‘Boldness of design, matched by the quality of
craftsmanship and finish.’ Do you think this statement
applies more to the Doric friezes or the Ionic friezes you
have studied?
In order to determine whether ‘boldness of design, matched by the quality of craftsmanship and
finish’ applies more to Doric or Ionic friezes these terms must first be defined. This essay will use the
definition that Boldness of design is taking risks and doing something new either in storyline or
composition; quality of craftsmanship and finish will be defined as how well the piece fits together
and whether the sculpture achieves its aims. This essay will argue strongly that boldness of design
applies more to the Doric friezes and the quality of craftsmanship and finish applies more to the
Ionic friezes
There is a large amount of evidence to suggest that Doric friezes are bold in design. One example of
this is the Herakles and the Kerkopes metope on Temple C at Selinus. The artist has taken a story
that would have been well-known in that area and yet has been bold by attempting to differentiate
between the characters. It was created in 575-550 BCE around the time of the New York Kouros. This
architectural sculpture is bold because of the differentiation between the characters; the kouroi,
especially the New York Kouros are very plain in comparison. Herakles has a stern look on his face
whereas the Kerkopes have archaic smiles, referencing the story where they are meant to be
laughing. Herakles is also much more heavily defined as he is a strong hero. Woodford describes this
piece as a ‘well-constructed design’. Other pieces that show boldness of design are the metopes of
Herakles’ labours. This was the first time that these twelve labours were set in stone in this way. The
labours are a very coherent choice for metopes as it allows the artist to show off their boldness of
design by depicting Herakles differently in each one – he goes from young to old, exhausted in the
Nemian Lion episode, to humiliated in the Garden of Hesperides, to uncertain in the Cretan Bull. The
artist has moved away from the strong symmetry and repetition of the Archaic period and instead
has become subtler. Perhaps the thing that shows the boldness of design the most is Athena aging,
she goes from a youthful maiden to a very matronly figure, this is to emphasise the passage of time
and also to show something new. The Centauromachy metopes at the Parthenon also show boldness
of design. Metope xxvii is virtually freestanding, this high relief is characteristic of the boldness the
architects of the Parthenon wanted, nowhere else in architectural sculpture is there such high relief
especially on a metope that would not have been supported by anything; just hung high up on the
wall. Robertson compares this to the Cretan Bull metope, he says ‘the movement is more complex,
and there is a new element in the sweep of the Greek’s great cloak’. This shows that the artist has
learned from the Herakles metopes on the temple of Zeus and gone even further, thus trying
something new and so, being bold. Woodford believes that ‘the boldness of design is matched by
the quality of execution. Furthermore, metope xxviii is unique and consequentially bold in design,
because it depicts the Lapith losing against the barbarian centaur. The Greeks did not usually show
themselves as the weaker side as they wanted to show the victory of civilisation over barbarism. This
therefore makes the design bold.
However, there is an argument to say that Doric friezes are not bold in design. The Herakles and the
Kerkopes metope, while having differentiation is still full of the characteristic repetition, symmetry,
and pattern of the archaic period and thus, in that respect is not doing anything new. Moreover,
some may argue that the archaic smiles of the Kerkopes are not to express emotion but, as the
Anavysos Kouros, just the style of the archaic period, moving from the early to middle archaic
craftsmanship and finish.’ Do you think this statement
applies more to the Doric friezes or the Ionic friezes you
have studied?
In order to determine whether ‘boldness of design, matched by the quality of craftsmanship and
finish’ applies more to Doric or Ionic friezes these terms must first be defined. This essay will use the
definition that Boldness of design is taking risks and doing something new either in storyline or
composition; quality of craftsmanship and finish will be defined as how well the piece fits together
and whether the sculpture achieves its aims. This essay will argue strongly that boldness of design
applies more to the Doric friezes and the quality of craftsmanship and finish applies more to the
Ionic friezes
There is a large amount of evidence to suggest that Doric friezes are bold in design. One example of
this is the Herakles and the Kerkopes metope on Temple C at Selinus. The artist has taken a story
that would have been well-known in that area and yet has been bold by attempting to differentiate
between the characters. It was created in 575-550 BCE around the time of the New York Kouros. This
architectural sculpture is bold because of the differentiation between the characters; the kouroi,
especially the New York Kouros are very plain in comparison. Herakles has a stern look on his face
whereas the Kerkopes have archaic smiles, referencing the story where they are meant to be
laughing. Herakles is also much more heavily defined as he is a strong hero. Woodford describes this
piece as a ‘well-constructed design’. Other pieces that show boldness of design are the metopes of
Herakles’ labours. This was the first time that these twelve labours were set in stone in this way. The
labours are a very coherent choice for metopes as it allows the artist to show off their boldness of
design by depicting Herakles differently in each one – he goes from young to old, exhausted in the
Nemian Lion episode, to humiliated in the Garden of Hesperides, to uncertain in the Cretan Bull. The
artist has moved away from the strong symmetry and repetition of the Archaic period and instead
has become subtler. Perhaps the thing that shows the boldness of design the most is Athena aging,
she goes from a youthful maiden to a very matronly figure, this is to emphasise the passage of time
and also to show something new. The Centauromachy metopes at the Parthenon also show boldness
of design. Metope xxvii is virtually freestanding, this high relief is characteristic of the boldness the
architects of the Parthenon wanted, nowhere else in architectural sculpture is there such high relief
especially on a metope that would not have been supported by anything; just hung high up on the
wall. Robertson compares this to the Cretan Bull metope, he says ‘the movement is more complex,
and there is a new element in the sweep of the Greek’s great cloak’. This shows that the artist has
learned from the Herakles metopes on the temple of Zeus and gone even further, thus trying
something new and so, being bold. Woodford believes that ‘the boldness of design is matched by
the quality of execution. Furthermore, metope xxviii is unique and consequentially bold in design,
because it depicts the Lapith losing against the barbarian centaur. The Greeks did not usually show
themselves as the weaker side as they wanted to show the victory of civilisation over barbarism. This
therefore makes the design bold.
However, there is an argument to say that Doric friezes are not bold in design. The Herakles and the
Kerkopes metope, while having differentiation is still full of the characteristic repetition, symmetry,
and pattern of the archaic period and thus, in that respect is not doing anything new. Moreover,
some may argue that the archaic smiles of the Kerkopes are not to express emotion but, as the
Anavysos Kouros, just the style of the archaic period, moving from the early to middle archaic
