Classic and Contemporary Poetry: Explained

Lawrence Durrell's "Conon the Critic on the Six Landscape Painters of Greece" is a series of six succinct critiques, each addressing a different Greek painter and their approach to landscape painting. Through the voice of Conon, Durrell provides a blend of wit, philosophical insight, and a nuanced understanding of art and its relationship to life. Each critique is a compact exploration of the artist's style, method, and the existential or metaphysical implications of their work.

 On Peter of Thebes

"Peter of Thebes" is critiqued for his lack of originality. Conon suggests that Peter’s landscapes are built from basic, almost primitive sensory experiences: the smells of "resin and pine," the taste of "arbutus berries," and the texture of "red staunch clay and roots." These elements are not unique in their own right but rather derivative of nature’s raw materials. Conon’s metaphor of tasting and smelling as intertwined experiences, "as with fish and red sauce," implies that Peter’s art lacks distinctiveness, relying instead on the obvious, earthy qualities of the environment. The critique subtly questions whether Peter’s work transcends the mere replication of sensory experiences or if it remains bound to the familiar and expected.

 On Manoli of Crete

Manoli of Crete is depicted as an artist whose late-life transition from acrostics to painting led to a dramatic awakening of his perception. The description that "everything became twice as attentive" suggests that Manoli’s art reveals a heightened awareness, where everyday objects and landscapes shed their ordinariness and "undressed and ran laughing into his arms." This imagery conveys a sense of joy and liberation in Manoli's approach, as if his newfound medium allowed him to see and depict the world with a childlike wonder. The critique praises Manoli’s ability to transform the mundane into something vibrant and alive, indicating that his madness, in this case, is a source of creative genius.

 On Julian of Arcadia

Julian of Arcadia’s work is lauded for its purity and originality, not in terms of innovation, but in its detachment from conventional meaning and reason. Conon remarks that Arcadia, like all good poems, is "original in a particular sense" because it exists without a "Therefore"—it does not need to justify itself or be understood through a logical or historical framework. This critique celebrates the idea that true art, like Julian’s landscapes, can stand alone without needing to be rooted in a recognizable past or rational explanation. It emphasizes the autonomy of art, suggesting that its value lies in its ability to exist purely for its own sake.

 On Spiridon of Epirus

Spiridon of Epirus is described as a painter whose work requires deep, prolonged contemplation to be fully appreciated. Conon explains that only after years of looking does the viewer begin to see beyond the surface, noticing subtle shapes and forms that emerge slowly, almost imperceptibly. The metaphor of mountains as "the covers of a bed" with a form lying beneath them implies that Spiridon’s landscapes contain hidden depths, veiling a deeper reality beneath their tranquil surfaces. This critique highlights the patience and attentiveness required to engage with Spiridon’s art, suggesting that it reveals its secrets only to those who are willing to invest time and reflection.

 On Hero of Corinth

Hero of Corinth’s work is critiqued for its extreme subjectivity and self-confession. Conon notes that Hero’s art is more about his internal world than the landscapes he depicted. By focusing on his own mind, Hero "removed both himself and his subject out of the reach of the people." The result is an art that becomes inaccessible, abstracted to the point where nothing remains but "a picture-frame, an empty studio, and an idea of Hero the painter." This critique suggests that Hero’s obsession with his inner self ultimately led to the dissolution of both his identity and his art, leaving behind only the concept of the artist, rather than any tangible or relatable work.

 On Alexander of Athens

Alexander of Athens is portrayed as an artist whose intense love for his city and insatiable appetite for experience led him to exhaust both himself and his subject. Conon’s critique reveals the paradox of Alexander’s art: in his attempt to fully capture Athens, he drained it of its essence, leaving nothing behind but his own representation of it. The idea that Athens "ceased to exist" because of Alexander’s art suggests that his work was so consuming that it obliterated the reality it depicted. Conon concludes with the notion that we, as viewers, are now "walking about inside his canvases," trapped in the world Alexander created, unable to return to the real Athens. This critique reflects on the power of art to both preserve and distort reality, transforming the subject into something entirely dependent on the artist’s vision.

 Conclusion

In "Conon the Critic on the Six Landscape Painters of Greece," Lawrence Durrell uses Conon’s voice to explore the different ways in which artists engage with their subjects and how their personal obsessions, techniques, and philosophies shape their work. Each painter represents a different approach to art, ranging from the straightforward to the deeply introspective, and each critique offers insights into the complexities of creativity, perception, and the relationship between art and reality. Through Conon, Durrell invites readers to consider not just the finished works of these artists, but the processes, motivations, and existential questions that underlie their creations.

Copyright (c) 2025 PoetryExplorer

Discover our Poem Explanations and Poet Analyses!

Other Poems of Interest...