These two old photographs show the famous dancer Isadora Duncan (top) and actress Jane Mansfield (bottom) standing in the ruins of the Parthenon, the most celebrated monument of ancient Athens. We will discuss this monument in detail during this coming Thursday's class. As a preview to our discussion, these photographs raise an important question: what is the relationship between the body and architectural space? How do these two images comment on that relationship and consequently emphasize different views/interpretations of the ancient structure itself?
The relationship between the body and architectural space is that this "space" was developed by the body for the body to move through. The Parthenon in particular was constructed as a temple so that the public could venerate Athena. Not only was it built to offer up praise and glory for the goddess, but it was made for people to be able to walk through in awe of their surroundings in order to create a feeling of reverence for their goddess. In my opinion, the grand structure of the Parthenon evokes emotion in common human being. As the human body walks through this architectural space, there is a sense of awe. The first photograph with Isadora Duncan can certainly solidify the fact that there is a great of wonder when you put a human body in a an architectural space such as the Parthenon. The juxtaposition between the small body of Isadora and the majestic columns of stone creates something very beautiful to not only experience but to look at as well - this photo emphasizes my point that architectural space is "for" the body to move through. The second picture highlights how the human body seems to be in a sense "bigger" than the architecture itself. Jane Mansfield's body seems to command the space around, which also emphasizes my original point (but another aspect of it) that architectural space is made "by" the body itself. We as human beings have command over the architectural spaces we want to build, and so we have control over what these space should evoke in us.
ReplyDeleteI came to this conclusion of the relationship between between architectural space and the body after reading through the article "Body in space : the sensual experience of architecture and dance" by Author: Huang, Emily Rai-Pi. http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/67399
DeleteWhat a thoughtful analysis, Julia! Your comments also reflect what we discussed in class: the Parthenon is a great example of a building that is both an embodiment of human ideals and also is designed to guide the human body of the viewer through the experience of its space, even to interact with its audience.
DeleteThese photos, to me, highlight how important it is to actually visit if possible the places we talk about in class. Especially in the photo of Isadora Duncan, we can see how large the structure is in comparison to the body. Since the Parthenon was built to honor Athena, a goddess, it makes sense that the Greeks would have wanted to make it as large and impressive as possible.
ReplyDeleteA simple but essential point, Jo! Understanding the scale of monumental spaces is key to understanding their meaning and relationship to the body (following Julia's comment above).
DeleteThe bodies help delineate the architectural space and help determine the scale of the Parthenon. In the first picture, the way the picture was taken from far away, the Parthenon looks very large, imposing, and regal. Since the body's position is off to the side, it feels as if the woman is the only one there at the time and emphasis seems much more on the architectural structure. In the second picture, the picture seems to have been taken from below looking up, making the woman the focal point. The emphasis seems more on the people in the picture instead of the architectural structure. The security guard to the left and the crowd of people to the right also bring this more touristy-feel to the picture and the architectural structure - Delia Shen
ReplyDeleteYou are quite right, Delia! The women (especially Jane Mansfield) are as much the subjects here as the buildings. It is interesting how different the building's relationship with the body appears between the two images.
DeleteThe Parthenon, while a large architectual advancement for the time, was built on a very large scale in order to evoke a certain experience when one enters the space. The two pictures above could be linked to the two different experiences one could have when entering into the space. The picture on top is taken from the vantage point of another human inside the Parthenon. This picture allows the viewer to see the scale of the Parthenon compared to the size of an average human. The second picture, on the other hand, appears to be taken from the vantage point of the ground. This allows for the object, in this case, Jane Mansfield, to appear much larger then she actually is, while the objects in the background, the Parthenon, appear smaller. This could allude to the idea that man is bigger than the architecture of the Parthenon because it was something that man created. While on the other hand, the first picture could be representing the exact opposite, despite being created by man, the Parthenon is undisputedly massive in scale and should be remembered as such.
ReplyDeleteExcellent, Harry! Both of these interpretations are actually valid in relation to the Parthenon itself. It represents something larger than any one individual, but it also is profoundly a human creation.
DeleteMany times when we study architectural structures, we forget that they aren't simply photographs in a history book. Having a person (or people) in the photograph with the structure sort of makes the structure seem more real. I agree with Delia in that the first picture emphasizes the structure and the second picture emphasizes the woman; however, I think in the second photograph, the woman seems to emphasize the lean and grandiose nature of the pillars, and in the first photograph, the woman seems to emphasize the magnificent size of the structure. I also agree with what Harry said in that the vantage point changes the meaning.
ReplyDeleteGood point about the relationship between Jane Mansfield's body and the columns! As we discussed in class, this was actually part of ancient architectural theory!
DeleteArchitectural spaces have a huge impact on the way the body is interpreted. Next to the massive columns, Isadora Duncan appears minuscule and therefore somewhat insignificant. The structure in this image is regal and powerful, despite the crumbling stone, because of her placement. The perspective in the second image creates a totally different interpretation of the woman and the structure. Here Jane Mansfield's body appears to match the size and power of the structure.Her voluptuous body overpowers the Parthenon, helped by the camera angle of the shot.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely -- it is interesting how even though the building is in ruins, it still exerts its power over the bodies that inhabit it.
DeleteThe poses of the bodies in both pictures raise interesting points about the way the architectural space can be interpreted. The postures and head positions in particular can draw attention to or away from the architectural space. In the image with Isadora Duncan, she is standing with her head turned to the side. This drew my attention away from her body and more towards the tall pillars on the right, especially because I could not see if she was looking at anything in particular. Her head position and neutral posture make her seem insignificant next to the grand Parthenon. In the photo with Jane Mansfield, she adopts a more powerful pose, as she stands up very straight and looks at the viewer, as if she knows that she is the center of attention. In my opinion, the straight posture makes her seem much more significant than Isadora Duncan did in her respective picture. This made me see the Parthenon as more of a complementary backdrop that adds a historic touch to an image where Mansfield seems to be the primary focus.
ReplyDeleteWhat a subtle observation, Sophie, especially about how the position of the women's heads alters our perception of their relationship to the building, on the one hand as awed and inspired, on the other as towering and dominant
DeleteArchitectures are mostly designed to create a functional space for human beings. When human bodies stand in an architectural space, they become a part of the architectural structure. In addition, just as human bodies, architectures also possess extremely high aesthetic values. Via these two pictures, it's not hard to see the similarities between the curves of human bodies and those of the Parthenon. These curves and silhouettes together create a sense of unification and harmony. Also, these two pictures perfectly exemplify the concept of "relative size". By playing with the camera angle, the photographers can easily achieve completely different effects. For example, in the first picture, we can apparently see the grandiosity of the Parthenon, while in the second picture, a sense of playfulness becomes more dominant.
ReplyDelete"relative size" is a nice term to describe the differing effect of these two photographs!
DeleteI spent the first four weeks of this summer taking a class in Athens, Greece so I'm very excited that this week's blog is about the Parthenon, which I recently visited. The Parthenon was created as a temple for the Greeks to worship Athena, so the space was created for people to visit and although it no longer serves its original purpose, it continues to exist for people to explore what was once a sacred space. In addition, the Parthenon is an architectural feat due to its size, which is emphasized in the picture with Isadora Duncan. Her body compared to a pillar shows how tall the structure is. The picture of Jane Mansfield is taken from a very different angle where she looks bigger than the Parthenon and looks like the subject of the picture. This comparison is special because the pictures were taken in an identical place but have entirely different view points.
ReplyDeleteabsolutely, your comment nicely emphasizes how the relationship between the Parthenon and its audience has changed over time -- something you will discuss more in section this week!
DeleteThe Parthenon was the largest temple built during the time. It was filled with lots of sculptures including the statue of Athena. The temple was built so it can be approached by the viewer from all sides. The first image shows the Parthenon's size, power, and strength. In the second image, Jane Mansfield is the center of attention. She is taller than the temple around her. As Julia said, buildings are built by humans for humans. The first image shows how humans control architecture. The second image shows the opposite. Isadora Duncan is much smaller than the Parthenon. the building looks stronger and more powerful than her. The size of the Parthenon compared to Isadora Duncan represents the importance of religion and temples during the time.
ReplyDeleteA good description and summary of previous comments, and thank you for reading the comments of your fellow students as well
DeleteThe Parthenon is clearly a grandiose and important structure. But through photographs, the viewer could get a skewed representation due to the body which occupies its space. The first picture focuses mainly on the beauty and history of the structure, since Isadora is off to the side, barely visible at first glance, and the photo is taken at eye level, which makes the structure-to-human-body relationship fairly accurate. The second photo is taken at a deceiving low angle, making Jane Mansfield seem more beautiful and astonishing than the structure itself, and therefore the center of attention. In other words, the first photo says, "Wow look at the Parthenon...oh I'm there too," and the second one screams, "Hey look at me! Oh yeah there's the Parthenon." I also agree with Delia's observation that the extra people and security guards make the second photo seem less historical and more touristic/commercial.
ReplyDeleteI like your quotations summing up the responses of the two women -- very spot on!
DeleteThe harmonization between the architecture and the space seem to create an another amazing natural landscape in of itself. Beside this harmonization, I really like the whiteness of the pantheon which conveys various meanings both to our ancestors and to the modern people who look at this piece of art after the generations.
ReplyDeleteInteresting thought about the building as landscape
DeleteI think the first image represents a more appreciative view of the architecture. The photographer and dancer seek to show the enormous size of the structure and the dark atmosphere it creates. The second photo focuses much more on the actress than the historical significance of the place in which the photo was taken. Based on her pose and attire, the image shows us a tourist rather than an art appreciator.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely, Jane Mansfield as tourist/visitor uses the Parthenon as a platform for a picture of herself (must as we tend to do today when asking friends to photograph us at famous sites!)
DeleteThe first photograph of Isadora Duncan captures human accomplishment by emphasizing the monumentality of the Parthenon in comparison to the small dancer. The massive columns of the temple almost belittles humans as it is a holy space with Duncan only taking up a small portion of the photograph. In contrast, the photograph of Jane Mansfield portrays her as the main subject. She is centered and because of perspective, appears to be taller than the Parthenon. By doing this, the Parthenon becomes a mere backdrop. Her posture evokes sensuality and perhaps the setting implies her beauty is equal to a Goddess's. Furthermore, she looks superhuman because she is larger than the police man on the left and the partial figure on the right.
ReplyDeleteGood point about how the second photo of Jane Mansfield almost treats her as a goddess on par with the giant Athena statue that the Parthenon once housed!
DeleteBecause of the different angles the photographers used, the figure in the pictures can either be tiny or huge in compared to the same architecture. Also, the relationship between the body and architecture is based on the way we look at it. The Parthenon in the first picture creates a sense of awe, which is what the photographer might want to convey, since the human figure is tiny while the columns are solid and well-crafted. In the bottom one, the woman is like controlling the Parthenon since she is taller than the columns and seems confident. She is in contemporary clothing, implying that she is not in the ancient era, and thus the building no longer convey a sense of awe.
ReplyDeleteIt is also interesting that Isadora Duncan is wearing vaguely classical dress, while Jane Mansfield, as you say, is clearly wearing contemporary fashion
DeleteI believe the architectural space is built with the human body in mind. Most architectural spaces are designed for humans and should be easily accessible by them. Therefore, the space could either complement the human body, make the human body feel tiny, or make the human body feel gigantic. The relationship depends on the experience of the body and the space at the same time. In other words, architectural spaces and human bodies coexist and depend on one another.
ReplyDeleteWith this in mind, the relationship between the body and the architectural space are represented differently in the two photos. In the first photo, Isadora Duncan is minuscule next to the ruins of the Parthenon. You can clearly see the immensity of the Parthenon. The lighting emphasizes the reflective and solemn experience Isadora is having.
In the second photo, Jane Mansfield seems to tower over the Parthenon itself. If the photos were separate, you could assume the Parthenon to be fairly small. The photo seems to be more of a caricature of the Parthenon with the pose Jane has made. Looking at the lighting again, the Parthenon appears cheery and inviting.
The two images show the two extremes of the relationship between the body and the space. However, this is all because of the position of the camera and the lighting. These two images show how there are multiple interpretations to the Parthenon space itself and it represents two experiences one can have. So it all depends on how you approach and experience the space yourself.
nice point about the lighting -- this had not yet come up in the previous comments!
DeleteAs most of the comments said, the first picture focuses on the body of Pantheon. Because Isadora Duncan's body is comparably much smaller, the grandiose and colossal qualities of the structure are communicated. Meanwhile, in the second picture, the focus is on Jane Mansfield's body rather than that of the building. The composition of the photograph and Jane's pose accentuates her curves rather than the beauty of the architecture. Because Pantheon was originally created for the greek goddess, Athena, it makes sense to see the boulders support Mansfield in the center.
ReplyDeleteyes, nice link back to Athena as the female goddess to whom the Parthenon is dedicated
DeleteThe first thing that struck me when looking at these two pictures was the stark difference in scale between the Parthenon and the women. I believe that these photos highlight two (of many) purposes of architecture: its function to support human needs and desires (picture two) and its the sheer, aesthetic grandeur of its presence that can evoke a human reaction (picture one). Today, many monuments that have great historical significance and are connoted with a litany of stories often get lost in the chaos of commercial tourism; this perception is embodied in the second picture. In contrast, there is a sense of a visceral wonder in the first picture. I think these two pictures highlight architecture's potential to evoke different aspects of the human condition: a desire to profit and seek attention and pure curiosity.
ReplyDeletethis is a thoughtful response, and nicely points to the variety of way a building can embody the human condition, as you say -- rarely does a building or work of art represent just one thing!
DeleteIt's very interesting how in the first photograph, the immenseness of the Parthenon is emphasized by the comparatively tiny figure of Isadora Duncan, whereas in the second photograph, Jane Mansfield's perspective makes her appear taller than the Parthenon itself. I think this shows how architecture creates a three dimensional space that is meant to be seen from many angles. Furthermore, not only will the structure be viewed from all sides, bodies will physically move through and interact with the space that the design creates. For example, should the design's space instill a sense of awe and humble respect in its viewers with its vast majesty towering overhead, or raise viewers up with a sense of power and strength? However, as these two different photographs exhibit, maybe the beauty of a design is that it can do both depending on how a person chooses to interact with it, so that one can feel the architecture is both powerful and empowering.
ReplyDeleteWell-put comment about how architecture can be both powerful and empowering, in that it both dictates the experience of the visitor and allows them to construct themselves in relation to its space
DeleteOne of the most striking characteristics about this picture was the difference in the scale of the human against the building. In the first picture, the columns of the pantheon towers over the person while in the second picture, the actress, Jane Mansfield, stands proudly in the center much bigger than the building. Due to the emphasis on the person, the picture has a more humanistic appeal which is amplified by the people walking by in the background. The pantheon is not given much importance. The photograph is also from angle, where we are looking up at the actress who is smiling. She seems to be in a rather pompous position with her hands in her pocket as though she knows she is the first thing that the viewer sees. She is also looking directly at the photo almost as if she is acknowledging the audience. In the first picture, the emphasis is on the monumentality of the columns. The dancer is used to show the immense size of each column. The picture has an almost mystically ephemeral appeal. The dancer is dressed in ancient garb, and gazing at something far away. The stones that are placed on top of each other also give the picture a rather rustic feel.
ReplyDeletegood description, which also parallels earlier comments posted here
DeleteWhen I first looked at these two photographs, the great differences in scale really caught my eye.In the first photograph, the Parthenon is huge in comparison to Isadora Duncan. The Pantheon is clearly the main subject in this picture. However, in the second picture, the actress, Jane Mansfield, stands in front of the Parthenon, and appears to be much bigger than the monument. Her gesture and her facial expression shows her attitude. In this case, she is the main subject.
ReplyDeleteyes, the fact that we can see Jane Mansfield's facial expression allows to gain a better sense of her as individual, not just as awed visitor to the Parthenon
DeleteIsadora Duncan, in what commonly identified as non-active posture, created an harmony with the building by paralleling the structure. She wasn't making eye-contact and she appeared static and solemn, perhaps transforming herself into a structure trying to match the gracefulness of Parthenon. However, in the second photo, Jane Mansfied kind of took dramatized herself by posturing on the stage she called Parthenon. It's a photo of her saw, her came and her photographed.
ReplyDeletegood observation about how the different postures of the figures impacts our interpretation of their relation to the space
DeleteThe two photos suggests radically different attitudes. Isadora Duncan poses gracefully along the edge of monument, parallel to the bulging columns. Her gaze is directed over the Acropolis giving the photo an intellectual quality while not imposing on the Parthenon's grandeur. Duncan herself is beautiful but the composition and angle subject her to the building that is greater than any one human. In stark contrast, Mansfield towers over the Parthenon in gaudy fashion. This picture juxtaposes the ideals that went into the Parthenon -- universality, democracy, resiliency -- injecting a self loathing and commercialized figure.
ReplyDeleteinteresting point about the commercialized aspect of the second photograph, in which Mansfield really uses the Parthenon as a backdrop for her own self-presentation
Delete