Hiding in Plain Sight, Yet Again: An Unseen Attribute, An Unseen Plan, and A New Analysis of the Portland Vase Frieze

Abstract

Hiding inPlain Sight,Yet Again: An Unseen Attribute,An Unseen Plan, and A New Analysis of thePortland Vase Frieze RANDALL SKALSKY JLhe Portland Vase has always drawn a crowd, and in the seventeen-plus years since my interpreta tion of itscelebrated frieze appeared here inArion,1 the bib liography has grown considerably. Offerings of differing readings have appeared; others have averred the primacy of older ones; none has gained any currency. Remarkably, though, all interpretations to date have failed to see, much less explain, a crucial figurai attribute in the frieze, one that proves to be both explicit and explicatory, and whose loca tion and appearance secures the identification of not one but, indeed, three figures. Furthermore, the attribute lies at the heart of a distinct schema of figurai grouping and arrangement that has also gone unheeded in previous treat ments of the Portland Vase frieze. Hiding inplain sight, this overlooked attribute can be seen almost dead center on the cover of the Winter 1992 Avion in which my interpretation was published.2 How is it that in the forty-six or so published interpretations spanning some four hundred years, an attribute thatwill soon seem imme diately apparent could be so consistently overlooked by so many for so long? Yet such was the case with the architec tural cryptograms revealed here almost two decades ago, and so it is again with these new findings. It is therefore a pleasure to amend the opening sentence of paragraph two inmy 1992 article: "The obstacle to inter preting the frieze is that all but one of the figures lack iden ARION I8.1 SPRING/SUMMER20IO 2 HIDING IN PLAIN SIGHT, YET AGAIN tifyingattributes," a statement prefacing the notion that the frieze could not be interpreted via the standard method of attributes.3 That contention is somewhat off the mark. By dint of this previously unknown attribute, Iwill show that one can, in fact, straightforwardly read the opening scene of the frieze using the attributes therein provided, but the open ing scene only. To complete the task, a second methodol ogy?that which I laid out in 1992?is a categorical sine qua non. One can, as I have already shown, successfully navigate the entire frieze using that second methodology alone but, as so many others have shown, not contrariwise. These new findings?the attribute and figurai plan?convince me that the artistic vision of the Portland Vase was purposefully ex ecuted in a two-part program. In this two-part scheme, one of themost strategically chal lenging programs in art history, the Portland artist first draws the viewer into his unique visual narrative by starting out with the old and familiar method of attributes, but then quickly changes all the rules. The use of attributes to identify figures and thereby tell a tale is a passive exercise requiring little effort on the part of the viewer; it is a common, shop worn, unexceptional methodology in ancient art. But the Portland Vase?technically, artistically, and conceptually ex ceptional by any standard?demanded more. Thus, rather than simply laying down an entire narrative in a labeled, linear sequence as was the norm, the artist changed gears halfway through, shifting into a second strat agem whereby a complex narrative involving changes in time, space, and players could be delivered, a unique format compelling the viewer to not just observe, but to participate; to not just read a series of attributes, but to actualize a pro gram of multi-dimensional, abstract thought. These new findings validate and verify the salient points I made in 1992; they further demonstrate that it iswise to heed Aesop in treating with the Portland Vase, for appear ances are indeed very often deceiving on this unique art work?architecture is not architecture, limbs are not limbs, Randall Skalsky 3 serpents are not serpents, attributes are not attributes, and divisions do not divide. Coming to these new findings?(a) the figurai arrange ment and grouping; (b) the new attribute; and (c) the two part methodology of decoding the frieze?began, in part, when revisiting a 1995 essay by Denys Haynes wherein, among other issues, he definitively argues that the creature nuzzled up to...