The Parthenon Essay

The Parthenon, built in the 5th century BC, was revolutionary for its unique building genius, which made it appear as though it was far lighter than it was, and not box-like. Iktinos and Kallikrates had a substantial job on their hands whilst constructing the Parthenon. They created a building that is seen to be the epitome of Doric temple buildings, while still managing to incorporate ionic features. Nevertheless, this was not the most difficult aspect in which they had to contend with. The underlying foundations from the old Parthenon still remained, and thus they were also faced with the task of making their version superior. However, in building such a superior Doric temple, not only did problems arise in managing the shape and size of the building, but the weight of the structure also had to be accounted for. Ways in which the sheer size of the building was avoided, were, Entasis of the columns, curvature of the stylobate and minimising the entablature. The Parthenon has avoided looking like a big brick temple, as nothing on the Parthenon stands at a right angle. Additions such as these gave the Parthenon an illusion of lightness, while still being a monumental temple.
The Doric temple is one whose foundations are made solid and flat, usually on a deposit of bed rock. From this, the temple is constructed with the Euthynteria visible, also known as stylobate and stereo bate, or the three steps up to the temple, just underneath the colonnade (Plommer, 1956). The Parthenon was built on already existing foundations, from the earlier Parthenon, which got burnt down. This Doric temple did not make any great new architectural breakthroughs but it did manipulate what was seen as the norm for the period (Sakoulas, 2003). The Acropolis is a rock, therefore it is not going to be easily pliable in order to work with, so measures had to be taken in order to build the temple on such a harsh terrain, and to make it as aesthetically pleasing as possible.
Curvature of the stylobate is one of the major architectural feats that is associated with the Parthenon, it’s one of its’ main characteristics. The flat solid base has been the norm for the Doric temple, but this gives a heavy brick look to the building, a look that Iktinos and Kallikrates want to avoid. To do this they engineered a curve into the stylobate.
(notes, 2011). This image from A.W. Lawrence, cited in student notes shows the curvature of the stylobate, in an exaggerated form. Also it demonstrates the curvature of the entablature which systematically follows. This diagram also shows how the capitals on the columns do not sit adjacent to the shafts, they are on a lean to fit into the entablatures shape, and this is a defining feature of the Parthenon.
The entablature follows the curve of the stylobate, as do the columns, with the capitals flowing with the curvature of the entablature. The columns themselves lean inward slightly from bottom to top, this flows with the curvature of the stylobate. With the columns leaning inward it means the antae must in turn lean outward to counter the column and to fit onto the entablature. The stylobate is at its highest in the centre on the north, east, south and west sides, and progresses to fall down as it nears the corners. This gives the upward curvature, and the entablature follows this phenomenon (Pedley, 5th edition). Because of these features the Parthenon has no true verticals or horizontals And in turn has no right angles either. Pedley also suggests that these refinements give the Parthenon a sense of mobility, and avoids a ‘boxlike’ appearance.
The columns on the Parthenon appear as though they are swollen (Entasis), this makes it so they do not look as though they are comfortably holding the enormity of the temple. It also gives the building a feel of life, almost as though it is a moving and feeling object (Sakoulas, 2003). The ten metre high Doric columns on the outside of the Parthenon are monumental on their own

Show More