Parrasius’s “Middle Body”: Solving One Riddle by Johann Joachim Winckelmann

Abstract

One of Winckelmann’s most enigmatic judgments about ancient painting is examined from the point of view of contemporary theories of auto-communication and the mask of silence. Winckelmann suspected the ancient painter Parrhasius of lacking painterly effects, which caused his grace not to manifest itself in everything, despite the impeccability of his talent. The authors argue that Winckelmann proceeded from different modes of considering ancient art, not only direct contemplation but also ecstatic peeping. For him, what was essential was not only what glitters with perfection, but also what catches the eye. We apply the method of contextualising Winckelmann’s legacy. Winckelmann, in describing antique sculpture, was at the same time equal to the practical ways of describing drawing (‘disegno’) and to the theoretical parameters of characterising the expressiveness that prevailed in the era of Mannerism. In doing so, he did not speak of Mannerism; Mannerism remained the null signifier or blind spot of his system. This allowed him to ideologise drawing as an expression of pre-established harmony. But as soon as he confronted the obscure points of ancient art theory, he introduced dynamics, the interactive spinning of plastic choices, which makes him a forerunner of contemporary art with interactive space installations and the poly-screen. Winckelmann’s mimetic theory included an ecstatic element comparable to later theories of ecstatic or affective experience. This allowed him to characterize ancient painting in a consistent way, discovering its pathetic character. Nowadays, his ideas are essential for understanding the switching of modes in the contemplation of painting, from mere fascination to enhanced performative communication.

References

1. Vinkel’man I.-I. Istoriya iskusstva drevnosti. Malye sochineniya [The history of ancient art. Small works]. I. E. Babanov (ed.). SPb., Aletejya, 2000, 792 p. (In Russ.)

2. Dekyul’to E. H. Model’ istorii iskusstva u I. I. Vinkel’mana [Winkelman’s model of art history]. Istoriya nemeckoj literatury: Novoe i novejshee vremya. E. E. Dmitrieva (ed.), A. V. Markin (ed.), N. S. Pavlova (ed.). Moscow, RGGU, 2014, p. 225–232. (In Russ.)

3. Koshaev V. B. Otdel’nye voprosy iskusstvoznaniya [Selected issues of art studies]. Teoriya i istoriya iskusstva, 2017, no. 1/2, p. 8–28. (In Russ.)

4. Plinij Starshij. Estestvoznanie. Ob iskusstve [Natural science. About art]. G. A. Taronyan (trans.). Moscow, LadomiR, 1994, 942 p. (In Russ.)

5. Florenskij P., svyashch. Ne voskhishchenie nepshcheva (Flp. 2, 6–8): K suzhdeniyu o mistike [Nepshchev’s Non-admiration (Phil. 2, 6–8): Towards a judgment on Mysticism]. Bogoslovskij vestnik, 1915, vol. 2, no. 7/8, p. 512–562. (In Russ.)

6. Sholokhova S. A. Sverkhstrastnost’ i terapevticheskij podkhod v dizajnanalize [Super-passion and therapeutic approach in design analysis]. (Post)fenomenologiya: novaya fenomenologiya vo Francii i za ee predelami. Sost. S. A. Sholokhova, A. V. Yampol’skaya. Moscow, Akademicheskij proekt, 2014, p. 256–268. (In Russ.)

7. Morales H. The torturer’s apprentice: Parrhasius and the limits of art. Art and text in Roman culture. J. Eisner (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. P. 182–209.

8. Moroncini B. Dialektischen bilder, Wunschsymbole, Pathosformel: Benjamin e Warburg. Benjamin, Derrida, Lacan. Bruno Moroncini (ed.) (Studia humaniora; volume LXVII). Firenze: Olschki, 2023, p. 81–103.

9. Stavrianakis A. How to use Pathosformeln in anthropological inquiry. An Ethnographic Inventory. London: Routledge, 2023, p. 143–151.

10. Winkelmann, Abbé. Reflections on the Painting and Sculpture of the Greeks… London: Printed for the Translator, and Sold by A. Millar, in the Strand, 1765, 288 p.