Pausanias_Travel_Writing_in_Ancient Greece [Maria_Pretzler]

8. Considering Works of Art
though he does not discuss his own theoretical thoughts on art criticism. 22
Pollitt presents a collection of specialised Greek terms that were used to
describe the qualities of art. Pausanias uses a fair range of words to
describe what he has seen, but his technical vocabulary is less varied than
that of authors more interested in matters of style and expression, be it in
art or literature, especially Lucian. 23 In fact, Pausanias is rarely interested
in matters that were central to ancient art criticism, for example the effect
of an art work on the viewer, or the analysis of an artist’s methods of
mimesis, the imitation of the natural world. Lucian comments on problems
of focus in some art descriptions:
There are some who leave out or just touch upon the great and memorable
events, and, through lack of education or taste and because of their ignorance
of what to mention and what to leave out, they expound extensively and
laboriously on the smallest details. This is just like someone who overlooks
the overall beauty of the Zeus of Olympia and fails to praise and describe it
for those who do not know it, while admiring the good workmanship and
finish of the footstool and the fine proportions of the base, describing them
with the greatest attention to detail. 24 (Lucian Hist. Conscr. 27)
This example of a ‘failed’ description of a great work of art is uncannily
close to a summary of Pausanias’ description of Pheidias’ Zeus at Olympia.
Pausanias gives a quick overview of the posture and attributes of the god,
in much the same manner as in his description of the same artist’s Athena
Parthenos at the beginning of this chapter, but he adds a meticulous
discussion of the reliefs on the throne and footstool. There is no conclusive
evidence that Lucian knew Pausanias’ work, but he shows that some
ancient pepaideumenoi with a special interest in sophisticated art criticism
may have found Pausanias’ approach wanting, just as art historians
do today.
When Pausanias describes the appearance of an art work he often starts
with the material of which it was made, especially if it was in some way
different from the norm. He comments on building materials, for example
the colourful marble so fashionable in his own time, but he also distinguishes
different types of the more conventional white marble, and he
mentions local limestone, fired brick and mud brick. 25 Details about material
and technique were particularly relevant for the description of
statues. Bronze statues were the standard, and many were made of white
marble, which is sometimes identified as coming from a particular source,
such as Pentelic or Parian, while coloured marble was comparatively rare
in sculpture. 26
Pausanias was particularly interested in wooden statues
because to him this simple material usually indicated that they were
particularly ancient. 27 Some statues were made of a combination of materials,
such as gold and ivory mounted on a wooden substructure (chryselephantine
statues), or wooden torsos with hands and faces made of stone (acroliths).
Special attention is paid to extraordinary materials, for example a statue
109