Must a tradition be defined by every adaptation made of
it? Must that definition account for
things done in jest or hostility ? Must
it account for incompetent execution or things made only to be sold? Must it account for things damaged by time or
reproduction? By
querying “the many ways in which classicism and even its opposite ideals
come to be represented” , it is hardly surprising that a multiplicity of “Classicisms” has been found for this
exhibition.
The three sculpture heads at the entrance give some idea of how
artworks have been selected and presented. To the left is an undated plaster cast of a Roman portrait bust originally created in the second century. Signage
informs us that such casts were once considered “an idealized model of enduring
dignity”. Whatever quality the original
marble may have had, this more recent reproduction has all the enduring dignity
of a tombstone – fit to signify, but not exemplify, something of value. In the
center is an original Roman bust from
North Africa cut from a limestone relief carved in the fifth Century. The nose is gone, the lips are chipped and
one eye is badly mangled. Signage tells
us that it “would never do” for display in European palaces and academies. But even in its damaged condition, it proclaims a fresh and powerful spiritual idealism that feels
early Christian. To the right is a
plaster cast of Rodin’s portrait of Pierre de Wiessant. It’s been scaled down from his multi-figure
“Burghers of Calais”, cast twenty five years after it was modeled,
and the mould seams left uncleaned. Signage tells us that Rodin “adopted the cult of the fragment”.
But more importantly, this piece demonstrates his amazing ability to control
space and express turbulent character with anatomical detail.
The introductory catalog essay asserts that “it would be best to consider classicism less
as a quality inherent in an artwork than as a tool for understanding it.. a
concept pertaining more to the beholder than to the artist”. (1) Yet within that
same catalog, an 18th Century
painter, Antoine Coypel, is quoted as
follows: “Le dessein elegant de
l'antique sculpture, Joint aux effets naifs que fournit la nature". (“L'esthetique
du peintre”,1721) . Though written nearly a century before the word “Classicism”
was first published, that conflation of historic elegance and fresh observation of nature dates back to the
Parthenon. Dramatically reborn eighteen hundred years later, Classicism has been practiced as a way to enjoy life in the natural world without fear, despair, or attention to a hereafter. Like concurrent achievements
in Athenian democratic institutions and rational inquiry, it has echoed throughout world history, however often it has been marginalized or
adapted for other purposes.
A hundred years ago, modern classicism was championed by the
art department of the University of Chicago under the leadership of the sculptor
and writer, Laredo Taft. Obviously, the university’s cultural mission
is now quite different. But the need
for the visual expression of an elegant, vibrant, rational life style continues to be
felt and addressed. It may
even become academically fashionable again some day.
(1) Larry F. Norman "Multiple Classicisms"
(2) Frederick A. De Armas "Mercury as a Messenger of the Gods"
(3) James Nemiroff "Piranesi's Imitation of the Classics"
(1) Larry F. Norman "Multiple Classicisms"
(2) Frederick A. De Armas "Mercury as a Messenger of the Gods"
(3) James Nemiroff "Piranesi's Imitation of the Classics"
No comments:
Post a Comment