare bell krater form with lugs (five and three examples, respectively). (46) Lug handles seem to have been a characteristic of earlier bell kraters. Martin Robertson stops short of suggesting that the Berlin Painter (or his potter) introduced the bell krater, which was unknown in the 6th century. (47) The Pan Painter adapted the bell krater by adding a foot in two degrees, as on his name vase (Fig. 2). Like the column krater (the Pan Painter's favorite krater), the bell krater with lugs high on the body emphasizes the flat top of the krater, which contrasts with its sharply curving body.
There are three reasons a painter would paint such a wide range of pots. First, it shows off a painter's versatility, which, combined with varied iconography, might suggest some element of artistic experimentation. Second, the wide range would appeal to a variety of markets and consumers. Third, it could also suggest that the painter was working with several different workshops over his career. None of these explanations is provable, the last in particular because of the lack of potter signatures in the oeuvres of these two painters. (48)
Both the Pan Painter and, more famously, the Berlin Painter preferred to use black space at the expense of ornament. The Pan Painter is not alone in following the Berlin Painter in this preference, but it is nonetheless a noticeable feature of his oeuvre. When either used ornament, however, he employed it most frequently in the decorative bands that served as ground lines. There are clear similarities between the two in terms of actual patterns. Here the remarks of Beazley ring true, that the Pan Painter's most common pattern is the stopped meander, often rendered in pairs varied by cross-squares (Fig. 7). (49) Saltire, checkerboard, or cross-squares also commonly interrupt pairs or triplets of stopped meanders. Such schemes are found on a variety of shapes (see Figs. 1 and 2 where the Pan Painter employs three or four stopped meanders alternating with cross-squares), but mostly on lekythoi (cf. Figs. 8 and 9 with the work of the Berlin Painter and the Pan Painter, respectively). (50)
[FIGURES 7-9 OMITTED]
It is remarkable that the Pan Painter used the same range of patterns as the Berlin Painter, for none of his contemporaries and few of his students (notably the Achilles Painter) followed the Berlin Painter with regard to patterns. (51) The Pan Painter modified the Berlin Painter's variation technique, dubbed "ULFA" (upper, lower, facing alternately) by Beazley. (52) According to the ULFA system, the painter would alternate the direction from which the interruptive ornament emerged (upper, lower) and the direction of the meander on either side of the ornament (facing alternately). Sometimes the Pan Painter used an intermediate version, which I will call "UL," in which the interruptive ornament emerged alternately from the upper and lower parts of the decorative band, as on the upper body frieze of a lekythos in Providence (Fig. 10). (53)
[FIGURE 10 OMITTED]
Comparisons of style revolve primarily around contour and figural renderings. Contour is aptly defined by Sourvinou-Inwood as "the line along which the black surface meets the red one." (54) It is an overwhelming passion of both the Pan Painter and the Berlin Painter, one that is all the more notable in an era when contemporaries such as the Kleophrades Painter or even Myson were striving for statuesque figures. Both the Pan Painter and the Berlin Painter insert extra attributes into the outstretched hands of their figures or embellish them with emphatic drapery, providing longer and more varied contour lines. Moreover, both make use of the black space to focus the viewer's attention on the lovingly detailed contour line.
The Archaic passion for contour is a legacy of the black-figure style, epitomized by Exekias. The black figures were essentially silhouettes (dark forms) surrounded by light (the pinkish red reserved clay), and the contour outlined each figure. Contour was all the artists could use to flesh out their figures; regardless of surface decoration (incision and added colors), the black figures remained flat and two-dimensional. The red-figure revolution, starting ca. 530, freed the figures; the black backgrounds literally threw the red figures (now in a color that more closely corresponded to a natural skin tone) into the spotlight. This inversion of light on dark made the red figures seem three-dimensional, even without added details. Late Archaic and especially Early Classical red-figure artists paid increasingly less attention to contour and invested more effort in the careful articulation of the body through relief lines to delineate musculature, drapery, and texture, as well as form. These are the elements that describe a figure's volume. The more emphatic the volume or three-dimensionality of a figure, the more it gives the impression of a statue, prompting the description of some Late Archaic and Early Classical figures as statuesque.
As I discuss below, the Pan Painter is by no means ignorant of or disinterested in the volume of his figures or their clothing. The Berlin Painter and the Pan Painter, however, both use contour and volume (sometimes even in the same compositions) to obtain specific effects. (55) An elaborate outline might convey a two-dimensional effect, as in the case of flat hemlines (compare, for example, Oreithyia on Fig. 7 with Nike on Fig. 8). Both painters also make their otherwise slim and small-headed figures more voluminous through skillful anatomical touches, dramatic drapery, and especially patches of unarticulated clothing; compare Oreithyia's buttocks on Figure 7 to those of Nike on Figure 8. Yet their figures remain elegant and are hardly massive enough to be called statuesque.
The Pan Painter's Distinct Artistic Style
It is in his figural renderings that the Pan Painter's style evolved beyond that of the Berlin Painter. Like his supposed mentor, he brought the Archaic style and spirit into the Classical period. Both painters dressed their figures in emphatic drapery; Sourvinou-Inwood notes the peculiar stiffening of the ends of the himatia. (56) This is most familiar from the Marpessa psykter (Figs. 4, 5). The same tendency is found in capes and epiblemata (as on Artemis in Fig. 2, and Nike in Fig. 8). The Pan Painter, however, made further use of clothing, attributes, and composition to emphasize or complement the shape of the decorated vessel.
The Pan Painter's use of clothing for artistic effect manifested itself in four ways. First, the shape of the clothing, as defined by its volume, mimics the volume of the pot, as in the case of the woman on a Nolan amphora in Copenhagen; her trunk, with narrowed waist and billowing skirt, suggests the overall form of the amphora, with its broad neck sharply divided from the rounded body. (57) Second, the shape of the clothing, as defined by the outline, might reflect the shape of the pot. The verticality of a lekythos from the excavations at Eretria is emphasized by the himation that falls almost perfectly into a hemline that mimics the base of the lekythos body (Fig. 11). (58) Third, the texture or the overall surface of the clothing might imitate the pot shape, as in the case of the pleats on Oreithyia's skirt, which follow the slope of the lower part of an oinochoe (Fig. 7). Fourth, other detailed flourishes might also repeat the shape of the pot. For example, the stiffened ends of Nike's epiblema hang almost plumb vertical, as does the stand that she holds in her right hand on the lekythos in Providence (Fig. 10); both clothing and attribute emphasize the verticality of the lekythos on which she hovers. It is true that standing vertical figures are especially well suited to a strongly curving vertical surface, but the Pan Painter is unusual among Classical Attic painters in using clothing and other attributes, rather than figures or patterns alone, to emphasize the verticality of his lekythoi.
[FIGURE 11 OMITTED]
The Pan Painter's use of clothing to mimic pot shapes results in some unusual iconography. Both women's garments billow out unusually toward the hem on the bottom-heavy pelike in Newcastle that they adorn (Fig. 12). (59) The same effect is used in moderate form on a running Athena from Madrid, whose billowing sleeves mimic the handles of the neck amphora. (60) Shapes are sometimes inverted. On a neck amphora in New York the kitharoidos robe tapers and billows at the bottom, just as the body of the amphora tapers and billows at the top. (61) Garments that round out around the upper half of the body are reminiscent of the high maximum diameter of the hydria, as on an example in St. Petersburg. (62) The wide flaring skirts of ladies running around the conical base of a lebes gamikos in Providence complement the shape of this support itself. (63) In addition, the totally artificial flourishes of drapery at neck level on the Marpessa psykter suggest the everted rim of the vessel that they decorate (Figs. 4, 5).
[FIGURE 12 OMITTED]
The Pan Painter matched not only figural drapery but also headgear and other attributes to the shapes of the pots. A broad-brimmed petasos tops a figure in the same manner as the shoulder of a lekythos tops that vessel, and it lines up neatly with the carinated shoulder of the lekythos (Fig. 9). A favorite hat of the Pan Painter is the furry hat of the fisherman or ferryman; not surprisingly, this hat mimics the shape of the pelike. (64) Medusa's rounded wings nicely inscribe the tondo of a cup in Berlin. (65) Ganymede's cock on an oinochoe in New York recalls the trefoil lip of the selfsame pot. (66) Dionysos's stool, held by a satyr on a column krater, recalls the leglike, upright handles of that krater. (67) Gestures might produce the same effect, as in the case of outstretched arms that recall the broad rim of a column krater. (68)
Finally, the overall composition could fill the shape of the pot most appropriately, as on the Busiris pelike in Athens (69) and the Pan Painter's name vase. On side A of the Pan vase (Fig. 2), the pose of each figure follows the gentle curve of the bell krater. The legs of both characters are brought together below, while their upper bodies lean up and out to the same degree as the walls of the krater.
A FREELANCE PAINTER IN EARLY CLASSICAL ATHENS?
If we return to Myson and the Berlin Painter in order to understand the influences on the Pan Painter, our thoughts turn to their collaborators. For which potters did each of the three paint? Scholars have recently agreed that potters rather than painters seem to have organized the workshops near the end of the Archaic period. Artists' signatures have been helpful in this regard, especially for Late Archaic artists including Nikosthenes and the Pioneers (innovators of the red-figure technique); by the 530s, potter signatures outnumber painter signatures seven to one. (70) The only signature associated with the work of Myson is his own signature, as both potter and painter, on a column krater fragment from the Acropolis. (71) This must have been a special votive piece prepared by the master for the goddess Athena. Two cups signed by potters once associated with the Berlin Painter are now not generally included in his oeuvre. (72) No artist signatures whatsoever are found in the oeuvre of the Pan Painter.
Martin Robertson proposed that the Pan Painter might have been his own potter. (73) While his influence on the Mannerists seems to have been great in stylistic and iconographic details, and in details related to shape, neither they nor any other painters copied his overall style. (74) The Pan Painter might have collaborated in some way with the Mannerist workshop, founded, as Beazley implies, by Myson, (75) but if he ever found himself in charge of the workshop he must have run it with a very free hand. This free hand extended to his own work, however, not just to his influence on the other Mannerists.
Like that of the Berlin Painter, the Pan Painter's oeuvre is one of constant variety. There are general tendencies in costume and pattern, but no stock figures or scenes. The variation in the oeuvre of the Pan Painter makes it difficult for us to pin him down. It seems most likely, therefore, that the Pan Painter, like the Berlin Painter before him, worked for a wide range of workshops, for himself or different potters at different times, perhaps occasionally choosing the shapes that he preferred to decorate. Whereas the Berlin Painter, draftsman extraordinaire, had an exact and dependable hand, the Pan Painter varied his lines as much as he varied his figures, scenes, and the shapes of the pots he decorated. This variation attests to a high level of artistic experimentation that would characterize a craftsman, perhaps self-employed, who created art for its own sake, regardless of how it might have appealed to potters, patrons, or even other painters. Such a craftsman may not have been as rare in Classical Athens as was once thought. Certainly in the Late Archaic-Early Classical period--the era of the Pioneers, kalos inscriptions, and artist signatures--Greek pottery says at least as much about the artists as about the people or myths that they illustrated.
Balomenou, A. 1984. " [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]," ArchDelt 33, A' (1978), pp. 337-341.
Beazley, J. D. 1912a. "The Master of the Eucharides-Stamnos in Copenhagen," BSA 18, pp. 217-233.
--. 1912b. "The Master of the Boston Pan-Krater," JHS 32, pp. 354-369.
--. 1913. "The Master of the Nikoxenos Vase," BSA 19, pp. 229-247.
--. 1914. "The Master of the Achilles Amphora in the Vatican," JHS 34, pp. 179-226.
--. 1918. Attic Red-Figured Vases in American Museums, Cambridge, Mass.
--. 1931. Der Pan-Maler, Berlin.
--. 1946. Potter and Painter in Ancient Athens, London.
--. 1957. "Marpessa," in Charites: Studien zur Altertumswissenschaft, ed. K. Schauenburg, Bonn, pp. 136-139.
--. 1964. The Berlin Painter (Australian Humanities Research Council Occasional Paper 6), Melbourne.
--. 1974. The Pan Painter, Mainz.
--. 1986. The Development of Attic Black-Figure, Berkeley.
Berge, L. 1974. "Beazley's Myson: The Definition of an Artistic Personality in Attic Vase-Painting" (diss. Univ. of Oxford).
Boardman, J. 1975. Athenian Red Figure Vases: The Archaic Period, London.
Byvanck-Quarles van Ufford, L. 1949-1951. "Le style archaisant dans la peinture des vases attiques entre 460 et 450 av. J.-Chr," BABesch 24-26, pp. 21-26.
--. 1950. "La chronologie de l'art grec de 475 a 425 av. J.-Chr.," Mnemosyne 3, pp. 183-214, 288-301.
--. 1969. "Le psykter de Marpessa: Vase de style archique ou vase de style archaisant," BABesch 44, pp. 124-135.
--. 1988. "L'art grec preclassique et le style archaisant," BABesch 63, pp. 180-188.
CB = L. D. Caskey and J. D. Beazley, Attic Vase Paintings in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Oxford 1931-1963.
Diepolder, H. 1958-1959. "Ein neues Werk des Pan-Malers," MuJb 9/10, pp. 7-14.
Drougou, S. 1975. Der attische Psykter, Wurzburg.
Follmann, A.-B. 1968. Der Pan-Maler, Bonn.
FR = A. Furtwangler and K. Reichhold, Griechische Vasenmalerei, Munich 1900-1925.
Knigge, U. 1983. "Ein Junglingskopf vom Heiligen Tor in Athen," AM 98, pp. 45-56.
Mannack, T. 2001. The Late Mannerists in Athenian Vase-Painting, Oxford.
Robertson, M. 1959. Greek Painting, Geneva.
--. 1989. "Beazley's Use of Terms," in Beazley [Addenda.sup.2], pp. xii-xx.
--. 1992. The Art of Vase-Painting in Classical Athens, Cambridge.
Rouet, P. 2001. Approaches to the Study of Attic Vases: Beazley and Pottier, Oxford.
Sourvinou-Inwood, C. 1975. "Who Was the Teacher of the Pan Painter?" JHS 95, pp. 107-121.
Vierneisel, K. 1990. "Psykter fur kuhlen Wein," in Kunst der Schale: Kultur des Trinkens, ed. K. Vierneisel and B. Kaeser, Munich, pp. 259-264.
Williams, D. J. R. 1995. "Potter, Painter, and Purchaser," in Culture et cite: L'avenement d'Athenes a l'epoque archaique, ed. A. Verbanck-Pierard and D. Viviers, Brussels, pp. 139-160.
--. 1996. "Re-figuring Attic Red-Figure: A Review Article," RA 1996, pp. 227-252.
(1.) This tendency can be seen in works ranging from 18th-century etchings to 21st-century photographs in the Corpus vasorum antiquorum series.
I am grateful to Tracey Cullen and Hesperia's two anonymous reviewers who read and recommended improvements to earlier versions of this manuscript. This essay derives from a paper delivered to the Classical Archaeology Seminar at the Institute for Classical Studies, London, December 4, 2002. My thanks to Alan Johnston and Dyfri Williams for the invitation to deliver that paper.
(2.) Boston, Museum of Fine Arts 10.185. AR[V.sup.2] 550, no. 1; Paralipomena 386; Beazley [Addenda.sup.2] 256-257; Beazley Archive (hereafter abbreviated BA) no. 206276. For the Beazley Archive Database, see www.beazley.ox.ac.uk.
(3.) Hereafter, all dates are B.C. Beazley (1931, p. 17) dates the Pan Painter's work to the period 480-450.
(4.) Beazley 1912b, p. 354.
(5.) Robertson 1959, p. 120.
(6.) For Beazley's fluctuating opinions regarding these terms, see Robertson 1989; Rouet 2001, pp. 93-108.
(7.) Beazley includes the Pan Painter among the Mannerists in his lists (AR[V.sup.2] 550), but excludes him elsewhere: "I am not including the Pan Painter among the Mannerists in the stricter sense. He proceeds from the same teacher, and has much in common with them, but went his own way, is immeasurably superior, and did not sit, or not for long, in the Mannerist workshop" (Beazley 1946, p. 13, n. 1).
(8.) Beazley 1931.
(9.) Sourvinou-Inwood 1975, p. 108. An exception is the Eucharides Painter; Beazley 1913, p. 245. This followed his publication of the Eucharides Painter's oeuvre in Beazley 1912a.
(10.) The term is derived from the Italian maniera ("style"), which in the 16th century denoted "artistic ability and grace but also affectation and superficiality," as succinctly noted by Mannack 2001, p. 1. Beazley first used this term in connection with Attic black-figure vase painters in a chapter title in Beazley 1918, pp. 3-22.
(11.) Beazley 1974, p. 8.
(12.) Boston, Museum of Fine Arts 08.417. AR[V.sup.2] 579, no. 84; Paralipomena 391; Beazley [Addenda.sup.2] 262; BA no. 206686. 13. Mannack 2001, p. 121.
(14.) See Mannack (2001, pp. 61, 65, 67-68) for the lotus-bud chain.
(15.) Boardman (1975, p. 181) called him sub-Archaic. According to Beazley, "Der Maler beginnt als Manierist und endet als Manierist: dazwischen ist er mehr" (1931, p. 17).
(16.) Boardman 1975, p. 181.
(17.) Munich, Antikensammlungen 2417 (J 745). AR[V.sup.2] 556, no. 101; Paralipomena 376; Beazley [Addenda.sup.2] 258-259; BA no. 206344. Marpessa had to choose between two suitors, Apollo and Idas. For representations of this legend in Greek and Etruscan art, see Beazley 1957, p. 138. See, more recently, LIMC VI, 1992, pp. 364-366, s.v. Marpessa (L. Jones Roccos).
(18.) Drougou 1975, pp. 48-51; Vierneisel 1990.
(19.) Beazley 1931, p. 15. See also Diepolder 1958-1959, p. 13.
(20.) Follmann 1968, pp. 27-28. On p. 71, Follmann sees both Myson and the Pan Painter starting their careers ca. 490, which further complicates their alleged teacher-student relationship. Beazley and others suggest that the careers of both Myson and the Berlin Painter began around 500; for Myson, see Beazley 1946, p. 13; for the Berlin Painter, see below, n. 25.
(21.) Sourvinou-Inwood 1975, p. 109.
(22.) Byvanck-Quarles van Ufford 1969, pp. 128-132.
(23.) See, e.g., AR[V.sup.2] 196 for Beazley's summary of the Berlin Painter's decline.
(24.) This is part of a larger project on which I have embarked; I suspect that the internal chronology of the Pan Painter's oeuvre depends on his sketch lines, ornaments, and shapes.
(25.) Whereas Beazley (1931, p. 15) notes a long career for the Berlin Painter, from before 500 to after 460, elsewhere he dates the Berlin Painter's "latest period" to just after 480 (Beazley 1986, p. 87). The only dissenting voice on the career of the Pan Painter is Follmann (1968, p. 71), who has the Pan Painter and even Myson starting ca. 490. See also n. 20.
(26.) Byvanck-Quarles van Ufford 1949-1951, pp. 21-25; see also Byvanck-Quarles van Ufford 1950, pp. 292-294 and (seemingly in ignorance of Sourvinou-Inwood 1975) Byvanck-Quarles van Ufford 1988, pp. 184-186. For Kimon's ostracism, see Thuc. 1.102; Plut. Vit. Cim. 16.8-17.2.
(27.) Byvanck-Quarles van Ufford 1969, p. 132.
(28.) Sourvinou-Inwood (1975, pp. 110-111) objects that Kimon's successors did not reverse his policies nor reject his artistic patronage, as exemplified by the inclusion of the Battle of Oinoe, ca. 461 or later, among the murals on the Stoa Poikile and the completion of Pheidias's statue of Athena Promachos.
(29.) Sourvinou-Inwood 1975, p. 110.
(30.) Following Follmann 1968, p. 12.
(31.) Beazley 1931, p. 17. Mannack (2001, p. 5) is in agreement on this point. See also n. 7 above.
(32.) Sourvinou-Inwood 1975, pp. 108-109.
(33.) Sourvinou-Inwood 1975, p. 108.
(34.) Sourvinou-Inwood 1975, p. 109. Follmann (1968, p. 71) did not come to this or any conclusion, although she challenged the traditional view that Myson was the teacher of the Pan Painter. Berge (1974) also challenged Beazley's view of the relationship between the Pan Painter and Myson (see above, n. 7).
(35.) Giovanni Morelli pioneered the study of individual style in art. As noted by Rouet (2001, p. 60), while Beazley never mentioned the precedent that Morelli set for his own attributions to individual artists, their approaches were broadly similar and Morelli, his disciples, and their works were surely known to Beazley. According to Williams (1996, p. 241), Beazley's stylistic analysis derived from that of Paul Hartwig.
(36.) Beazley 1912b, pp. 363-366. I exclude from this list points that pertain to no more than a few examples or those on which Sourvinou-Inwood made inroads (see Table 1). See also Beazley 1974, the final English version of Der Pan-Maler, after revisions in 1944 and 1947.
(37.) Beazley 1912b, pp. 368-369.
(38.) Beazley 1912b, p. 369.
(39.) Beazley 1912b, pp. 367-368.
(40.) For more on Myson, see Berge 1974.
(41.) AR[V.supp.2] 239, no. 16; Paralipomena 349; Beazley [Addenda.sup.2] 201; BA no. 202164.
(42.) This last detail is not apparent in Fig. 5, but see the figure of Aithra on the obverse of the same vase, depicted in Robertson 1992, p. 125, fig. 128.
(43.) Sourvinou-Inwood 1975, pp. 115-119.
(44.) This table includes all pots attributed to the hand of each of these masters that were included in the Beazley Archive database as of October 13, 2005. While the Beazley Archive lists all published (and many unpublished) vases, it necessarily provides only a snapshot of any painter's oeuvre, due to limitations of the archaeological record.
(45.) Beazley 1931, p. 17.
(46.) The Beazley Archive lists only 12 red-figure bell kraters (many fragmentary, with or without evidence of lugs) from the period from 500 to 450, among 1,587 red-figure bell kraters in the entire archive.
(47.) Robertson 1992, p. 76. On the lug-handled bell krater, see also Knigge 1983, pp. 50-53.
(48.) It has been suggested at different times that the Berlin Painter painted pots made and signed by Sosias (Berlin F 2278; AR[V.sup.2] 21, no. 1; Paralipomena 323; Beazley [Addenda.sup.2] 154; BA no. 200108; attribution by C. M. Robertson) and Gorgos (Agora P 24113; AR[V.sup.2] 213, no. 242; Paralipomena 344; Beazley [Addenda.sup.2] 98; BA no. 202142; attribution by L. Talcott), although neither of these attributions has been widely accepted. Robertson (1992, pp. 58, 82) preferred an attribution of the Sosias cup to the Kleophrades Painter. The attributions to the Berlin Painter are, however, included in the Beazley Archive figures on which Table 2 is based.
(49.) Beazley 1912b, p. 368. London E 512. AR[V.sup.2] 557, no. 125; Paralipomena 387; Beazley [Addenda.sup.2] 259; BA no. 206239.
(50.) Berlin Painter: Berlin 1965.5. Paralipomena 345, no. 184bis; Beazley [Addenda.sup.2] 196; BA no. 352486. Pan Painter: Boston 13.198. AR[V.sup.2] 557, no. 113, 1659; Paralipomena 387; Beazley [Addenda.sup.2] 126; BA no. 206356.
(51.) On the Achilles Painter, see Beazley 1914, p. 186; more recently, Robertson 1992, pp. 71-72, esp. n. 167; p. 174, n. 93; p. 202.
(52.) Beazley 1964, p. 7.
(53.) Providence, Rhode Island School of Design 25.110. AR[V.sup.2] 556, no. 104; Paralipomena 388; BA no. 206347.
(54.) Sourvinou-Inwood 1975, p. 111.
(55.) I disagree here with Sourvinou-Inwood (1975, p. 112), who noted that "the Pan Painter uses contour less generally and in an entirely different way" (in comparison with the Berlin Painter).
(56.) Sourvinou-Inwood 1975, p. 113.
(57.) Copenhagen 4978. AR[V.sup.2] 553, no. 36; BA no. 206311.
(58.) Eretria, Archaeological Museum (no inv. no.). BA no. 16290. For photographs, see Balomenou 1984, pls. 101-103.
(59.) Newcastle upon Tyne, Shefton Museum 203. AR[V.sup.2] 1659, no. 92bis; Paralipomena 386; Beazley [Addenda.sup.2] 258; BA no. 275255.
(60.) Madrid 11119 (L 174). AR[V.sup.2] 553, no. 42; Beazley [Addenda.sup.2] 258; BA no. 206317.
(61.) New York 20.245. AR[V.sup.2] 552, no. 30; Beazley [Addenda.sup.2] 257; BA no. 206305.
(62.) St. Petersburg 627 (St. 1537). AR[V.sup.2] 555, no. 95; Paralipomena 287-288; Beazley [Addenda.sup.2] 258; BA no. 206338.
(63.) Rhode Island School of Design 28.020. AR[V.sup.2] 553, no. 27; BA no. 206302.
(64.) E.g., Vienna 3727. AR[V.sup.2] 555, no. 88; Beazley [Addenda.sup.2] 258; BA no. 206331.
(65.) Berlin 4951. AR[V.sup.2] 560, no. 159; BA no. 206405.
(66.) New York 23.160.55. AR[V.sup.2] 558, no. 127, 1569; Paralipomena 287; Beazley [Addenda.sup.2] 259; BA no. 206371.
(67.) New York 16.72. AR[V.sup.2] 551, no. 6; Paralipomena 386; Beazley [Addenda.sup.2] 125; BA no. 206281.
(68.) Munich 2378 (J 777). AR[V.sup.2] 551, no. 9; Paralipomena 387; Beazley [Addenda.sup.2] 257; BA no. 206284.
(69.) Athens, National Museum 9683 (CC 1175). AR[V.sup.2] 554, no. 82; Paralipomena 386; Beazley [Addenda.sup.2] 258; BA no. 206325.
(70.) Williams 1995, pp. 145-149.
(71.) Athens, National Museum, Acropolis Coll. 2.806. AR[V.sup.2] 240, no. 42; Paralipomena 349; Beazley [Addenda.sup.2] 201; BA no. 202359.
(72.) See n. 48, above.
(73.) Robertson 1992, p. 148.
(74.) See Mannack 2001, pp. 14, 17, 19, 22, 56.
(75.) Mannack (2001, p. 1) follows Beazley's ideas here.
Amy C. Smith
UNIVERSITY OF READING, WHITEKNIGHTS
DEPARTMENT OF CLASSICS
SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES
READING RG6 6AA
TABLE 1. STYLISTIC COMPARISON OF THE BERLIN PAINTER, PAN PAINTER, AND MYSON * Feature Berlin Painter Pan Painter ANATOMICAL RENDERINGS Neck Two brown lines converging, Same, occasionally not meeting Clavicle Inner ends curve in Same Upper arm Clavicles join median line Same Breast without curves Two convex brown lines Same, occasionally Triangle at join of median and Same breast lines Breast lines reach upper arms Same Rectus Series of separate, Same, occasionally abdominis self-contained bulges Six bulges Four bulges Lower leg Flowing relief line on front Same for figures in profile of thigh and leg nearest simple drapery spectator (if rear leg on garment wearer) Ankle Two lines (above and below), Same, later works almost in horseshoe single hooked line CLOTHING/ATTRIBUTES Drapery Simple two-dimensional garment Same with naturalistic fall, straight parallel folds ending at flat hemline Herakles' Conceived in three dimensions, Same club with careful relationship between knots Himation Ends thrown over sides of arms, Same then flying backward stiffly under arms Feature Berlin Painter Myson ANATOMICAL RENDERINGS Neck Two brown lines converging, Occasional, but not meeting strongly curving at base of neck Clavicle Inner ends curve in Similar, but sketchier; lines begin beyond base of neck Upper arm Clavicles join median line -- Breast without curves Two convex brown lines -- Triangle at join of median and Same, but less breast lines emphatic emphatic Breast lines reach upper arms Same, but less refined Rectus Series of separate, Same, but widely abdominis self-contained bulges spaced Six bulges Four bulges Lower leg Flowing relief line on front -- profile of thigh and leg nearest spectator (if rear leg on garment wearer) Ankle Two lines (above and below), Occasional and almost in horseshoe various CLOTHING/ATTRIBUTES Drapery Simple two-dimensional garment Similar, but tries with naturalistic fall, straight to give three- parallel folds ending at flat dimensional hemline appearance and depth to folds Herakles' Conceived in three dimensions, Two-dimensional, club with careful relationship with knots between knots in rows Himation Ends thrown over sides of arms, -- then flying backward stiffly under arms * Drawn from Sourvinou-Inwood 1975. TABLE 2. SHAPES DECORATED BY THE BERLIN PAINTER, PAN PAINTER, AND MYSON * Shape Berlin Painter Pan Painter Myson Alabastron -- 2 -- Amphora (A) 5 -- 1 Amphora (B) 1 1 -- Neck amphora (incl. Nolan) 114 16 -- Panathenaic amphora 33 1 1 Other amphoras 4 -- 1 Askos -- 1 -- Chous 2 -- 2 Cup 4 9 1 Stemless cup -- 1 -- Dinos 2 -- -- Hydria 29 11 -- Kantharos -- 1 -- Bell krater with lugs 5 3 -- Calyx krater 20 2 1 Column krater 4 29 80 Volute krater 6 -- -- Other kraters 1 1 -- Lebes gamikos -- 4 -- Lekanis 1 -- -- Lekythos 51 30 -- Loutrophoros 1 4 -- Mug -- 1 1 Oinochoe 7 3 1 Pelike 9 22 21 Phiale 2 -- -- Plate 2 1 -- Psykter -- 1 3 Skyphos 1 8 -- Stamnos 22 3 -- Other fragments 28 15 3 Total 354 170 116 * Drawn from the Beazley
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Author:||Smith, Amy C.|
|Date:||Oct 1, 2006|
|Previous Article:||On the road again: a Trajanic milestone and the road connections of Aptera, Crete.|
|Next Article:||The Eastern Korinthia Archaeological Survey: integrated methods for a dynamic landscape.|