Article Review: Osborne, R., 1987. The Viewing and Obscuring of the Parthenon Frieze, JHS 107: 98-105.

The Parthenon Frieze is indeed a wondrous and obscure Greek work which makes it seem only fitting that Richard Osborne should use it as his primary source when exploring it. Osborne uses descriptions of the frieze in its natural position atop the Parthenon. He also includes photos such as the view of the frieze from the west colonnade (Plate 1 a) and the central scene of the east frieze (Plate 1 b). These photographs do not just present us with images of the frieze but also attempt to place the readers within the Parthenon gazing upwards at the frieze wondering why it is so obscure and perverse as Osborne quotes. The photographs attempt to take us as the reader back in time to view the Parthenon as it was and make us realise how a citizen or traveller would have felt and seen as they processed along with the procession displayed on the frieze. These photographs are extremely useful primary sources perhaps with the only better option being travelling to the Parthenon itself. However, I dont have the money for that so these photographs and Osbornes descriptive skills will have to suffice. Osbornes main argument regarding the frieze seems to be that the Athenians designed it to be viewed from outside the Parthenon. As A. W. Lawrence quotes, a continuous frieze was only visible from a distance in occasional glimpses between the columns. This leads me to believe that the sculptors wanted to give the effect of frames or panels, almost an ancient Greek comic book made out of stone and sheer brilliance. The comic book aspect of the frieze seems to derive from the fact that what the viewer sees is dependent upon his or her position and alters as that position alters. As the viewer alters their position, a new frame or panel will reveal itself from behind a column previously in the viewers line of sight. As Osborne makes clear, the process of viewing the frieze is a process of continuously creating new views it is the viewer who is master of what s/he surveys. Indeed, it seems the involvement of the viewer is key to the Parthenon frieze; if the viewer is an unimaginative vegetable who just stares at one section of the frieze and doesnt bother to continue, they wont see the full picture and wont benefit. However, if the viewer truly engages themself in the frieze, moves along and takes in each panel, a story can be told inside the mind of the viewer. The limit of possibilities for these stories seems not to exist as Osborne further goes on to explain how the frieze doesnt seem to have a topic. Brommer believes that the frieze is a timeless representation of a recurrent event, an event that isnt specified. This, coupled with the fact that the same type of face is used throughout the frieze for every young man, likewise for every adult man and for every girl leads me to believe that the frieze is almost a blank canvas waiting to be painted by the imagination of the beholder. In fact, Plate 1 b seems to portray characters with no facial features whatsoever; this could possibly be a subtle way of telling the viewer to

open their minds and place whoever they want on those faces, perhaps a loved one or a friend on the face of a character who seems important? The viewer could maybe even imagine the face of an enemy or just someone they dont like on a character who seems to be in a not-so-flattering position. Much like a young student reading a biology textbook just to find pictures of whales to tell his friend, Thats your mum, the same sort of imagination can be found by looking at the frieze and picturing different people on these blank, lifeless faces. However, this is just my opinion and I wouldnt dream of having an idea better than Osborne who goes on to suggest that in showing all the heads without individualisation the frieze shows a citizen body where distinctions are abolished and all are equal which in turn inspires the viewer to share the same sense of citizenry displayed in the frieze in their lives. I personally agree with this argument as it just seems to make sense. When nobody is different surely everyone is equal? Of course the fact everyone in the frieze looks the same could just be that the sculptors felt a bit lazy and didnt want to individualise anyone but for some reason I dont think that is the case. I also strongly agree with Osbornes final argument regarding the Parthenon frieze and the British Museum. The museum, Osborne describes, has put the blocks of the frieze on the inside wall of a room and [given] unimpeded views of the whole ensemble. I totally agree with Osborne when he says this has distorted the whole monument. The frieze was displayed in its comic book-esque way seemingly to make the viewer feel like they were part of the procession and to move with it. When the whole frieze is just put in front of a person they can simply stand there (or be lazy and sit) and see the whole procession in front of them. The Parthenons structure gave the frieze life and movement whereas the British Museum distorts that and leaves it still and lifeless. Surely it couldnt hurt to place some columns in front of the frieze in the British Museum to give the illusion of the Parthenon? It just seems like such a waste to display the frieze, as Osborne says, in a totally alien manner which in turn creates an entirely new monument. As perverse and obscure as the Parthenon frieze is, that is what makes it the strange but wondrous work of art it is. As Osborne finishes, the British Museums display sadly stands between the viewer and the original. Its a pity, really. Word Count: 992 Words