Day 42 - Roman nude statue of a man - copy of a bronze by Praxiteles?

April 9, 2018

This long, high-ceilinged, skylit gallery (153) is intended to show the glory of Greek classical art. It largely houses Greek terracotta vases and Roman copies in marble of Greek bronze statues. The vases (really, I suppose, kraters and amphoras) date from 550-400 B.C.E. and often depict athletic contests, such as wrestling and foot races. I find the display unsatisfying, because the vases are painted on both sides, but the display cases are so close to the walls that it's nearly impossible to see what's on the reverse side of most of them.

The original bronze statues date from about 500 B.C.E and the marble copies from about 100 B.C.E. to 300 C.E. I feel incredibly lucky to have seen the exhibit of bronze statues at the National Gallery a couple of years ago, because these statues are so rare, many of them having been melted down over the centuries to forge armaments.  Fortunately, the Romans took molds from the bronzes to make plaster casts that could then be replicated in marble.  The caption notes that the Romans commissioned the marble copies to show  their respect and admiration for Greek art; by acquiring these statues, Romans of means could  display both their wealth and their refined taste.  Hardly the first time that art has served as a status symbol, but a notable example. 

But the not-so-hidden subtext of the gallery is that the bronzes were far more extraordinary  in appearance than the marble copies, and I am not sure I agree. One caption says something rather snarky about it being hard to cotton up to the Roman copies. Again I disagree, and I hope my dissent is based on more than being an Italophile. 

The Roman statues certainly raise questions about the importance of originality in art, as opposed to "mere" beauty. I remember a discussion with Wally years ago about whether we should appreciate copies as much as their originals.  I fervently argued in the negative; now, I am not so sure that originality is always of prime significance.  And after all, originality, as opposed to excellent execution, does not appear to have been highly prized in much of Egyptian art.

Were it not for the existence of the Roman copies, it is hard to imagine Renaissance sculpture as we know it. Today's object strikes me as a direct ancestor of Michelangelo's David. The object is a fragment, perhaps 7 feet tall , of a marble statue of Apollo. It dates from about 130-160 C.E.. The original bronze dates from the mid-4th century B.C. E. and, according to the caption, is  "often attrbuted to Praxiteles." The original was, I'm sure, magnificent, but so is this.  l note the contrapposto of the body, with the hip thrust rightward and the torso tilted to the left, the weight balanced in a relaxed posture but resting primarily  on the right foot. The taut musculature of the chest and belly is wonderfully indicated, as are the chiseled hipbones.  Lucian described the original as Apollo relaxing after his labors, with his right arm resting in his head. The head and arms of the copy are missing, but this just serves to rivet my attention on the beautiful sculpting of the torso. The caption says the stance is "somewhat awkward," since parts of the legs were restored; again, I just don't agree.