8/3/2019 Article Review: The Parthenon Frieze

1/2

Article Review:

Osborne, R., 1987. The Viewing and Obscuring of the Parthenon

Frieze, JHS107: 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 theprocession 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 moneyfor 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 nofacial features whatsoever; this could possibly be a subtle way of telling the viewer to

8/3/2019 Article Review: The Parthenon Frieze

2/2

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 abit 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 lazyand 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