Getty Kouros - Technical Analysis

Technical Analysis

Despite being of Thasian marble, the kouros cannot be securely ascribed to an individual workshop of northern Greece or indeed to any ancient regional school of sculpture. Archaic kouroi conform to a canon of measurement and proportion (albeit with strong local accents) to which the Getty example also adheres; a comparison of like elements in other kouroi is both a test of authenticity and additional clue to the origin of the sculpture. There is little in the tool marks, carving methods and detailing to contradict an ancient origin of the piece. Although we have a small sample with which to compare (some 200 fragments and only twelve complete statues of the same type) there are atypical aspects of the Getty work that may be observed. The oval plinth is an unusual shape and larger than in other examples, suggesting the figure was free-standing rather than fixed with lead in a separate base. Also, the ears are not symmetrical: they are at different heights with the left oblong and the right rounder, implying the sculptor was using two distinct schema or none at all. Furthermore, there are a number of flaws in the marble, most prominently on the forehead, which the sculptor has worked around by parting the hair curls at the centre; ancient examples survive of projects being abandoned by sculptors when such flaws in the stone were revealed.

Perhaps the most striking evidence suggestive of the kouros’s antiquity is a subtlety regarding the direction of motion of the figure. Even though the youth presents foursquare to the viewer, all kouroi have understated indicators of a turn either to the left or the right depending on where they were originally placed in the hieroon or temple sanctuary; i.e., they would seem to turn towards the naos. In the case of the Getty youth the left foot is parallel with the step axis of the right foot rather than turning outwards as would occur if the figure were moving directly forwards. Therefore the statue is making motion toward his right, which Ilse Kleemann asserts is “one of the strongest pieces of evidence of its authenticity”. Other features that suggest a similarity with known originals include the helicoid curls of the hair, closest in form to the west Cyclidian Kea kouros (NAMA 3686), the Corinthian form of the hands and the sloping shoulders akin to the Tenea kouros and the broad plinth and feet comparable to the Attic or Cyclidian Ptoon 12. That the Getty kouros cannot be identified with any one local atelier does not disqualify it as a genuine, but if real it does require of us that we admit a lectio difficilior into the corpus of archaic sculpture.

Some indication of tool marks remains on the work. Though the surface is weathered (or artificially abraded) and it is not clear if emery was used we can discern the heavy claw marks on the plinth and the use of a point in some of the finer detailing. For example there are point marks in the outline of the curls, between the fingers and in the cleft of the buttocks, also traces of the point in the arches of the feet and at random over the plinth. Though the tools evident here (fine point, slope chisel, claw chisel) are not inappropriate for a late 6th century sculpture their application might be problematic. Stelios Triantis remarks, "no sculptor of kouroi would hollow out with a fine point, nor incise outlines with this tool".

In 1990, Dr. Jeffery Spier published the discovery of a kouros torso, a certain forgery that exhibited notable technical similarities to the Getty kouros. After samples were taken that determined the fake torso was of the same dolomitic marble as the Getty piece the torso was purchased by the museum for study purposes. The fake’s sloping shoulders and upper arms, volume of chest, rendering of the hands and genitals all suggest the same hand as the Getty’s example, although the aging had been crudely done with an acid bath and the application of iron oxide. Further investigation has shown the torso and the kouros are not from the same block and the sculpting techniques are dramatically different (down to the use of power tools on the torso). Their relationship if any is still to be determined.