The archaeologist and author Pat Getz-Preziosi has investigated the possible production processes of Cycladic figurative sculptures and identified what is termed the Cycladic canon and the resulting canonical figure 9 . This systematic development has been detailed in her book Sculptors of the Cyclades: individual and tradition in the third millennium BC (1987). Getz-Preziosi has identified a development of, and adherence to position and proportion of Cycladic figurative sculpture. I suggest there may be a distinct relationship between the existence of this canon and modern art trends including minimalism. The Cycladic canon is somewhat complex and extensive. However, it is the possible existence of this canon, as opposed to its content, that may be of importance to modern art practices. Therefore, I will give only a very brief description of its attributes here.
The Cycladic canon and canonical figure refer to a strict style of anatomical proportion and position, evident in the majority of the figures of the EC II phase of the Cycladic culture. It is recognisable by certain characteristics such as the arms, whether in relief or inscribed, folded across the stomach with the left arm over the right. The figures are standing with legs slightly bent at the knees and the feet pointing downward. The figures that fall outside of this canon are the acrobat and musician figures and some of the late Chalandriani male figures, which display characteristics that are not considered canonical. Getz-Preziosi has identified several canons within the Cycladic time frame. However, the term canonical figure refers to the more prolific figures of the EC II phase of the early Bronze Age.
The evidence of this canon suggests that the production process was dictated to the Cycladic sculptors. As Getz-Preziosi (1985 p.57) states 'There are no freely conceived pieces'. This being the case, the manufacturing of the figures, although carried out by the Cycladic sculptors, was in fact governed by their predecessors. I would contest here however, that once a canon or tradition is being followed, it could in fact allow for a great freedom of expression. The Cycladic sculptors were able to focus on this expression without the concerns of production, which could be seen as prescribed.
Following a canon or tradition, whether in the Bronze Age or in modern times, need not be viewed as a restriction. When certain formal elements are already resolved it allows a focus on the resolution of ideas and expression. Conversely, when certain conceptual elements are already resolved, freedom is allowed in expressing the formal elements of the work. It would appear that both these conventions could apply to Cycladic art and minimalism. However, this latter description seems more applicable to art of a minimal nature than of Cycladic figurative sculpture.
The Cycladic canon, and its relationship to minimalist constructs, may be useful in further developing a contemporary interpretation of Cycladic figurative sculpture. It demonstrates that the adherence to a set of rules in the making of art is not an archaic notion, and that we, and indeed the fruits of our labour, are all products of our ancestry.