Parthenon Frieze Essay

In this article, Marconi pointed out that the Parthenon frieze was invisible, because the figures on the frieze were small and distorted, the lighting was bad, and people were not able to have a good view of it. Further, he argued that the invisibility of the frieze was not a severe problem due to three reasons. To begin with, the Parthenon was a treasury, so its frieze had a metaphoric value of expressing wealth and power. Also, the Parthenon is a temple with high level of attention. Moreover, it might functioned as a timeless memorial for the offspring and a favorable gift to the gods.

Marconi made a convincing argument about the metaphoric value of the Parthenon frieze. First, he discussed the development of Greek temple decoration and stated

that no earlier buildings in Athens and mainland Greece before the Siphnian Treasury used sculptural decoration. Then he connected figural decoration on the Parthenon frieze to that on the Siphnian Treasury frieze by giving the example that the Siphnian Treasury used its decorations to show richness and social power. Furthermore, he suggested that the Parthenon frieze were also utilized to indicate wealth and prestige. Since the Parthenon and the Siphnian Treasury were both built in ancient Greece in similar period, the comparison between them was a piece of solid evidence supporting the argument of the metaphoric value of the Parthenon frieze.
Then Marconi proposed that the Parthenon was not only a Treasury with metaphoric meaning but also a temple because of the high level of attention paid to its images.

However, his view was not compellingly supported. He first gave an example in Ion to suggest that people would highly notice the Parthenon frieze. Then in his discussion about the modern interpretation of figural decoration, he related the Parthenon frieze to Trajan’s Column. He contradicted the modern explanation that decorations on both of them were considered meaningless by showing that they were gazed by people in public. Yet, the example of Trajan’s Column here was inappropriate because of the tremendous differences in their backgrounds and their degrees of visibility. The Parthenon was constructed in around 400 B.C.E. in Athens to express the wealth of Athens and Athenians, while Trajan’s Column was built in 113 C.E. in Rome to show the king’s personal power. Also, unlike the Parthenon frieze, there are less distortions, better lighting, and good views when people look at Trajan’s Column, because figures were sculpted from bottom to top of Trajan’s Column, and nothing covers it, which makes it more visible to the viewers. Therefore, although both of the Parthenon frieze and Trajan’s Column are decorative, the relationship between them is

tenuous.
Through discussing the visibility of the Parthenon frieze, Marconi showed the Parthenon as both a treasury and a temple. His argument about its metaphoric meaning complemented what we learned in class that the narrative scenes on the frieze conveyed mythologies. Also, as a pre-architecture student, I benefit much from reading this article. Marconi discussed the degree of visibility of the Parthenon frieze based on its realistic expression and function. To argue that the frieze was invisible, he talked scientifically about how much people could see the frieze from different locations and angles with clear illustrations. Combining his research about the experience of viewers in reality with the plan view of the Parthenon we saw in class, I gained a three-dimensional picture of how peristyle, cella, colonnades were organized in a temple, Which gave me a more comprehensive understanding of the architectural style and structure of ancient Greece.