“Tensional factors and compositional analysis: Crossovers between linguistics and art criticism,”
in P. Ciafardoni and D. Giannessi (eds.), From the Treasures of Syria, Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, pp. 289-298.
As for linguistics a ‘discourse analysis’ revealed its effectiveness, on the other and a ‘compositional analysis’ can be equally useful in understanding representational art (thus, creating a crossover between these two disciplines). This is the aim of the paper: to apply this ‘compositional analysis’ to Urkesh’s sealings, presenting a precise ‘structure’ (in a Kantian sense, for which see e.g. CAR: Structure).
Paragraph I underlines the ‘tensional factors’ which “introduce an element of dynamism that is tied to the means of expression” (p. 290); this process is exemplified by two specimens: the ‘Code of Hammurapi’ and the sealing of Ishar-beli from the Royal Palace of Urkesh (for which see Buccellati and Kelly-Buccellati 2001, pp. 64-65).
Paragraph II presents some ‘limits of expectation’: despite a ‘mimetic process’ involved the production of iconography on seals, this process is limited by some ‘non-naturalistic schematic renderings’.
The only proper way to analyse such an iconography is envisaged in paragraph III, i.e. the ‘compositional analysis’, understanding how “composition is what holds the tensional elements together. […] Compositional analysis identifies the criteria that are originally introduced to obtain such a fusion” (pp. 295-296).
This methodology is then applied on the two aforementioned (paragraph I) specimens, aiming (see paragraph IV, ‘Conclusion’) “to highlight […] the relationship between the individual components, in their reciprocal tensionality, and the resulting coherence of the structured whole” (p. 298).
In the end, the author further proposes to apply such a methodology to architectural analysis, proposing “a conceptual framework sufficiently broad to do justice to an analysis of the evidence coming from the broken tradition of Syro-Mesopotamia” (p. 298).
[For the concept of ‘tensionality’ see e.g. Buccellati 2017, CAR, paragraph 14.4, on pp. 267-270].
Back to top: Giorgio Buccellati 2015