Author Robin Osborne makes his intentions very clear on the opening page of his book as he writes: "This book tries to show how the art of archaic and classical Greece can be understood in terms not derived from the Renaissance and the study of Renaissance Art." (p. 9) In other words he rejects the notion that developed following the excavation in 1506 and putting on public display by the Vatican of the Laocoön Group whereby the art of classical Greece showed that man is made in God's image, sharing in his divine essence and infinite perfectibility. Osborne's aim in other words is to remove the art of classical Greece from the grips of institutionalized Christianity where it has been held prisoner for over 500 years. Being personally in the camp of Pope Julius II, I read Osborne's book primarily for detecting the flaws in it.
The fact that the Laocoön Group and many of the other famous sculptures (the Venus de Milo and the Victory of Samothrace) that have been cited as examples of Greek sculpture showing the divine nature of man) belong to the Hellenistic period helps Osborne who is able to build his case using the works of the archaic and classical eras that preceded Hellenism.
Osborne argues first that during the archaic and classical eras that Greek art did not have artists. Rather the objects "worked" that is to say that they performed tasks or functions: "Works of art worked: they worked in public in public conveying messages about the dead, helping construct relations between humanity and the gods, marking sporting or political achievements; and they worked in private, entering into the discourse of highly discursive private gatherings to compete in the wit, wisdom, self-control and sexual conquest of symposia." (12)
The objects that Osborne analyzes were public and private funerary objects, monuments of gods whose support was solicited by cities and most importantly party crockery (i.e. bowls and cups used at symposia which Osborne insists were both philosophical and orgiastic).
The key chapter of the book, entitled "Gay Abandon" is devoted to the erotic images on the red-figure and black-figure pottery that was examined and manipulated by the guests at the symposia. The most important object is the Bomford Cup fabricated in Attica in the last quarter of the 6th century BCE which is endowed with a tripod base in the form of male genitalia. The Bomford is just one of many pottery objects with images of sexually-aroused males and lascivious actions that Osborne presents to the reader. His argument that Greek art was both erotic and homoerotic is in fact well supported.
Osborne unlike art historians of previous generations does not show Greek art evolving to a stage where it superbly represented Platonic and Christian ideals. Instead he shows how the artists were able to present richer detail and became more masterful at directing the gaze of the viewer. The supplanting of the black-figure pottery by red-figure pottery was a major advance. The marble statues of Hermes with the infant Dionysos and the Aphrodite of Knidos are presented as superb examples of the ability of Greek sculptures to control the regard and engage the viewer emotionally.
Osborne predictably insists that the Aphrodite does not represent the ideal of beauty but rather connects to the person observing her on an erotic level.
By the end of the Classical era, Osborne argues the art no longer worked or performed functions. Rather it presented the artist to the viewer. Greece had reached the end of the era of art without artists. It was at this moment that they story of Pygmalion the story of his statue that came to life was elaborated. Art objects lived. They ceased to be objects with uses.
I do not buy any of this. I think that the Renaissance and the Hellenistic era both understood correctly the essential achievement of Classical Greece. Osborne's thesis constitutes a step in the wrong direction.