The position of the artist in the ancient Greek world is an important theme, now less debated than it used to be, but often still an implicit issue in studies of individual artists, personal styles or specific iconography. This volume addressing the theme through case studies exploring rather diverse approaches, at different levels of detail and covering a variation of media, offers a welcome new contribution. Although some papers drift away from the main issues, the balance between diversity and complementarity of chapters is successfully found – with the help of J. Hurwit's concluding chapter, which nicely brings together several thematic lines hidden in the papers, also suggesting connections beyond what is treated before.
At the other end the introduction, by Seaman, does a good job in placing the volume in the context of relevant ongoing debates, although it remains curiously vague on the basic categories the volume is about. Indeed, questions like ‘what is an artist?’ (from a present-day and/or ancient point of view) or ‘how do we define artistic personalities?’, a central issue in some of the following papers, are brought up, but not answered. Even if this were a result of a perceived impossibility to provide adequate definitions, or of a feeling that such issues have already been covered sufficiently, one may expect a clearer conceptual starting point for a volume that focuses on the essences of defining and tracing artistic personalities. More generally, those seeking theoretical or conceptual reflection should look elsewhere, as this volume focuses on practical aspects of the positions and status of artists, and on their roles as individuals.
Aside from the introduction and conclusion, the papers can be divided into two groups, mixed in the book: ‘monographic’ ones focusing on artistic personalities and what one may define as their individual agency; and some reflecting on the roles of the individual maker in arts and crafts that have not traditionally been viewed as the fruit of individual efforts or the product of individually recognisable artists.
The four biographically oriented contributions form a coherent set of papers, each focusing on different aspects of artistic personality, ancient and modern perceptions of artists, and our abilities to see and interpret the personal aspects of art works. J. Neils explores vase-painter and potter Euthymides’ personality and position in society as visible through his work and Akropolis votives possibly related to him. Although the approach is not quite new, the broad and refined paper adds nuance often missing in discussions of the clearly proud and even flamboyant early red-figure painters, the so-called Pioneers. It must be noted, however, that the argumentation is mostly built upon evidence that is the subject of ongoing scholarly debates (not discussed by Neils). Although accepted by many, the idea that Euthymides’ father, mentioned by him in the genitive as ‘Polio’ (in four signatures: Beazley Archive Pottery Database 200128, 200140, 200160, 200161), is the same as a sculptor Pollis mentioned by Pliny and Vitruvius, and a Pollias who has signed several bases of votives from the Akropolis, does require a few leaps of faith. Secondly, the reading of an incompletely preserved sculptor's signature as that of Euthymides on another Akropolis base (A.E. Raubitschek, Dedications from the Athenian Akropolis [1949], pp. 168–9, no. 150) is uncertain at best. Without this evidence connecting him to sculpture, little support remains for the idea that Euthymides was a wealthy artist of some renown, who could have enjoyed symposia in Athenian elite circles. Neils could at least have mentioned these uncertainties; a more explicit discussion of them would have been a relevant addition to the volume.
Although he does offer a biographical overview, A. Stewart's article on Kritias and Nesiotes focuses on their most famous work, the Tyrannicides. This is presented as a revolutionary sculpture, offering a new style and an innovative composition, which together strengthen its political message. In Stewart's view, the Tyrannicides shows that the innovating force of individual artists is an essential aspect of Greek art and crucial to its contribution to the history of Western Art – perhaps a grand and subjective claim, but it is forcefully argued.
O. Palagia offers a more down to earth re-evaluation of Euphranor's work, based on precise observations of archaeological contexts and a thorough analysis of compositional and stylistic aspects of some works possibly by him. The paper offers an exemplary case of connoisseurship, also because the supporting arguments for Palagia's attributions and interpretations are clearly presented. Moreover, she does not hide that some of her observations and conclusions are not shared by others.
Schultz offers a more innovative analysis of Kephisodotos the Younger, starting from the evaluation of his social position (which is well documented), extending this to his political position as possibly expressed by his statues, in connection with his networks of patronage. In the end the results of this more historical approach are not unlike those of the previous articles, though less visually oriented.
M. Miles's paper fits in between the groups discerned above, since it aims to show that an artist does not exist. In a few pages, the so-called ‘Theseum-architect’, created by William Dinsmoor in 1940 as the explanation for stylistic similarities between a series of fifth-century temples in Athens, is systematically deconstructed. Miles shows that many shared features of these temples as noted by Dinsmoor simply do not exist or are unlikely to be connected to a single individual. Besides an exploration of stylistic analysis, or rather analysis of stylistic individuality, the paper is also an illuminating evaluation of the roles of the individual artist in shaping Classical monumental architecture, which is so bound by restraints of function and patronage on one side and artistic convention on the other.
Exactly this connects Miles's paper with those on the less individually seen arts (or crafts) of producing coins, mosaics and pottery. By highlighting some revealing stylistic and compositional choices of die-makers who transcended conventional solutions, I. Pafford convincingly shows that these supposedly humble craftspeople did have individual agency and could show artistic ambition, even under the guidance of controlling bodies. Her, in my view, rather speculative and universalist elaborations of specific meanings attached to aspects of composition seem less convincing, or in any case difficult to substantiate. It is good, however, to realise that even apparently conventional ‘minor’ forms of art could have been more meaningful than we think, also on a detailed level.
Also inspiring is R. Martin's detailed examination of early mosaic-makers, based on the few existing signatures and close observation of some excavated material. Through her focus on the ambiguities and complexities of the ethnic identities of mosaic-makers in the eastern Mediterranean she also illuminates working practices and the roles of craftspeople in developing and spreading a then new art form, which turns out to be less derivative than often thought.
This leaves two papers I struggled with. While the quantitative approach to signatures on Greek vases that S. Bolmarcich and G. Muskett's chapter starts from offers a promising foundation for new interpretations, their results are disappointingly simplistic, as they not only appear to be mostly unaware of the vast body of existing literature on their subject, but also do not seem to have taken into account what we already know about distribution, use and appreciation of Greek pottery. Similarly, Seaman's rather blunt plea for Greek artists often being educated, rich and self-confident seems to have missed that most of what she is arguing for is already taken for granted in most recent literature (including other papers in this volume). The open issue, worth further attention, regards the representativity and reliability, on a detailed level, of the information offered by the well-known sources presented by Seaman. Unfortunately, the uncritical, naïve and sometimes faulty approach to the sources in her paper does not help to address that issue, which remains on the table.
Two missed opportunities, however, should not distract from the general quality of the volume, which offers important new insights and deserves a wide readership.
