Propagandist Portraiture: Alexander the Great
- Giancarlos Deleon
- Dec 1, 2015
- 6 min read
Alexander III was born in 356 BCE in Pella, Macedonia – the Ancient Greek kingdom, to Philip II and Olympias. Alexander the Great, as he came to be known, was taught by the influential Greek philosopher and scientist Aristotle from the age of thirteen to sixteen years. During Philp II’s attack on Byzantium in 340 BCE, at sixteen years old, Alexander the Great defeated the Thracian peoples the Maedi. After Philip’s assassination, Alexander inherited the thrown in 336 BCE, undisputed, because he had demonstrated exemplary militant proficiency. The royal familial lineage of Alexander the Great and his exposure to rich formal philosophical teachings prepositioned the potential successes of his leadership and cultivated his overall intellect as a King. Alexander the Great developed a superior comprehension of leadership beyond exhibiting particular attributes. In particular, he understood and exploited the propagandistic powers or portraiture (getty.edu). Artistic representations of his likeness had the power to make subtle but meaningful and impactful proclamations about his reign. “‘Alexander was presented with singular excellence in all his likeness: so that in all statues, pictures and engraved gems he appears with the same vigorous aspect of a most intrepid warrior, the same genius of a mighty hero, the same beauty and freshness of youth (Bieber 384)…’” Therefore, Alexander the Great entrusted three artists – and forbade all others, to create his portraits: Lysippus, Apelles, and Pyrgoteles.
Lysippus was Alexander the Great’s official sculptor. The work of Lysippus was characterized by the innovative lifelike naturalism and slender proportions of his figures. The reduction in the size of the head and the elongation of the limbs made the Lysippus figures appear more statuesque. Generally, a surplus of Alexander the Great portraits exist and it is impossible to determine which works can be undoubtedly accredited to Lysippus. However, a Roman copy of a sculpture created in 330 BCE by Lysippus is preserved the Louvre in Paris, France (louvre.fr). The characteristics of this piece are consistent with the famed style of Lysippus, which attracted Alexander the Great. The work is a portrait of Alexander the Great in the form of a marble herm. The sculpted portrait, the Azara herm, shows Alexander as a young man with idealized features. The description of Lysippus’s portraits of Alexander the Great cited by Margarete Bieber seamlessly corresponds with the herm at the Louvre today, “‘for those peculiarities which many of his successors and friends afterwards tried to imitate, namely, the position of the neck, which was bent slightly to the left (in contrast to the turn of the head to the right), and the melting glance of his eyes…’” In addition, the Louvre has a 370 BCE bronze Hellenistic copy of a Lysippus statuette, of Alexander the Great. The statuette has the same positioned head and neck as the Azara herm. The statuette also has the slim build of Lysippus figures. The consistencies of these portraits with other sculptures by Lysippus prove that, first and foremost, Alexander was attracted to the slender and naturalized forms of Lysippus sculptures.
The style of Lysippus’ sculptures incorporated physiognomies that had previously been reserved for the representation of gods and heroes (getty.edu). Therefore, in granting Lysippus exclusive contract to produce sculptures bearing his likeness, Alexander the Great was purposefully associating himself with godly representation. As Margarete Bieber notes in her discussion of the bronze statuette, “the literary evidence plainly indicates that Lysippus in the original was contrasting Alexander with Zeus…” The declarative association with godliness is important given the context of the viewership of these sculptures. The sculptures would have been installed in public forums, primarily in the city, to be viewed by everyday by citizens and visitors alike; reinforcing the correlation between Alexander and gods when examined. These sculptures acted as billboards of sorts that reminded the public of Alexander’s encompassing power as a king that rivaled the unearthly.
Apelles was Alexander’s official painter. Although none of Apelles’ work survived, descriptions of his works exist. Lysippus depicted Alexander in god-like manner but, still a man proud of his humanly powers (Bieber, 383). Conversely, one of Apelles’ portraits of Alexander the Great literally illustrated him as a god. Margarete Bieber cites Plutarch, “‘Lysippus the sculptor blamed the painter Apelles for drawing Alexander’s picture with a thunderbolt in hand. He himself had represented Alexander holding a spear, which was natural and proper for him as weapon…” Hence, although Alexander wanted his likeness in portraits to be uniform, there were still differences of opinions between his the official artists in his court. According to Gaius Plinius, the finger and the thunder bolt both looked as though they projected into the three dimensional world (Bieber, 384). Despite their differences, Lysippus and Apelles both worked with a naturalistic style. Lysippus focused on naturalism with respect to the human body, and Apelles, naturalized space and dimension with perspective. The approaches of Alexander’s sculptor and painter were inevitably different, beginning with the medium, continuing with style and composition. Nonetheless, Lysippus attracted Alexander with naturalism of the human form, and Apelles appealed to Alexander with his perspective naturalism.
If the sculptures of Lysippus acted as continuous assertions of his power outdoors, then the paintings of Apelles would have performed the same functions, indoors. The painting of Alexander the Great wielding a lightning bolt would have been showcased indoors at the temple of Artemis, a place of worship. Consequently, Alexander would have been brought closer to the godly status by strategically introducing himself into a place of worship; not as an earthly representation of himself but rather, a godly entity. Even beyond the realm of worship locations, Apelles’ style of depicting Alexander as a god with divine powers would have the same effect.
Pyrgoteles was Alexander the Great’s official court gem cutter, “whose likenesses of Alexander are considered by ancient authorities equally as excellent and famous as those of Lysippus and Apelles” (Bieber, 384). Although the work of Pygoteles has become the most obscured, his portraits of Alexander the Great were perhaps the most valued (Nulton). In their original state, the cut gems of Pygroteles could have been worn as jewelry, making them readily portable, unlike the sculptures of Lysippus and the paintings of Apelles. It would have been easier to make coins with the image of Alexander based on gem cuts, as opposed to sculptures in the round. Accordingly, aside from the actual gem cuts, reflections of Pyrgoteles’ art could have appeared in the coins that were issued by Alexander the Great (Bieber, 388). In these portraits of Alexander the Great on coins, Alexander’s features resemble Herakles. This motif of artistically equating Alexander’s image to gods was in consistent with Apelles’ style.
The concept of Pyrgoteles’ gem cuts being used a guide to create coins issued by Alexander would have held the most responsibility in expansively promoting the image and power of Alexander the Great. These coins would be used as currency, and traded outside of the kingdom of Macedonia. The people of Macedonia would have seen Alexander’s image represented through yet another medium, as a god, every day as it passed through hands. The coins would have been carried with them, making Macedonians active participants in the dissemination of Alexander the Great’s propaganda. The coins could fulfill the functions of both Lysippus’ sculptures and Apelles’ painting because the coin could be moved indoors and outdoors, and more importantly out of Greece. It was no coincidence that Alexander was represented similarly in coins as he was in paintings.
Alexander the Great seized the fruitful opportunities offered to him and synthesized them with his intellect and beliefs in order to maximize his legitimacy as King. His intellect as a leader surpassed the obvious criteria; he mastered the skillful management of armed forces at a young age because of the connections granted by his parents. Alexander fully acknowledged the power of propaganda through art. He decided the most effective method of propaganda was through the power of portraiture and he completely controlled his image. Alexander chose three artists that he allowed to produce works of his likeness and forbade all others. He chose these artists based on their esteem and their ability to portray his image in a legitimizing manner. Alexander implemented the Near Eastern notion of worshiping rulers as if they were gods (getty.edu). Alexander was the King; however, he wanted to be looked upon on as a god. As a result, the kingdom was saturated with portraits that heightened the sense of illusive godliness through systematized omnipresence. Alexander the Great exploited the expressive nature of art in an attempt to elevate himself to an unearthly rank; he used propagandistic portraiture.
Works Cited
Bieber, Margarete. 1949. “The Portraits of Alexander the Great”. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 93 (5). American Philosophical Society: 373–427. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3143389.
Nulton, Dr. Peter. "Helenistic Art." Lecture, Fine Arts Center, Kingston, Rhode Island, October 22, 2015.
"Portrait of Alexander the Great." The J. Paul Getty Museum. Accessed November 23, 2015. http://www.getty.edu/art/collection/objects/7036/unknown-maker-portrait-of-alexanderthe-great-greek-about-320-bc/.
"Portrait of Alexander the Great (356-323 BC)." Site Officiel Du Musée Du Louvre. Accessed November 20, 2015. http://www.louvre.fr/.
Comments