The Morellian Method

768 Words2 Pages

It is the intent of this essay to provide reasonable proof, on the basis of the Morellian method, that images 1A and 1B are by the same artist. These images of painted ceramics originate in the cultures of the archaeological Southwest circa 950 – 1150 (Fry, 2011). Painting each ceramic, the artisan(s) used similar techniques such as checkerboard patterning, broad lines, hatching, utilization of positive and negative space, and, along with anatomical representations. While the overall images differ considerably, the goal of implementing the Morellian method is to identify artists’ use of the same formulas to create smaller parts of works.

During the production of Image 1A (1A), the artist used a (six square by three square) checkerboard pattern to separate sections of lines of approximately the same width which rimmed the outer edge of the ceramic. These boarder-lines alternate occupying negative and positive space. A repeated use of thin hatching lines - which are relatively short exteriorly and interiorly long – is present. This use of positive and negative space alternation occurs in both depictions of animals [i.e. fish, largest (bird’s) figure’s body and feet]. The artist also utilizes the painted space by leaving a negative pattern of zigzagging lines within which is painted a reflective outline. Within the outline occurs a series of rhombus shapes. Finally, eyes are produced by leaving a negative circle or oval and centering a single painted dot within.

In Image 1B (1B), this artist employed a (six square by six square) checkerboard pattern adjacent to the interior-most line. Two lines, which inwardly alternate from negative to positive usage of space, are present at the rim of the ceramic. Each of these lines is of app...

... middle of paper ...

...ater size uniformity is observed in the zigzags of 1A than in those of 1B. Still, each ceramic’s interior zigzag pattern is bracketed by a painted rectangular image, which shares an intersection with the outermost angle of the final rhombus. While these designs differ in overall presentation, the commonality is readily observed.

In conclusion, the author’s belief is that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that a common artist produced the paintings of 1A and 1B. There are certainly characteristic differences between these images; however, through application of the Morellian method one may deduce that the overarching techniques are vastly similar. Though this is a subjective method and the author is not experienced in using it, it seems plausible that these works were produced by a common artisan; but, perhaps along a continuum and not around the same time.

Open Document