Harvard Psychological Studies, Volume 2

by Unknown

There were no experiments on this question, for it will be seen from what follows that they would have been impracticable. But observation of several thousand photographs has made the following clear: When the series consists of objects having an æsthetic significance of their own, not depending on something else for their value, then variation is demanded. In other words, when a thing is an end in itself, we do not tolerate an exact duplicate. It may have a place in a series of others similar to it, but its own meaning loses force if another is beside it precisely alike. When, however, an object has no great significance by itself, or when however great its value, it be regarded as means to something greater, hence not an end in itself, it may be repeated without variation.

This principle may be stated from another point of view: Any work of art, of the highest significance in itself alone, must not be repeated at all. There must not be even the suggestion of repetition. The highest values are individual, and to have a copy or a series defeats its whole reason for being. Thus, a second Sistine Madonna, or a series of Venuses, would shock our whole æsthetic feeling. Moreover, we do not want a suggestion of repetition; even a series of different Madonnas in similar frames would take away from the significance of each, in so far as they were regarded as a series, and not as a mere collection of detached units.

But grading down from these works of the highest value in art, there comes a point where an object, although possessing considerable value in itself, is not so intensely individual but that it can gain somewhat by a place in a series of others like it in some respects, but differing enough so that each still keeps its own meaning distinct from the rest.

The balance between these two artistic aims, i. e., the significance of the unit, and the rhythm of the series, must be adjusted with great nicety, and certain principles obtain wherever such series are found. It would be useless to cite the numberless cases where such series occur. Many have already been given in the examples of statues of saints, paintings on altar-pieces, and reliefs alternating with statues. One such series is a type of all. The human form represents that which has the most significance in itself, so when it is used in a rhythmic series, its individuality must be toned down and conventionalized; it must have no marked feature in one unit that does not appear in another; the head and feet must be on the same level, or vary with regularity; the general character and spirit of all must be similar, but never identical.

The reducing to a common type is the demand of the rhythmic series; the difference in attitude and arrangement of detail is the demand of the unit.

Thus, the subjects chosen for repetition of this kind are in the majority of cases apostles and saints, whose spirit and general conception are the same; typical representations of abstract qualities, such as Virtue, Courage, etc.; or conventionalized cherubs, and even animals. As has been stated before, a long series of this kind is impossible without fatigue. In proportion as the object is repeated the individual units lose their own meaning, and they must have their individuality definitely toned down and conventionalized to avoid the clash between the two artistic values. Yet their essential peculiarity must always be maintained, for we refuse to admit or allow the total identity of any expression of living values, especially as expressed in the human form.

It may be urged that statues are often arranged at regular intervals around a building, where the effect of repetition is distinct, and yet each statue is distinctly valuable for itself. But a distinction must be insisted upon. The statues form a repeated series as regards uniformity in position, height, pedestal, and color, so that the direct sensuous effect may be called rhythmic. But as the attention fastens on each for itself and takes it for its own meaning, it ceases to be part of a series at all, but becomes a unit in a world of its own.

But what of the cases where the human form is repeated in a series, and does not vary? Examples of this are rare, but they do occur, and are interesting, since they throw light on what has been already said. In the whole collection of photographs only two were found where a series of identical statues of the human form occurred,—The Porch of the Maidens in the Erectheum of Athens, and the Baths of the Forum in Pompeii. In the former case the left knee of the caryatids on the right of the centre, and the right knee of those on the left of it, are raised a little; but aside from this slight variation the six statues are exactly alike. In the latter case a row of titans all around the interior bear the ceiling on their uplifted forearms and are all alike. These two examples are very perfect of their kind, and, far from offending us, are very satisfactory. The reason is obvious. In both cases the statues are not the æsthetic end in themselves, but are there for a purpose, namely, that of a support. They are not ends but means to something else, and as soon as we feel that in regard to any work which would otherwise be of individual significance, it ceases to be individual, or to demand a peculiar expression different from all others, but may be duplicated without offence. Therefore, since the support of the superstructure obviously is dependent on the maidens in the one case and on the giants in the other, and since instead of existing simply for their own value they are there to hold up the roof, their artistic significance changes at once from ends to means, and variation is not required. Moreover, it will be found in the majority of cases that we demand this invariability in actual supports. Although we find but these two cases where caryatids are actually identical, we find also that in most cases the caryatids do not really uphold the weight, but a pillar or pier behind them supplies the real architectural support, and, that although they have a place in front of the pillar and give an apparent assistance in bearing the weight of the roof, yet the eye is not deceived. We see that the work is really done by the pillar behind them, so they that resume their place as artistic ends demanding variation, and not as means to something else. The following examples were found:

Milan. Arca di S. Pietro Martire. Pillars uphold the arch while four statues of women stand just in front. The pillars bear the weight although the statues add strength to the whole. The statues are varied.

Dijon. House of Caryatids. Piers behind the caryatids give real supports to the roof, while the figures added for decoration are all varied.