Giacobbe Giusti, Le Camille, Musées du Capitole

Giacobbe Giusti, Le Camille, Musées du Capitole

 

Giacobbe Giusti, Le Camille, Musées du Capitole

Giacobbe Giusti, Musées du Capitole

Façade du Palais Neuf

Informations générales

Ouverture	1471
Surface	60 salles
Visiteurs par an	452 232 (2008)
Site web	www.museicapitolini.org

Collections

Collections	sculptures, statues, mosaïques romaines, peintures

Localisation

Pays	Italie
Commune	Rome
Adresse	Piazza del Campidoglio, 1
Coordonnées	41° 53′ 35″ N, 12° 28′ 57″ E

Géolocalisation sur la carte : Rome

• (Voir situation sur carte : Italie)
• (Voir situation sur carte : Latium)

Les musées du Capitole sont un ensemble de musées d’art et d’archéologie situés sur la Place du Capitole, à Rome. Fondés en 1471, ce sont les plus anciens musées du monde. Leurs collections comprennent des statues en marbre ou en bronze, des peintures, des mosaïques et des inscriptions, toutes en provenance de Rome et de sa région. Elles sont conservées dans les deux palais de la place du Capitole, le palais Neuf et le palais des Conservateurs, ainsi qu’à la centrale Montemartini, dans un faubourg de Rome.

Histoire

Giacobbe Giusti, Le Camille, Musées du Capitole

Le Camille, l’une des pièces fondatrices des collections Capitoline, bronze romain du i^er siècle ap. J.-C.

Les musées du Capitole sont créés en 1471 par le pape Sixte IV pour accueillir quatre exceptionnelles statues de bronze, jusque-là conservés au palais du Latran et données au peuple romain : la Louve capitoline, le Camille, le Tireur d’épine et deux fragments d’une statue colossale de Domitien (la tête et une main tenant un globe). Comme le précise l’inscription conservée au palais des Conservateurs, il s’agit non d’une donation mais d’une « restitution » : « il jugea que ces remarquables statues de bronze, témoignage de la grandeur antique du peuple romain qui les avait créés, devaient lui être restituées et données sans réserve¹. » Sixte IV choisit pour abriter les bronzes la colline du Capitoline, dominée alors par le vieux palais sénatorial, lui-même bâti sur les restes du tabularium, siège des archives romaines. La Louve est placée sur la façade du palais des Conservateurs, en remplacement du lion qui se trouvait là jusqu’alors, et devient le symbole de Rome.

En 1537, le pape Paul III ordonne le transfert au Capitole de la statue équestre en bronze de Marc Aurèle et demande à Michel-Ange de redessiner la place du Capitole pour l’accueillir. L’aménagement s’étalera sur un siècle : Michel-Ange remanie le palais sénatorial, qui donne sur le forum, mais la rénovation du palais des Conservateurs, à droite de la place, ne commence qu’en 1563. La première pierre du palais Neuf, jumeau de ce dernier, est posée en 1603. Le nouveau musée est inauguré en 1734, sous le pontificat de Clément XII.

Entretemps, les papes ont continué à enrichir les collections du musée. Ainsi, la statue en bronze doré d’Hercule, découverte sur le Forum Boarium, rejoint très vite le groupe original de bronzes. En 1513, c’est au tour de deux statues colossales de divinités fluviales. En 1566, Pie V donne un lot de trente statues en provenance du palais du Belvédère, jugeant inconvenant que le successeur de Pierre conserve chez lui des idoles païennes². Dès 1523, les ambassadeurs vénitiens qualifient les collections capitolines des « plus belles et les plus célèbres au monde³ ».

Giacobbe Giusti, Musées du Capitole

Antinoüs capitolin, copie romaine d’une statue grecque du iv^e siècle av. J.-C.

L’enrichissement des collections marque le pas au xvii^e siècle, avant de reprendre de plus belle au xviii^e siècle. En 1714, le pape Clément XI (1700-1721) fait don au musée de cinq statues égyptiennes trouvées aux environs de la Porte Salaria. En 1733, sous le pape Clément XII (1730-1740), le musée achète la collection du cardinal Alessandro Albani, comprenant des pièces majeures comme les Satyres della Valle, la Junon Cesi ou encore une statue d’Antinoüs découverte à la villa Adriana, mais aussi une série de portraits conservés aujourd’hui dans la salle des Empereurs et des Philosophes, qui suscitent beaucoup d’intérêt par leur valeur « documentaire ». L’abbé Barthélemy visitant le musée écrit ainsi au comte de Caylus :

« La première fois que j’entrai au musée du Capitole, je sentis le coup de l’électricité ; je ne saurais vous décrire l’impression que me firent tant de richesses assemblées. Ce n’est plus un cabinet ; c’est le séjour des dieux de l’ancienne Rome ; c’est le Lycée des philosophes ; c’est un Sénat composé des rois de l’Orient⁴. »

En 1734, le musée est ouvert au grand public. Le Galate mourantrejoint les collections la même année, le Faune du Capitole, en marbre rouge, en 1746 et la Vénus capitoline en 1750. Sous Clément XIII(1758–1769), le musée acquiert la mosaïque des Colombes et les deux centaures de marbre gris trouvés à la villa Adriana.

Benoît XIV (1740-1758) donne au complexe muséal une nouvelle orientation en créant la Pinacothèque capitoline, destinée à accueillir les collections des marquis Sacchetti et des princes Pio, rachetées par Silvio Valenti-Gonzaga, son cardinal secrétaire d’État. C’est le fruit d’une politique pontificale active, visant à empêcher les œuvres picturales de quitter Rome. Leur accueil nécessite la construction de deux salles ad hoc, la salle sainte Pétronille et la salle Pierre de Cortone.

La fin du xviii^e siècle n’est pas favorable au musée : la fondation du musée Pio-Clementino, au Vatican, relance la compétition entre les collections communale et pontificale. Et en 1797, Napoléon Bonaparteimpose par le traité de Tolentino le transfert au musée du Louvre de certaines des pièces les plus fameuses — même si Antonio Canova à force d’obstination, ou plus probablement les clauses du Congrès de Vienne, feront revenir après la chute de Napoléon le Tireur d’épine, le Brutus capitolin, le Galate mourant et d’autres œuvres. Enfin, en 1838, la fondation du Musée grégorien égyptien par Grégoire XVI prive le musée de ses pièces égyptiennes.

Au xix^e siècle, le musée accueille des pièces peu nombreuses, mais présentant un grand intérêt scientifique. Les collections sont réorganisées en 1903 par Rodolfo Lanciani selon des critères muséographiques plus rigoureux, mettant davantage en valeur le contexte archéologique des œuvres. Le musée est agrandi et accueille de nouvelles pièces, découvertes pendant les travaux urbains de l’époque Mussolinienne. On recrée la galerie qui reliait entre eux les palais Neuf et des Conservateurs, qui accueille une collection épigraphique. Une ancienne centrale électrique, baptisée du nom de son créateur, Martini, accueille une partie des collections, d’abord sur une base temporaire, puis de manière pérenne. Enfin, au début du xxi^e siècle, le projet « Grand Capitole » entraîne le réaménagement d’une grande partie du palais des Conservateurs.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mus%C3%A9es_du_Capitole

http://www.giacobbegiusti.com

Giacobbe Giusti, Agris Helmet (iron, bronze, gold, coral), Musée d’Angoulême

Giacobbe Giusti, Agris Helmet (iron, bronze, gold, coral), Musée d’Angoulême

 

 

Giacobbe Giusti, Agris Helmet (iron, bronze, gold, coral), Musée d’Angoulême

Agris, France. About 350 BC Musée d’Angoulême This impressive piece of art was buried in a cave in Agris, western France. The entire cap, neck guard and cheek guards were all cluttered with lavish gold tendril and leaf design. Together with the gold, red coral inlays provide n effectual contrast. Kunst der Kelten, Historisches Museum Bern. Art of the Celts, Historic Museum of Bern.

Giacobbe Giusti, Agris Helmet (iron, bronze, gold, coral), Musée d’Angoulême

 

Giacobbe Giusti, Agris Helmet (iron, bronze, gold, coral), Musée d’Angoulême

Casque celte et gaulois d’apparat dit casque d’Agris; à coque en fer, recouverte de bronze décoré de feuilles d’or repoussées, rivetées (rivets en argent à tête sertie d’un fleuron d’or), argent et éléments décoratifs de corail sertis dans les alvéoles de certains motifs. il a été découvert à Agris, en Charente dans la grotte des Perrats en 1981 ; probablement fabriqué par des artisans de l’ouest de la gaule. C’est l’une des œuvres majeures de tout l’art gaulois. Il est conservé au musée d’Angoulême. Il est daté du second âge du fer, vers 5ème siècle avant Jésus-Christ. L’or provenait sans doute du Limousin ou du Périgord. Des motifs réalisés avec du fil d’or bouleté ornent la pièce mobile qui protégeaient la joue. Le motif principal du pare-joue représente un serpent cornu à longue tête, le monstre des enfers, attribut du dieu gaulois Cernunos. Ce casque n’a probablement eu qu’un usage cérémoniel ou est simplement une offrande. Il n’a pas été trouvé dans une sépulture mais dans une grotte-sanctuaire, brisé volontairement (plusieurs parties ont été arrachée et le timbre a été enfoncé par un coup violent).

Giacobbe Giusti, Agris Helmet (iron, bronze, gold, coral), Musée d’Angoulême

Material	Iron, bronze, gold, coral
Size	21.4 centimetres (8.4 in) high 23 by 19 centimetres (9.1 by 7.5 in) wide Cheek-guard: 9.4 by 7.6 centimetres (3.7 by 3.0 in)
Created	4th century BC
Place	Agris, Charente, France
Present location	Musée d’Angoulême

The Agris Helmet(French: Casque d’Agris) is a ceremonial Celtic helmet from c. 350 BC that was found in a cave near Agris, Charente, France, in 1981. It is a masterpiece of Celtic art, and would probably have been used for display rather than worn in battle. The helmet consists of an iron cap completely covered with bands of bronze. The bronze is in turn covered with unusually pure gold leaf, with embedded coral decorations attached using silver rivets. One of the cheek guards was also found and has similar materials and designs. The helmet is mostly decorated in early Celtic patterns but there are later Celtic motifs and signs of Etruscan or Greek influence. The quality of the gold indicates that the helmet may well have been made locally in the Atlantic region.

Discovery

The Agris helmet was found in a cave near Angoulême in 1981.^[1] The Perrats cave had been known for just over a week when cavers found two contiguous parts of the front of the helmet on 9–10 May 1981. The fragments were on a cone of debris thrown out from a badger burrow in the cave’s main chamber.^[2] An excavation team was quickly formed to search the site. They found scraps of gold leaf, two fragments that joined to form a larger triangular piece, and then the helmet itself, which was well-preserved other than the part that had been torn off by the badgers.^[2]

The site shows signs of having been occupied from the Bronze Agethrough the Iron Age, the Gallo-Roman period and into the Middle Ages. The entrance collapsed and closed the cave in the 13th or 14th century AD.^[3] At the time of discovery almost all the parts of the helmet had been disturbed by burrowing animals.^[4] In 1983, the cheek guard and three fragments of ornamentation from the side of the helmet were discovered during excavations. Other fragments were found in 1986, including the base of the helmet’s crest, several meters from where the helmet had been found. They seem to have been carried there accidentally, either by people or by badgers.^[2] The second cheek guard and the ornamentation of the summit of the helmet have not been found.^[4]

The government bought the found objects from the proprietor of the land. The helmet was restored by Laszlo von Lehóczky at the Romano-Germanic Central Museum (Mainz).^[4] It is now held by the Musée d’Angoulême in Angoulême, France.^[5][a] The helmet is considered one of the masterpieces of Celtic art and has been featured in several international exhibitions.^[4] It has even formed the basis for a graphic novel, Le casque d’Agris (2005).^[6]

Context

Location of Agris to the west of the Massif Central in France

Excavations in 2002 show that the cave entrance was guarded by a mud wall and a ditch, and would have been a sanctuary until the early Roman Empire. The helmet is isolated, with no sign of a human burial, and was buried deliberately. At the time of burial at least some of the external ornaments had been broken off and placed in the interior of the helmet.^[4]The helmet had been carefully placed.^[5] The archaeologists who found it think it may have been buried as part of a ritual to the underworld spirits.^[1] Roman sources say that the Celtic warriors generally did not wear helmets.^[7] The helmet would have been used for display, and would have indicated the high rank of the owner, or their wish to obtain such a rank.^[8]

The helmet dates from the early period of the La Tène culture.^[5] The gold leaf is extremely pure, and the helmet may be one of the oldest refined gold objects of Western Europe.^[9] It was found further west than most other examples of high-status La Tène metalwork.^[1] A few similar objects have been found in France at Amfreville-sous-les-Monts (Normandy), Saint-Jean-Trolimon (Brittany) and Montlaurès near Narbonne (Aude) and in Italy at Canosa (Puglia).^[5]

The design of the inner iron cap is similar to that of a series of helmets that have mostly been found in the Central Alps.^[2] The veneer of bronze strips recalls Italian helmets of the Montefortino type.^[2] The palmette-based design links it to the early style of the La Tène culture.^[1] Most of the motifs in the decoration belong to the first western style of the culture, or are closely derived from this style. Other motifs are from an intermediate stage with the Waldalgesheim style.^[2]

Authorities differ on the date of the helmet. In a 2001 paper José Gomez De Soto suggests the middle or the second half of the 4th century.^[10] D. W. Harding says the stratigraphic association of the helmet with a Dux-type fibula from La Tène B and other signs indicate that it was made in the later part of the 4th century.^[1] However, in a 2010 paper Gomez de Soto and Stephane Verger conclude that the decorations, when viewed as a whole, indicate that the helmet was made in the 2nd quarter or the middle of the 4th century.^[11]

Structure

Giacobbe Giusti, Agris Helmet (iron, bronze, gold, coral), Musée d’Angoulême

View of the helmet showing the neck guard (lower left) and cheek protector (lower center)

The helmet has been described as having a jockey-cap shape, but the “bill” of the cap is actually a neck-guard.^[12] It is 21.4 centimetres (8.4 in) high and 23 by 19 centimetres (9.1 by 7.5 in) laterally.^[13] The inner cap of the helmet is of iron, now heavily corroded.^[2] It is made of a single piece of hammered iron, with the neck guard riveted to the back.^[11]The iron is entirely covered by ornamental bronze bands with low-relief decoration formed partly by casting and partly by repoussé and chasing.^[11] The four wide horizontal strips of bronze are fully covered with gold leaf on the outside surface. The decorations include embedded cabochons of shaped and polished coral.^[2]

All the relief decorations were formed on the bronze strips before the gold leaf was applied.^[2] The gold leaf, about 70 microns thick, was affixed by pressing it closely onto the bronze relief with a tool that may have been made of wood or bone. The gold leaf would have been held in place by the grooves and imitation filigree in the bronze.^[14] The coral cabochons were attached to the bronze by silver rivets whose heads are decorated with motifs such as diamonds or palm leaves.^[b][15] Sometimes the hollow that holds the coral was at least partially gold-covered before the coral was placed. Gold leaf was then applied generously around the coral to form a small cup.^[16]

There is a finely wrought cheek-piece.^[7] The cheek guard (paragnathide) and the side and top ornaments used the same materials and techniques as the main helmet. There are signs that organic materials such as wood and leather were also used.^[11]

Decoration

The helmet is particularly richly ornamented.^[5] The main theme is a series of palmettes, with many of the palmettes and studs infilled with coral.^[1] The ornamentation is arranged into three superimposed bands completely covered by compositions inspired by plants. The many different patterns combined into complex compositions make the headpiece one of the richest of ancient Celtic artworks.^[11]

In the lower and upper panels a series of unconnected palmettes are arranged formally in friezes. The central panel decorations are based on a formal arrangement of S-curves terminating in swelling leaves, with a filler pattern that includes palmettes, comma-leaves and over-and-under tendrils. The neck-guard has a less formal and more fluid pattern. The cheek guard has a palmette design in which may be seen a curled serpent that appears to be horned. Horned serpents are often found in Romano-Celtic works in Britain and France, but very rarely in early La Tène. The depiction on the helmet may have some special significance.^[1]

The decoration mainly reflects the 5th century Early Style of Celtic Art, but some motifs are characteristic of the Waldalgesheim style of the 4th century,^[11] The central panel designs show similarities to the Waldalgesheim bracelets.^[1] This indicates that the helmet was made in the first half of the 4th century. The large palmettes with seven petals in the lower band and the main frieze in the central band may have been inspired by architectural terracotta from Tyrrhenian central Italy in the 5th and 4th centuries. The neck guard combines Waldalgesheim style with elements of 4th century Greek or Etruscan work.^[11]

Giacobbe Giusti, Agris Helmet (iron, bronze, gold, coral), Musée d’Angoulême

• 

  Decoration on the neck-guard

   

Giacobbe Giusti, Agris Helmet (iron, bronze, gold, coral), Musée d’Angoulême

• 

  Decoration on the lower band

   

 

Giacobbe Giusti, Agris Helmet (iron, bronze, gold, coral), Musée d’Angoulême

• 

  Decoration on the center band

   

 

Giacobbe Giusti, Agris Helmet (iron, bronze, gold, coral), Musée d’Angoulême

• 

  Decoration on the upper band

Origin

Giacobbe Giusti, Agris Helmet (iron, bronze, gold, coral), Musée d’Angoulême

The Amfreville helmet, another Celtic prestige helmet from the Atlantic region.

Three main regions of the Celtic world have been proposed as the origin of the helmet. The first is the northern or central Adriatic region of Italy. Some think the new plant-style compositions were developed by Celtic craftsmen who settled in Italy and were influenced by Etruscan or Greek craftsmen with whom they had direct contact. The complexity of the montage and decoration may be explained by proximity to advanced metalworking centers such as those of Taranto or Campania. The objection is that all Celtic helmets from the period found in Italy were in one piece. Those with riveted neck guards have all been found in the Alps, the regions north of the Alps or the Atlantic region.^[17]

The second proposed region of origin is the North Alpine area that formed the ancient center of Celtic culture. The materials and techniques, and the general composition and decoration, seem to place the work among the best 5th century Celtic works from this region.^[17] The conical shape of the top of the helmet seems to be derived from Celtic helmets from the start of the second Iron Age. Where these were decorated, the decorations were in superimposed bands. Some details of the plant ornamentation are very similar to small Celtic ornaments from Austria, the Alpine regions and western Switzerland. This is the area where helmets with riveted neck guards are found most often.^[17]

The third possibility is that the helmet was made in the area where it was found. It is one of a small set of prestige helmets that were mostly found in western France, the most famous being the completely decorated helmet of Amfreville-sous-les-Monts in the Eure.^[17] All were made of an iron or bronze cap covered with bands of another metal that were completely decorated. They have red ornaments, mostly coral. Riveted neck pieces are also found in this region.^[17]

Gold samples from various parts of the helmet are exceptionally pure, typically 99% gold, 0.5% silver and 0.2% copper.^[18] This degree of purity is very unusual in the ancient world.^[18] Analysis of Greek and Etruscan objects of the period shows much higher silver content.^[9]Most ancient objects with this degree of purity have been found to the southwest of the Loire, the region that includes Agris.^[9] The only comparable objects are 3rd century Celtic jewelry from this region.^[18]Probably the helmet was made in the West by craftsmen trained in the North Alpine School.^[10] The gold may well have come from mines in the west of the Massif Central, which had been in operation since at least the 5th century BC. Other high-quality works of Celtic art have been found in the Western region, so a local provenance is entirely possible.^[18]

Notes

1. Jump up^ It is sometimes reported that the helmet was given to the Archaeological and Historical Society of the Charente. This is incorrect.^[4]
2. Jump up^ The rivets are made of an alloy with at least 80% silver, 20% gold and almost 1% copper. This would have been relatively easy to work, but stronger than pure gold or silver.^[15]

1. ^ Jump up to:^{a b c d e f g h} Harding 2007, p. 76.
2. ^ Jump up to:^{a b c d e f g h i} Éluère, Gomez de Soto & Duval 1987, p. 9.
3. Jump up^ Gomez 1983, p. 196.
4. ^ Jump up to:^{a b c d e f} Gomez De Soto & Verger 2010, p. 56.
5. ^ Jump up to:^{a b c d e} Koch & Minard 2012, p. 423.
6. Jump up^ Luccisano 2005.
7. ^ Jump up to:^a b Green 2012, p. 43.
8. Jump up^ Green 2012, p. 376.
9. ^ Jump up to:^a b c Éluère, Gomez de Soto & Duval 1987, p. 18.
10. ^ Jump up to:^a b Gomez de Soto 2001, p. 213.
11. ^ Jump up to:^{a b c d e f g} Gomez De Soto & Verger 2010, p. 57.
12. Jump up^ Harding 2007, p. 75.
13. Jump up^ Eluère 1984, p. 110.
14. Jump up^ Éluère, Gomez de Soto & Duval 1987, p. 10.
15. ^ Jump up to:^a b Éluère, Gomez de Soto & Duval 1987, p. 12.
16. Jump up^ Éluère, Gomez de Soto & Duval 1987, p. 11.
17. ^ Jump up to:^{a b c d e} Gomez De Soto & Verger 2010, p. 58.
18. ^ Jump up to:^a b c d Gomez De Soto & Verger 2010, p. 59.

Sources

• Eluère, Christiane (1984). “Two Unique Golden Helmets”. Gold Bulletin. 17 (3): 110–111. doi:10.1007/BF03216577. Retrieved 2015-10-16.
• Éluère, Christiane; Gomez de Soto, José; Duval, Alain-René (1987). “Un chef-d’œuvre de l’orfèvrerie celtique : le casque d’Agris (Charente)”. Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française (in French). 84 (1). Retrieved 2014-10-14.
• Gomez, J. (1983). “Nouvelles découvertes exceptionnelles de la Tène ancienne dans la grotte d’Agris, Charente”. Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française (in French). Société Préhistorique Française. 80(7). JSTOR 27918700.
• Gomez de Soto, José (2001). “Monde nord-alpin et/ou méditerranée? Actualités de l’art celtique de Gaule de l’ouest (V^e -IV^e s. av. J.-C.)”. Revue Archéologique, Nouvelle Série (in French). Presses Universitaires de France. 1: 212–218. JSTOR 41016785.
• Gomez De Soto, José; Verger, Stephane (2010). “Le casque d’Agris, chef-d’oeuvre de l’art celtique occidental” (PDF). L’archéologue (in French). Retrieved 2015-10-15.
• Green, Miranda (2012-12-06). The Celtic World. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-135-63243-4. Retrieved 2015-10-14.
• Harding, D.W. (2007-06-11). The Archaeology of Celtic Art. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-134-26464-3. Retrieved 2015-10-14.
• Koch, John T.; Minard, Antone (2012). The Celts: History, Life, and Culture. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-1-59884-964-6. Retrieved 2015-10-14.
• Luccisano, Silvio (2005). Le casque d’Agris, tome 1 : Le sanctuaire interdit. Christophe Robakowski (Couleurs), Laurent Libessart (Dessins). Assor BD. ISBN 978-2951666054. ASIN 2951666055.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agris_Helmet

http://www.giacobbegiusti.com

Giacobbe Giusti, Etruscan Chandelier

Giacobbe Giusti, Etruscan Chandelier

Giacobbe Giusti, Etruscan Chandelier

MAEC: Museum of the Etruscan Academy and of the City of Cortona

Etruscan Chandelier Room, one of the most famous objects preserved in this museum and the real symbol of MAEC, a bronze masterpiece with a rich decoration, dated to the half of the 5th century B.C. and up to now unique in its kind.

http://www.cortonaweb.net/en/museums/cortona-maec-museum-02

http://www.giacobbegiusti.com

 

Giacobbe Giusti, CHIMERA of Arezzo

Chimera of Arezzo (detail)

Bronze. First half of the 4th century BCE.
Height ca. 80 cm.

Florence, National Archaeological Museum
(Museo archeologico nazionale di Firenze)

 

Giacobbe Giusti, CHIMERA of Arezzo

Giacobbe Giusti, CHIMERA of Arezzo

Chimera of Arezzo
Year	c. 400 BC
Type	bronze
Location	Museo Archeologico Nazionale, Florence

The bronze “Chimera of Arezzo” is one of the best known examples of the art of the Etruscans. It was found in Arezzo, an ancient Etruscan and Roman city in Tuscany, in 1553 and was quickly claimed for the collection of the MediciGrand Duke of TuscanyCosimo I, who placed it publicly in the Palazzo Vecchio, and placed the smaller bronzes from the trove in his own studiolo at Palazzo Pitti, where “the Duke took great pleasure in cleaning them by himself, with some goldsmith’s tools,” Benvenuto Cellini reported in his autobiography. Court intellectuals of the time considered the Chimera of Arezzo to be a symbol of the Medici domination of the grand duchy.The Chimera is still conserved in Florence, now in the Archaeological Museum. It is approximately 80 cm in height.^[1]

In Greek mythology the monstrous Chimera ravaged its homeland, Lycia, until it was slain by Bellerophon. The goat head of the Chimera has a wound inflicted by this Greek hero. Based on the cowering, representation of fear, and the wound inflicted, this sculpture may have been part of a set that would have included a bronze sculpture of Bellerophon. This bronze was at first identified as a lion by its discoverers in Arezzo, for its tail, which would have taken the form of a serpent, is missing. It was soon recognized as representing the chimera of myth and in fact, among smaller bronze pieces and fragments brought to Florence, a section of the tail was soon recovered, according to Giorgio Vasari. The present bronze tail is an 18th-century restoration.

The Chimera was one of a hoard of bronzes that had been carefully buried for safety some time in antiquity. They were discovered by accident, when trenches were being dug just outside the Porta San Laurentino in the city walls. A bronze replica now stands near the spot.

Inscribed on its right foreleg is an inscription which has been variously read, but most recently is agreed to be TINSCVIL, showing that the bronze was a votive object dedicated to the supreme Etruscan god of day, Tin or Tinia. The original statue is estimated to have been created around 400 BC.

In 2009 and 2010 the statue traveled to the United States where it was displayed at the Getty Villa in Malibu, California.^[1][2][3]

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_of_Arezzo

http://www.giacobbegiusti.com

 

Giacobbe Giusti, Power and Pathos at the Getty Center

Giacobbe Giusti, Power and Pathos at the Getty Center

The Getty Center

Portrait of Seuthes III, about 310-300 B.C., bronze, copper, calcite, alabaster, and glass. National Institute of Archaeology with Museum, BAS. Photo: Krasimir Georgiev

GETTY CENTER

Power and Pathos: Bronze Sculpture of the Hellenistic World

GETTY CENTER

Daily, through November 1

Exhibitions Pavilion

Free | No ticket required

During the three centuries between the reigns of Alexander the Great and Augustus, artists around the Mediterranean created innovative, realistic sculptures of physical power and emotional intensity. Bronze—with its tensile strength, reflective effects, and ability to hold the finest detail—was employed for dynamic compositions, dazzling displays of the nude body, and graphic expressions of age and character. This unprecedented international loan exhibition unites about fifty significant bronzes of the Hellenistic age.

This exhibition was organized by the J. Paul Getty Museum, the Fondazione Palazzo Strozzi in Florence, and the National Gallery of Art in Washington with the participation of the Soprintendenza per i Beni Archeologici della Toscana. It is supported by an indemnity from the Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities.

Learn more 

http://www.getty.edu/visit/cal/events/ev_425.html

http://www.giacobbegiusti.com

Giacobbe Giusti, Power and Pathos

Giacobbe Giusti, Power and Pathos

         

 

Head of Apollo, First century BCE–first century CE, bronze, 51 x 40 x 38 cm. Salerno, Museo Archeologico Provinciale.

By Alain.R.Truong

FLORENCE.- From 14 March to 21 June 2015, Palazzo Strozzi in Florence will be the first venue to host the major exhibition entitled Power and Pathos. Bronze Sculpture of the Hellenistic World organised and produced in conjunction with the J. Paul Getty Museum in Los Angeles, the National Gallery of Art in Washington and the Soprintendenza Archeologica della Toscana, Tuscany’s directorate general for archaeology. After Florence, the exhibition will travel to the J. Paul Getty Museum in Los Angeles from 28 July to 1 November 2015 and then to the National Gallery of Art in Washington, DC, from 6 December 2015 to 20 March 2016.

Statue Base signed by Lysippos, End of fourth–beginning of third century BCE, blue-grey limestone, 30 x 70.5 x 70,5 cm. Corinth, 37th Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities.

This important joint venture reinforces Palazzo Strozzi’s international reputation for excellence. The exhibition will showcase – for the first time in Florence – some of the greatest masterpieces of the ancient world from such leading Italian and international museums as the Museo Archeologico Nazionale in Florence, the Museo Nacional del Prado in Madrid, the Museo Archeologico Nazionale in Naples, the British Museum in London, the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, the Galleria degli Uffizi in Florence, the National Archaeological Museum of Athens, the Archaeological Museum of Heraklion (Crete), the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna, the Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki, the Musée du Louvre in Paris, the Vatican Museums and the Musei Capitolini in Rome.

Portrait Statue of Aule Meteli (Arringatore), Late second century BCE, bronze, 179 cm. Florence, Museo Archeologico Nazionale.

Power and Pathos features about 50 extraordinary sculptures in bronze and tells the story of the artistic achievements of the Hellenistic era (4th to 1st centuries BC), when new bronze-working techniques were developed, new forms of expression were explored, and a first globalized language of art emerged in the Mediterranean and beyond. In this cosmopolitan climate, Greek art, in effect, became an international phenomenon.

Statuette of Alexander the Great on Horseback, First century BCE, bronze, with silver inlays, 49 x 47 x 29 cm. Naples, Museo Archeologico Nazionale.

The vast Hellenistic empire founded by Alexander the Great stretched from Greece and the borders of Ethiopia to the Indus Valley, embracing Egypt, Persia, and Mesopotamia. Thus its astonishing output in the fields of art, history and philosophy enjoyed extensive dissemination. While the Classical Greek world was based essentially on the polis, or citystate, now art served more than the cities and their citizens and focused instead on the courts of Alexander’s successors. Artists devoted their skills to celebrating the rulers and their achievements, adopting and adapting Classical modes of expression to suit new needs.

Horse Head (“Medici Riccardi” Horse), Second half of the fourth century BCE, bronze, 81 x 95 x 40 cm. Florence, Museo Archeologico Nazionale.

The exhibition owes its unique character to bronze, an alloy of copper, tin, and often lead, so significant in ancient technology and art that Pliny the Elder dedicated an entire book to this medium. Bronze works are extremely rare today, and the vast majority of large bronzes from the ancient world are lost because they have been melted down over the centuries so that the metal could be used to mint coins and to manufacture arms. Immediately after casting, bronze was so dazzling that it resembled gold.

Head of a Man with Kausia, Third century BCE, bronze, faïence or alabaster, 32 x 27.9 cm. Pothia, Archaeological Museum of Kalymnos.

One of the reasons this show is an unprecedented, once-in-a-lifetime event is that it will allow visitors to admire works never before seen together: the bronze Apoxyomenos from Vienna alongside the Uffizi’s marble version used in its restoration; the two archaising Apollo-Kouroi from the Louvre and from Pompeii. Although all of these “pairs” have frequently been shown together in photographs, this is the very first time that any of them have been displayed side by side. A large number of the bronzes surviving to this day were found in the sea rather than on dry land. Spectacular underwater finds include the figure of a General (Lucius Aemilius Paullus?) found in the sea off Brindisi in 1992, and the Head of a Man with Kausia (discovered in the Aegean off the island of Kalymnos in 1997).

Portrait of a Diadoch (Demetrios Poliorketes?), 310–290 BCE, bronze, 45 x 35 x 39 cm. Madrid, Museo Nacional del Prado.

The discovery of the head of Apollo in the sea off Salerno in December 1930 was poetically described by Nobel Prize laureate Giuseppe Ungaretti: “Night had almost fallen and the anchovy fishermen were returning to port in single file. Gathering up their nets, one of the fishermen found […] a head of Apollo in his net. Holding it up in the palm of his lined hand and seeing it now imbued with new life in the light and appearing to bleed – where it had been severed at the neck – in the fire of the setting sun, the fisherman thought he was looking at St. John the Baptist. I myself have seen it at the Museum in Salerno; it may be by Praxiteles or possibly Hellenistic […] its indulgent and quivering smile hinting at an ineffable song of youth restored to life!”

Portrait of Arsinoë III, Late third century–early second century BCE, bronze, 30 x 20 x 30 cm. Mantua, Museo Civico di Palazzo Te.

Unlike Classical artists, who sought to convey a sense of balance and serenity, Hellenistic sculptors aimed to capture the full range of human feelings, from anger and passion to joy and anguish. They typically emphasised pathos, or lived experience, in the figures they depicted, and we find this also in the portraits of the men who rose to power in Alexander’s wake. Such portraits were designed to bolster the sitters’ legitimacy and dynastic connections through a combination of individual features both dramatic and idealised. Statues of athletes such as the so-called Apoxyomenos—a figure shown after the competition, holding a small curved instrument called a strigil used to scrape off sweat and dirt from the body— focus on the nude male body in its various forms. Artists no longer represent wholly idealised forms, as in the Classical era, but depict momentary details that vividly express physical and emotional states.

Statue of a Man, Second century BCE, bronze, 127 x 75 x 49 cm h. 30 cm (head). Brindisi, Museo Archeologico Provinciale “F. Ribezzo”.

Curated by Jens Daehner and Kenneth Lapatin of the J. Paul Getty Museum in Los Angeles, the exhibition offers a comprehensive overview of the Hellenistic bronze sculpture in its larger archaeological, cultural and geographical environments.

Portrait of a Man, First century BCE, bronze, 29.5 x 21.5 x 21.5 cm. Malibu, J. Paul Getty Museum.

Monumental statues of gods, athletes, and heroes will be displayed alongside portraits of historical figures—including select sculptures in marble and stone—in a journey allowing visitors to explore the fascinating stories of these masterpieces’ discovery, often at sea (Mediterranean, Black Sea) but also in the course of archaeological digs, thus setting the finds in their ancient contexts. Those contexts could be a sanctuary where they were used for votive purposes, a public space where they celebrated personalities or events, a home where they fulfilled a decorative function, or a cemetery where they commemorated the deceased. A unique feature of the Palazzo Strozzi exhibition is that it sets the works in context by also probing and exploring the production and casting processes and the finishing techniques adopted.

Statuette of a Ruler as Hermes or Perseus, First century BCE–first century CE, bronze, with base 80 x 30 x 25.4 cm. Naples, Museo Archeologico Nazionale.

Statue of a Young Man, Third–fourth century BCE, bronze, 152 x 52 x 68 cm. Athens, Ephorate of Underwater Antiquities.

Statuette of Hermes, c. 150 BCE, bronze, 49 x 20 x 15 cm. London, The British Museum.

Statuette of the Weary Herakles, Third century BCE or first century CE (?); copy of a fourth-century BCE bronze by Lysippos, bronze, silver, 35.9 x 17.5 x 14 cm h. 39 cm with base. Chieti, Museo Archeologico Nazionale d’Abruzzo.

Statuette of an Artisan, Mid-first century BCE, bronze, silver, 40.03 x 13 x 10.8 cm. New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Statuette of Herakles Epitrapezios (Herakles seated), First century BCE–first century CE, bronze, limestone, 75 x 67 x 54 cm h. 95 cm with base. Naples, Museo Archeologico Nazionale.

Statue of Eros Sleeping, Third–second century BCE, bronze, 41.9 x 85.2 x 35.6 cm. New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Portrait of a Man, End of second–beginning of first century BCE, bronze, glass paste, black stone, 32.5 x 22 x 22 cm. Athens, National Archaeological Museum.

Portrait of a Bearded Man, c. 150 BCE, marble, 40.7 x 25 x 31.7 cm. Malibu, J. Paul Getty Museum.

Head of a Votive Statue, 375–350 BCE, bronze, 24.3 x 15.5 x 15.5 cm.London, The British Museum.

Portrait of a Man, Late fourth–third century BCE, bronze, copper, glass paste, 26.8 x 21.8 x 23.5 cm. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France.

Portrait Statue of a Young Ephebe, First half of the first century BCE, bronze, with base 140 x 57.2 x 45.1 cm. Heraklion, Archaeological Museum.

Portrait Statue of an Aristocratic Boy, Augustan period (27 BCE–14 CE), bronze, 132.4 x 50.8 x 41.9 cm. New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Portrait of a Man, First century BCE, bronze, 43 x 26 x 25 cm. Naples, Museo Archeologico Nazionale.

Bust of a Man (Lucius Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus Pontifex), Late first century BCE–early first century CE, 46 x 28 x 23 cm. Naples, Museo Archeologico Nazionale.

Portrait of a Man, 50–25 BCE, bronze, copper, marble, 32 x 22 x 22 cm h. 22.5 cm (head). Copenaghen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek.

Statue of an Athlete (Apoxyomenos from Ephesos), 1–50 CE, bronze, 205.4 x 78.7 x 77.5 cm. Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum.

Head of an Athlete (Ephesos Apoxyomenos type), Second century BCE–first century CE, bronze, 29.2 x 21 x 27.3 cm h. 51.4 cm with base. Fort Worth, Kimbell Art Museum.

Statue of an Athlete (Ephesos Apoxyomenos type), Second century CE, marble, h. 193 cm. Florence, Galleria degli Uffizi.

Torso of an Athlete (Ephesos Apoxyomenos type), First century CE, basanite, h. 110 cm. Castelgandolfo, Musei Vaticani, Villa Pontificia, Antiquarium.

Herm of Dionysos (Getty Herm), Workshop of Boëthos of Kalchedon (attributed), Second century BCE, bronze, copper, calcitic stone, 103.5 x 23.5 x 19.5 cm. Malibu, J. Paul Getty Museum.

Athena (Minerva of Arezzo), 300–270 BCE, bronze, copper, 155 x 50 x 50 cm. Florence, Museo Archeologico Nazionale.

Medallion with the Bust of Athena, c. 150 BCE, bronze, white glass paste, 27.2 x 27.1 x 19 cm. Thessaloniki, Archaeological Museum.

Head of Aphrodite (?), First century BCE, bronze, 37x 30.5 x 29 cm. London, The British Museum.

Statue of Apollo (Piombino Apollo), 120–100 BCE, bronze, copper, silver, 117 x 42 x 42 cm. Paris, Musée du Louvre.

Statue of Apollo (Kouros), First century BCE–first century CE, bronze, copper, bone, dark stone, glass, 128 x 33 x 38 cm. Pompeii, Soprintendenza Speciale per i Beni Archeologici di Pompei, Ercolano e Stabia.

Torso of a Youth (The Vani Torso), Second century BCE, bronze, 105 x 45 x 25 cm. Tbilisi, Georgian National Museum.

Herm Bust of the Doryphoros, Apollonios (active late first century BCE), Late first century BCE, bronze, 58 x 66 x 27 cm. Naples, Museo Archeologico Nazionale.

Ephebe (Idolino from Pesaro), c. 30 BCE, bronze, copper, lead, h. 148 cm h. 300 cm with base. Florence, Museo Archeologico Nazionale.

Bust of an Ephebe (Beneventum Head), c. 50 BCE, bronze, copper, 33 x 23 x 20 cm. Paris, Musée du Louvre.

Spinario (Spinario Castellani), c. 25–50 CE, marble, cm 69 x 40,5 x 35. London, The British Museum.

https://francescarachelvalle.wordpress.com/2015/03/15/firenze-potere-e-pathos-bronzi/

http://alaintruong.canalblog.com/archives/2015/03/14/31700771.html

http://www.giacobbegiusti.com

Giacobbe Giusti: Jens M Daehner and Kenneth Lapatin, the co-curators of Power and Pathos

Giacobbe Giusti: Jens M Daehner and Kenneth Lapatin, the co-curators of Power and Pathos

 

1. Head of Athlete Holding a Strigil (Ephebe Apoxyomenos from Ephesos),
AD 1-50. 205cm x 78.7cm x 77.5cm. Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna.

 

Jens M Daehner and Kenneth Lapatin, the co-curators of Power and Pathos: Bronze Sculpture of the Hellenistic World, explain the thinking behind their stunning
new exhibition

In the winter of 2000, two bronze statues in the Berlin Antikensammlung, the so-called Praying Boy and the headless Salamis Youth, were joined by two other bronzes lent from Florence and Los Angeles, the statue of an ephebe called the Idolino and the victorious athlete known as the Getty Bronze. They had been brought to Germany to undergo scientific testing at the Federal Institute for Materials Research and Testing (Bundesanstalt für Materialprüfung, BAM), particularly CT scanning to measure and visualise the thickness of the casts. While they were there, the curators in Berlin seized the rare opportunity to display these four sculptures, two Greek and two Roman, side by side in the rotunda of the Altes Museum.

2. Bronze portrait head of a man,
1st century BC. 29.5cm x 21.6cm x 21.6cm.
The J Paul Getty Museum, Villa Collection.

3. Ephebe (Idolino from Pesaro) circa 30 BC, bronze with copper inlays and lead. National Archaeological Museum, Florence.

4. Apollo-Kouros, 1st century BC to 1st century AD, bronze, copper, bone, dark stone, glass.
128cm x 33cm x 38cm.
5. The head of Apollo-Kouros.Soprintendenza Speciale per i Beni Archeologici di Pompei.

The coming together of four life-size male nudes in bronze was unprecedented, inviting direct comparison­ – exploration without scientific equipment – in which topics such as the body as rendered in bronze, various depictions of age and degrees of realism, and the Classical versus classicising, all powerfully came to the fore. The two Greek athletes from around 300 BC and the two Roman youths of the Augustan age, produced three centuries later, made a quartet framing the beginning and the end of the Hellenistic epoch, yet depicting
very much the same subject in the same medium. This temporary installation in Berlin also highlighted persistent challenges in comparing large-scale ancient bronzes: as rare survivors from antiquity, they usually exist in ‘splendid isolation’ at their home institutions, which seldom possess more than one in their collections. Such statues are usually granted a questionable status as unique masterpieces of ancient art. This means being able to see and study more than one or two bronze sculptures at a time is exceptional, but in our exhibition visitors are able to do just that.
Marble sculpture, by contrast, exists in relative abundance, filling galleries and storerooms in museums worldwide. There is a solid, highly evolved set of critical methods for comparing and making sense of marbles, based on the quantity of available specimens and centuries of perceptive experience with the medium that is shared by lay and expert viewers. An equivalent ‘toolbox’ for seeing and understanding bronze statues in direct juxtaposition does not exist, or, simply put, we lack the familiarity of seeing them side by side. This affects not only aesthetic questions such as the assessment of style, but also the interpretation of bronze-specific surface phenomena such as corrosion, intentional patinas ­– both ancient and modern – and the cleaning methods employed in earlier restorations.
One of bronze’s principal characteristics is that, like any metal, it can be melted down and reused. Ancient bronze statues therefore survive in numbers far smaller than their counterparts in more dur-able marble. In fact, with the exception of very few sculptures that seem never to have been lost and subsequently recovered, the ancient bronze images that are so greatly admired today have been preserved largely by chance – whether they were discovered accidentally or unearthed during carefully planned and executed scientific excavations. Given the law of supply and demand, the rarity of ancient bronzes has elevated their value and status. So, although scarce in museum galleries, they are prevalent both in our textbooks and in popular consciousness.
Greek and Latin literary sources and the fact that bronzes were transported as booty, but also as scrap, leave no doubt that the statues were valued. But were they valued more highly than those fashioned from other materials? Certainlynot more than images of gold and ivory, whose materials alone placed them in a different class altogether. But since the Renaissance, when scholars sought to connect surviving artefacts with works mentioned in ancient texts, bronze statues have come to be prized as ‘originals’, frequently in contrast to marble ‘copies’, and they have frequently been considered Greek rather than Roman.

6. Bronze statuette of Alexander the Great on horseback, 1st century BC. 49cm x 47cm x 29cm. National Archaeological Museum, Naples.

There are several paradoxes here: first, the devaluing of marble, which was a primary, natural, local medium for the Greeks and always had to be carved by hand. Second, and more significantly, that bronze, a material that lends itself to the serial reproduction of similar, if not identical statues through the use of moulds and the indirect lost-wax technique, should be regarded as the premier material for the creation of unique, original works of art.
Such is the allure of ancient bronzes that there has been an irresistible urge among scholars to attribute them to famous sculptors – a trend that continues to this day in an almost predictable pattern: the head of a boxer from Olympia has been attributed to Silanion; the Getty Athlete and the Terme Boxer, both to Lysippos; and the Mazara Satyr declared to be an original by Praxiteles. The latest example is the bronze version of the Apollo Sauroktonos in Cleveland, also believed by some to have been cast by Praxiteles himself, or at least by
his workshop.
Indeed, scholars hardly agree on what distinguishes a direct from an indirect casting or how to determine whether surface details were executed in the wax or as part of the cold work after casting. Yet these distinctions are often considered particularly important in the hope of establishing how original a given bronze is, and deemed crucial in any effort to find Greek sculptural ‘originals’.
The number of statue bases whose cuttings indicate that they supported bronze statues preserved in cities and sanctuaries across the Mediterranean world certainly demonstrates the popularity and status of bronze as a medium, as do their inscriptions and other ancient documents recording with varying specificity what achievements those depicted had accomplished or benefactions they had granted in order to merit such
an honour.

7. Bronze head of Apollo, 1st century BC to 1st century AD. 51cm x 40cm x 38cm. Provincial Archaeological Museum, Salerno.

But was bronze always to be preferred over marble? Surviving statues demonstrate that Hellenistic marble carvers were no less skilled than their colleagues who modelled wax and cast bronze, even if the inherent characteristics of bronze, including its greater tensile strength, allowed sculptors to achieve dramatic visual effects less readily realised in other materials. Marbles, too, were enhanced by added colour, and extreme poses could be depicted.
The truth of the matter is that throughout antiquity marble appears to have remained the preferred material for images of gods, for funerary statues, and, as we might expect, for architectural sculpture. But in the Hellenistic period, as the social currency of honorific statuary became even more important than it had been in preceding centuries, bronze became pre-eminent, and the metal contributed its own economic, mythological, and ideological qualities to its unique physical ones.
Exaggerated or not, the fact that Lysippos is credited with having made 1500 bronze statues (Pliny, Natural History, 34.37), of which not one has survived, is a cogent reminder of the known unknowns regarding bronze sculpture at the very outset of the Hellenistic period. More than a Socratic statement of ignorance, the empty statue base from Corinth – inscribed with the name of Lysippos and with cuttings for the feet of a bronze figure – emphasises not only the pervasive loss of Hellenistic bronze statuary, but also the difficulties of reconstructing the original functions of those works that have survived in secondary if not tertiary contexts such as shipwrecks, warehouses, or intentional burials. Wherever statues have escaped re-melting and recycling, the ancient markets for art and metal have often ‘interfered’ in their lives and thus complicated the record. Ironically, it is largely due to the trade in works of art – and the accidents that occurred during such transitions – that bronzes have survived at all.
The relatively small corpus of large-scale Hellenistic bronze sculptures known today has grown slowly but steadily over the past centuries. To this day, however, there is no comprehensive survey of the material, comprising physical, iconographical, and textual evidence. Despite manageable quantities of works and fragments, the obvious challenges lie in defining ‘large scale’ and identifying what belongs to the Hellenistic period, including the vexed question of what may be casts of earlier models or Roman casts after Hellenistic models.
Our exhibition, Power and Pathos: Bronze Sculpture of the Hellenistic World, features both Hellenistic works and Roman bronzes in a Hellenistic tradition, including some representative medium and small-scale examples. So it seems worthwhile to offer some historiographical perspective and mention some of the landmark discoveries that have shaped our current knowledge and understanding of Hellenistic bronze statuary.
Excavated in the 1750s, the Villa dei Papiri at Herculaneum has yielded the largest number of ancient bronzes ever found at a single site and almost overnight catapulted the study of bronzes from antiquarian pastime to art-historical discipline. Outnumbering the villa’s marble statuary by a ratio of almost 3:1 (63:22), the bronzes belonged to the superlative sculpture collection of late-Republican and Augustan patrons, which included statues and herm busts of gods, heroes, and athletes; portraits of rulers, citizens, and intellectuals as well as animal sculptures and small-scale fountain decorations. Many of these are replicas of opera nobilia of Classical Greek art; others, particularly some of the portraits, reproduce works of the Hellenistic period, yet there are also creations in the Archaic and Severe styles of the early 5th century BC: not actual ‘antiques’ but deliberate imitations, if not outright forgeries. The decorative programme of the villa thus encapsulates many of the aspects relevant to research into Hellenistic bronze explored in this exhibition: replication, imitation, retrospective styles, originality, and the challenges of dating, as well as the tradition of Hellenistic art in a 1st-century BC Roman context.
When two over-life-size statues, known today as the Terme Ruler and the Terme Boxer, were discovered on the Quirinal hill in 1885, it immediately became clear that they survived intact not by chance, but because they were­­ – for reasons still unknown – carefully deposited in antiquity. The find, if not the circumstances of burial, illuminates the fate of many Greek bronzes that were removed from their original locations and transferred to Italy, beginning with the Roman conquests of the Eastern Mediterranean in the mid-2nd century BC. Although we can easily imagine the Quirinal bronzes installed in a Greek sanctuary or civic space, we can only speculate about their function and display in Rome. They may have been part of the city’s collection of Greek works of art, admired by Romans much as we admire them today. In fact, nothing associates these two Greek bronzes within their new cultural context beyond their extraordinary artistic and conceptual qualities. Since the moment of their discovery, the ruler’s heroic image of power and the boxer’s graphically rendered pathos have helped crystallise in the modern mind two paramount phenomena of Hellenistic art.
Like many bronzes found underwater in the Mediterranean, the cache of statues found – on land – at Athens’ port, Piraeus, in 1959 were sculptures in transition. Packed tightly together in two crates, the five bronzes – Athena, Apollo-Kouros, two statues of Artemis, and a tragic mask – must have been destined for shipment from a warehouse in the ancient harbour that burned down in the early 1st century BC. The group highlights the existence of a vibrant market for Greek bronzes, yet how old exactly they are in this case has not been properly determined. The Apollo in Archaic style, now considered a Hellenistic creation, if not an actual Archaic bronze, is the extreme in the group, while the goddesses have been dated either on the face value of their style (with little consideration that they could be bronze copies of older works) or as contemporary casts of a single commission. Regrettably, since their discovery 56 years ago, the Piraeus bronzes have not been systematically analysed or had their casting techniques examined.
But the seductive opportunities to look inside the hollow-cast bronzes with endoscopes and through their walls with x-rays have, at least for a time, sidelined efforts to make sense of their exteriors and of the medium’s specific aesthetics. We know a lot about the chemistry of man-made alloys, minute details of casting, cold-working, and repairs, but still very little about bronze’s role in artistic development, how its use impacted style, or why it was chosen for particular subjects, genres, or iconographic categories. That bronze as an artistic medium has been studied largely from a technological point of view, perhaps more so than other metals, has to do with its complex metallurgy as a copper alloy and the sophistication of the casting process.

8. Bronze portrait head of Arsinoë III Philopator, late 3rd century to early 2nd century BC.
30cm x 20cm x 30cm. Civic Museum, Palazzo Te, Mantua.

Rarely, however, has technical or analytical data allowed us to narrow the date of a bronze sculpture beyond what could be – and mostly had been already – established on stylistic grounds. In no period of Greek and Roman art is this more apparent than in the Hellenistic age: some of the period’s signature bronze sculptures can be placed, with persuasive stylistic arguments, at various points within a 300-year window spanning the entire period, while none of the intensive scientific investigations have yielded viable arguments in favour of an earlier or later date. Like certain styles in Hellenistic sculpture, bronze-casting technologies cannot (so far) be pinned to particular phases or excluded from others within this long period. Even less so once we recognise that some artists not only imitated earlier styles but also chose old-fashioned techniques. Thus the three Hellenistic artists who left their names on lead tablets inside the Piombino Apollo fashioned their statue, basically an Archaic kouros, with copper inlays for the eyebrows – a typical treatment for Archaic bronzes – and silver inlays for the antiquated letters of the dedicatory inscription.
Either our data on the alloys and techniques of Hellenistic bronze sculpture is too limited for making better distinctions, or the casting process and other metallurgical traditions did not change all that much during the period. So unless the decision is between an actual Archaic bronze and an archaistic cast 500 years younger, many analytical test results are found to be merely ‘not inconsistent’ with a Hellenistic attribution of the object
in question.
Of course, technological and metallurgical diagnostics ought not to be reduced to the issue of chronology or authenticity: we do understand bronze sculptures better because the analytical lens allows us to comprehend how they were made. As mentioned above, this kind of manufacturing data, like simple measurements, is increasingly becoming part of the common infrastructure for the serious study of ancient bronzes. Yet the investigations could go significantly further when the methodical juxtaposition of actual works – through loans, exhibitions, or parallel conservation treatments – creates opportunities for comparative inquiries, generating and fuelling future analytical questions. In fact, some recent and current analytical explorations already go hand in hand with a new art-historical interest in the aesthetics of bronze surfaces.

Click for full feature

9. Herm of Dionysos (Getty Herm), from the workshop of Boëthos of Kalchedon, bronze, copper, calcitic stone, 2nd century BC. 103cm x 23.5cm x 19.5cm. The J Paul Getty Museum, Villa Collection.

The challenges of chronology in Hellenistic sculpture often seem to get compounded when dealing with bronze. In our exhibition, the artworks follow only a broad chronological framework: the image of Alexander – represented not by a contemporary bronze portrait (which has not survived) but by a 1st-century BC equestrian statuette – and portraits of subsequent rulers, among which only the heads of Arsinoë III and Seuthes III of Thrace are plausibly (though not indisputably) identified and hence dated.
The subsequent thematic sections each cut across time and geography. Their topics are a blend of iconographical and aesthetic categories ­– portraiture, the body, realism, imitation, and replication – setting up a framework to correlate bronze sculpture to cultural trends, artistic tendencies, and stylistic developments in the Hellenistic age. The idea is to identify and describe phenomena specific to bronze and to bring out what bronze as a medium contributes to the period’s sculpture, be it as a vehicle for tradition or a catalyst for change. How are the expression and the expressiveness of portraits impacted by the use of bronze as opposed to marble? How do surface finishes, such as patinas or polychrome details, affect the question of realism?
Particular emphasis is placed on the aspect of replication. The one phenomenon that distinguishes bronze from other media is its reproducibility through casting. Several examples of multiple versions of the same statue are shown in the catalogue, the extraordinary case being the Apoxyomenos of the Ephesos type, for whom there are three bronze versions, all of them probably late Hellenistic or early Roman Imperial copies of a 4th-century BC athlete holding a strigil. The number of bronze replicas extant has now compelled experts to reassess that
work’s attribution.
Bringing these three bronzes together for the first time in the exhibition will provide an opportunity for comparative study, looking not only at casting and finishing techniques, but also at proportions, details, and styles in order to understand the bronzes’ relation both to one another and to their obviously famous prototype. The two herms of Dionysos, one of which is signed by the 2nd-century BC sculptor Boëthos of Kalchedon, may present a case of multiples produced by the same workshop. The evidence is less clear on this issue for the two archaistic Apollo-Kouroi from Piombino and Pompeii. Although often compared in print, till now neither of these two pairs has previously been displayed side by side.
The idealised sculptures, Idolinos such as the Florentine statue, were made around the time of Augustus, reproducing, refashioning, and sometimes mixing the severe and high-Classical styles of Greek sculpture in the 5th century BC. The Vani torso from ancient Colchis – cast in a local workshop, probably at the height of the Hellenistic period, but in the early Classical idiom of at least 300 years earlier – reminds us that Classicism and other retrospective modes of representation are neither Roman inventions nor exclusive to Italy. Established in Hellenistic art, they fed into the taste for what looks like a Greek revival at the very beginning of the Roman Empire. Bronze certainly was the material of choice that made this period an early ‘age of mechanical reproduction’.

http://www.minervamagazine.co.uk/feature-2015-08.html

http://www.giacobbegiuti.com

Giacobbe Giusti, Zurück zur Klassik

Giacobbe Giusti, Zurück zur Klassik

 

Die Statue eines Faustkämpfers aus Rom (Quirinal), Bronze, 2. Hälfte des vierte Jahrhunderts v. Chr. oder des dritten Jahrhunderts v. Chr. ist hier zu sehen.

 

Foto: Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Liebighaus

Das Frankfurter Liebieghaus präsentiert erlesene griechische Skulpturen unter dem Titel “Zurück zur Klassik”: Hier ein geflügelter Kopf des Hypnos, Original des vierten Jahrhunderts v. Chr. oder römische Wiederholung des ersten Jahrhunderts v. Chr..

4/6

Foto: Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Liebighaus

Die Statue eines Faustkämpfers aus Rom (Quirinal), Bronze, 2. Hälfte des vierte Jahrhunderts v. Chr. oder des dritten Jahrhunderts v. Chr. ist hier zu sehen.

4/6

Foto: Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Liebighaus

Bertel Thorvaldsen (1770–1840) schuf den Kopf des rechten Vorkämpfers (l.) als Ergänzung für den Westgiebel des Aphaia-Tempels von Aigina zwischen 1812 und 1818. (l.) Rechts ist der Gegner des rechten Vorkämpfers ausgestellt (480/479 v. Chr.).

4/6

Foto: Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Liebighaus

Der Kopf des Apollon Sauroktonos des Praxiteles, späthellenistische Kopie (vor der Mitte des ersten Jahrhunderts v. Chr.) nach einem Vorbild um 350 v. Chr. ist ebenfalls ein Exponat.

4/6

Foto: © Staatliche Kunstsammlungen

Buchrezension

Zurück zur Klassik

Vinzenz Brinkmann (Hrsg.)

– Ein neuer Blick auf das alte ­Griechenland

München: Hirmer Verlag 2013, 380 S., 518 farb. Abb., 75 Farbtafeln, 30 S/W-Abb., 49,90 Euro

Die griechische Klassik steht für eine Zeit voller Innovationen und prägte die spätere europäische Kultur entscheidend. Ob Architektur, philosophische Schriften, Dichtungen oder Kunst: Die kulturellen Erzeugnisse des 5. und 4. Jh. v.Chr. in Griechenland wurden von allen darauffolgenden Epochen rezipiert, weil sie als vorbildlich und normativ, eben als klassisch galten.

Der an jener Zeit Interessierte wird sowohl bei seinem Besuch der Ausstellung »Zurück zur Klassik« in der ­Liebieghaus Skulpturensammlung in Frankfurt am Main als auch beim Lesen des gleichnamigen Katalogs überrascht sein: Fundierte Beiträge und 518 Abbildungen von mehr als 80 Originalen machen ihm bewusst, wie tiefgreifend das heutige Bild der griechi­schen Klassik während der vergangenen 2500 Jahre eingeschränkt und verzerrt wurde. Viele Kunstwerke wie z.B. Malereien gingen aufgrund ihrer Beschaffenheit verloren, andere wurden wiederum ganz bewusst selektiert und zerstört.

Renommierte Wissenschaftler stellen aktuelle Ergebnisse vor – von der Rekonstruktionsarbeit an den berühmten Bronzen von Riace bis hin zur Malerei des 5. und 4. Jh. v.Chr. Anhand der Originale lernt der Leser jene Epoche noch einmal neu kennen, weil sie weniger von Idealen, vielmehr vom Leben selbst erzählen und unerwartet realistisch erscheinen. Der Katalog bietet ein neues, anderes, vor allem aber ein unverfälschtes Bild zur griechischen Klassik.

Leoni Hellmayr

Bild zum Vergrößern anklicken.

https://www.aid-magazin.de/Buchrezension.130+M5634d9137cc.0.html

http://www.welt.de/kultur/kunst-und-architektur/article113572997/Von-eleganten-griechischen-Kraft-und-Edelmenschen.html

http://www.giacobbegiusti.com

Giacobbe Giusti, ‘Power and Pathos’ in Washington, DC

Giacobbe Giusti, ‘Power and Pathos’ in Washington, DC

National Gallery of Art

National Gallery of Art :: Exhibitions :: 2015 :: Power and Pathos: Bronze Sculpture of the Hellenistic World

Power and Pathos: Bronze Sculpture of the Hellenistic World

December 13, 2015 – March 20, 2016

TBD

Overview: Some 50 bronze sculptures and related works survey the development of Hellenistic art as it spread from Greece throughout the Mediterranean between the fourth and first centuries BC. Through the medium of bronze, artists were able to capture the dynamic realism, expression, and detail that characterized the new artistic goals of the period. This exhibition will feature works from world-renowned archaeological museums in Austria, Croatia, Denmark, France, Georgia, Great Britain, Greece, Italy, Spain, and the United States. The exhibition presents a unique opportunity to witness the importance of bronze in the ancient world, when it became the preferred medium for portrait sculpture.

Organized by Fondazione Palazzo Strozzi, J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles, and National Gallery of Art, Washington, with the collaboration of Soprintendenza per i Beni Archeologici della Toscana.

Bank of America is proud to be the global sponsor. The exhibition is supported by an indemnity from the Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities.

Other Venues: Palazzo Strozzi, Florence, March 14–June 21, 2015
The J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles, July 28–November 1, 2015

 

• About
• Opportunities
• Press
• NGA Images
• Newsletters
• Notices
• Contact Us
• Audio/Video
• • Twitter
  • https://www.facebook.com/nationalgalleryofart
  • • https://www.pinterest.com/ngadc

http://www.nga.gov/content/ngaweb/exhibitions/2015/power-and-pathos.html

http://www.giacobbegiusti.com

Giacobbe Giusti. ‘Power and Pathos’

Giacobbe Giusti. ‘Power and Pathos’

Apollonius, Boxer at Rest, c. 100 B.C.E., bronze, Hellenistic Period (Palazzo Massimo, Museo Nazionale Romano, Rome).

http://willyorwonthe.blogspot.it/2008/08/favorite-boxer.html

http://www.giacobbegiusti.com

Apollonius, Boxer at Rest, c. 100 B.C.E., bronze, Hellenistic Period (Palazzo Massimo, Museo Nazionale Romano, Rome).

http://willyorwonthe.blogspot.it/2008/08/favorite-boxer.html

http://www.giacobbegiusti.com

Apollonius, Boxer at Rest, c. 100 B.C.E., bronze, Hellenistic Period (Palazzo Massimo, Museo Nazionale Romano, Rome).

http://willyorwonthe.blogspot.it/2008/08/favorite-boxer.html

http://www.giacobbegiusti.com

The statue is a masterpiece of Hellenistic athletic professionalism, with a top-heavy over-muscled torso and scarred and bruised face, cauliflower ears, broken nose, and a mouth suggesting broken teeth. R.R.R. Smith believes that the statue does not show a true portrait: this is genre realism, individuality removed in favour of a generic character of “boxer”.^[2]

In 1989 both bronzes were meticulously conserved by Nikolaus Himmelmann, in preparation for their exhibition at the Akademisches Kunstmuseum in Bonn.^[3] The sculpture is soldered together from eight segments, separately cast through the lost-wax process; the joins have been filed and finished to be virtually invisible. The lips and wounds and scars about the face were originally inlaid with copper, and further copper inlays on the right shoulder, forearm, caestus and thigh represented drops and trickles of blood. The fingers and toes were worn from being rubbed by passers-by in ancient times, which has suggested that the Boxer was carefully buried to preserve its talismanic value, when the Baths were abandoned after the Goths cut the aqueducts that fed them.^[4]

The statue was displayed in the United States for the first time from June to July 2013 at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City as part of the “Year of Italian Culture in the United States”.^[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxer_at_Rest

http://www.giacobbegiusti.com