![]() The Venus de Milo is an image recognized across the world. Also it goes into the fascination and idealized beauty she personifies to this day. It proposes what the Venus could have actually looked like - there are no other statutes associated with her since she was installed in a gymnasium niche. It is Hellenistic from Antioch not only due to the inscription but due to the style - partial nude - and the manner of sculpture - two blocks of marble atop one another. The final chapter does into what is suspected to be Venus' origins - the sculptor's name inscribed in the long-lost (deliberately?) base has been found mentioned in a couple other locations. Curtis seems to be a fan of Salomon Reinarch, dedicating more pages to his life and accomplishments than any other of the dignitaries that made their opinions known about the Venus. The author goes into the various personalities that circled the Venus over the decades, focusing on those in her early years in Paris as the controversy of her origins continued into the 20th century. And the inscription on the base that declared it as part of the Hellenistic period rather than the preferred Classical Greek period. Once the Venus arrived in France, it was whisked off to the Louvre where it became the center of the next controversy - where to display it. Actually it was a fight of political influence between the Turks and the French with a Russian ship which had the Venus already aboard and ready to leave for Constantinople. To this day, the myth of a supposed fight on the beach endures - between the Greeks and the French. Buried again and then fought over to see who gets to take it away from it's home. Poor Greek statue - dug up by a Greek farmer with a French officer nearby exploring the island of Melos, looking to increase his experience in archaeology. The book failed to answer some questions: did anyone go back to excavate the immediate area which the Venus de Milo was found to try to locate more evidence about her symbolism, and if not, why not? When were the parts of the arm found, that are only mentioned in passing? Has modern archeology returned to the site of the gymnasium and its niches or has it ignored it, and why? Wouldn't such a site offer up more information and artifacts? Overall, the story is much like that of the statue itself: exciting at the beginning, growing duller with time. ![]() The book falters, drawing out the (irrelevant) story of one of the scholars obsessed with the Venus de Milo, takes a diversion into feminist theory that it does not follow through with, and then comes to an abrupt halt when we arrive at the modern age. However, readers expecting new insight will be disappointed. The recounting of the tale of her discovery is well-told and interesting, including the various intrigues and myths that continue to mar the truths surrounding one of Western art's idols. ![]() I expected more from this treatment of the Venus de Milo. A fantastic read, whether you are interested in antiquities or not. In the later chapters he summarizes why there has been little new research on the Venus in recent decades, while the statue's iconic status in popular culture hasn't waned at all. Curtis shows why for several decades after it was found in 1820, it was of paramount importance to the French to prove that the Venus dated back to the Classical, not the supposedly inferior, Hellenistic period, which led to scholars and curators to try and temper with the evidence. I was taken aback by the garishness of the processions organized to parade the loot accumulated during the napoleonic wars. He gives a gripping account of the political background, including the impact on the budding discipline of art history of the arrival in France of thousands of works in the wake of Napoleon's campaigns. He paints vivid portraits of all the major players in the story: Marcellus, who negotiated the purchase Dumont d'Urville, who tried to claim credit for it Winckelmann, who singlehandedly created the fashion for all things Greek Auguste de Forbin, who was in charge of the Louvre at the time the Venus entered its collections Quatremère de Quincy, Emeric-David, Clarac, Ravaisson, Adolf Furtwängler, Salomon Reinach and some lesser scholars who tried to puzzle out who had made the statue and when with immense zeal but a great deal of chauvinistic prejudice. In lucid, lean prose, Curtis tells you exactly all you you didn't know you wanted to know about how the Venus de Milo got to Paris, and why it occupied the place it does in art history. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |