Still, on the whole, the Cyprian ceramic art is somewhat disappointing.
What is original in it is either grotesque, as the vases in the shape of
animals,[859] or those crowned by human heads,[860] or those again which
have for spout a female figure pouring liquid out of a jug.[861] What is
superior has the appearance of having been borrowed. Egyptian, Assyrian,
and Greek art, each in turn, furnished shapes, designs, and patterns to
the Phoenician potters, who readily adopted from any and every quarter
the forms and decorations which hit their fancy. Their fancy was,
predominantly, for the _bizarre_ and the extravagant. Vases in the shape
of helmets, in the shape of barrels, in the shape of human heads,[862]
have little fitness, and in the Cyprian specimens have little beauty;
the mixture of Assyrian with Egyptian forms is incongruous; the birds
and beasts represented are drawn with studied quaintness, a quaintness
recalling the art of China and Japan. If there is elegance in some of
the forms, it is seldom a very pronounced elegance; and, where the taste
is best, the suspicion continually arises that a foreign model has been
imitated. Moreover, from first to last the art makes little progress.
There seems to have been an arrest of development.[863] The early
steps are taken, but at a certain point stagnation sets in; there is no
further attempt to improve or advance; the artists are content to repeat
themselves, and reproduce the patterns of the past. Perhaps there was no
demand for ceramic art of a higher order. At any rate, progress ceases,
and while Greece was rising to her grandest efforts, Cyprus, and
Phoenicia generally, were content to remain stationary.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account