The purists are puking. Venus has got a hand job and Mars can now boast of a nice little phallus. These ancient statues did not have the relevant body parts and had lived without them since 175 AD. Come end of 2010 and Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi has got them ‘restored’. This is not restoration. Any art work that had been altered from the way it was created is tampered with; restoration is a skill that stays pretty much loyal to the original.
The Italian PM is not known to be prudish, therefore these cosmetic additions seem surprising. Perhaps it has to do with the human idea of completeness. If he has to walk into his courtyard everyday, where the works are placed, and see a beautiful couple – the woman handless, the man penisless – perhaps it bothers him.
This raises the question about the perception of art in reality. What might be considered handicaps in life are often metaphorical or aesthetic statements in art. The license to distort is endemic in creativity. Unfortunately, such distortions in creation are looked down upon and rebuked.
Would the connoisseurs of such cut-off parts look upon people born with such disabilities as ‘complete’? I doubt it. I can claim to have an ‘eye’ and I understand at least to some degree the value of symbolism. My own conjecture about the handless Venus is to emphasise her beauty, exemplified especially in her other statue where she is lying in repose, curves accentuated, to concentrate on the feminine and only the feminine. A hand is genderless, so to speak. Regarding Mars, the god of war is probably considered so powerful that he can fight without a sword; his potency is not dependent on specific weapons.
Berlusconi has meddled with a work of art, but it is not unusual if we see it from the perspective of how art is perceived. The manner in which certain goddess figures have been decorously draped in our own temple sculptures, there has always been a progression-regression battle as to what is considered timely and timeless. What about the attempts to destroy certain works, maim them? Aren’t ruins a testimony to it?
There is in the realm of art also the question of how the real are portrayed. It is different from mythological figures. Do portraits of royalty necessarily reveal them as they were? What about the many ‘subjects’ that get iconoclastic status simply because they have been given a buildup over the years? Who were the people in Picasso’s distorted images?
Isn’t truth fabricated when famous works are replicated? Why, when a canvas is put behind fortified glass it loses much of its texture and becomes a mere desirable object. So, the purists need to ask and answer a few such queries. Meanwhile, since these parts that Silvio has ordered to be added are detachable, is there any scope of them being enhanced or inflated? Just wondering…
Hi Farzana,
ReplyDeleteI saw that article -- though I hadn't really thought about it in the context of haves and have-nots, disfigurement and full-figurement; nor that Italian PM Berlusconi's 'restoration' of the work might have been prompted by some sympathy on his part for these figures . . .
Of course, thinking about it now, *any* 'new' read or take on or interpretation (or 'restoration,' as you note) of such art might very well be characterized as "rehabilitative." And, in the same vein, perhaps, you ask, "What about attempts to destroy certain works, maim them? Aren't ruins a testimony to it?"
Certainly a time-honored tradition in warfare is that the 'winner' gets to sort of 're-write' (or 'sanitize') the historical record which, it goes without saying, has included works hagiographic of the vanquished's heros. This sort of revisionism extends from simple (or not-so-simple, i.e. 'complicated') re-interpretation and/or appropriation to out-and-out obliteration of whatever it was these pieces were meant, erm, to 'communicate.'
So then certainly the marring of them -- Venus' right arm in this instance; Mars' penis -- might be seen as a complicated (or perhaps not-so-complicated) opportunistic bit of historical 'criticism'. :)
Still, it's not altogether clear if Signore Berlusconi's 'restorative' efforts are compensatory or signals the retrieval, at long last, of Osiris' penis, thus also rehabilitating (or strengthening) his sister Isis' right arm. The Romans (Greeks) and Egyptians, as you are doubtless aware, share a rather complicated history . . .
Mark
Hi Mark:
ReplyDeleteI did not think Berlusconi has sympathy for these figures…perhaps for himself or his idea of ideal.
Of course, thinking about it now, *any* 'new' read or take on or interpretation (or 'restoration,' as you note) of such art might very well be characterized as "rehabilitative."
In this instance I do not think the question was of interpretation at all. Had that been the case, then perhaps there might have been other inducements offered to the works! I think the ‘rehabilitative’ aspect is true, but can the eye-mind not imagine such rehab? Can missing parts not work as exorcism?
Certainly a time-honored tradition in warfare is that the 'winner' gets to sort of 're-write' (or 'sanitize') the historical record which, it goes without saying, has included works hagiographic of the vanquished's heros. This sort of revisionism extends from simple (or not-so-simple, i.e. 'complicated') re-interpretation and/or appropriation to out-and-out obliteration of whatever it was these pieces were meant, erm, to 'communicate.'
During times of war, part of the idea is to demolish culture and, as you say, historical records. To take the earlier argument, for a generation born much after such wars, do those disembodied works ‘communicate’ differently or as they were originally meant to, especially if the societies finally get independence from the conquerors?
So then certainly the marring of them -- Venus' right arm in this instance; Mars' penis -- might be seen as a complicated (or perhaps not-so-complicated) opportunistic bit of historical 'criticism'. :)
Still, it's not altogether clear if Signore Berlusconi's 'restorative' efforts are compensatory or signals the retrieval, at long last, of Osiris' penis, thus also rehabilitating (or strengthening) his sister Isis' right arm. The Romans (Greeks) and Egyptians, as you are doubtless aware, share a rather complicated history . . .
Contemporary Italians probably like it simple and well-stacked. Perhaps he is using the hagiographic dimension as opposed to ‘historical criticism’?! It can, of course, also been seen as compensatory (projectionism?) if we think about the complicated history, then the very concept of ‘lost parts’ in an incestuous arrangement has several dimensions that include an other-worldly foreboding.
I guess Berlo was thinking more of Harry Potter and the lost chambers :)
Well, you did mention "projectionism." Certainly (if only in part) that's what these figures are meant to stimulate. Of course, as embodiments of a cultural (religious, social, political) ideal, it also makes them a target (not only of veneration) -- hence my suggestion of some sympathy on Signore Berlusconi's part motivating his 'restorative' efforts. Last year he was assaulted, as I understand it, with a scale replica of the iconic Milan Cathedral . . .
ReplyDeleteFor what it's worth, I think it not unreasonable that Berlusconi's is not the first attempt to 'restore' Venus and Mars to their original state. Back during the Clinton administration there was a report that employees at Madame Tussauds Wax Museum were having difficulty keeping the zipper on the trousers of then President Clinton's effigy zipped up. It seems they had to sew-up the opening so as to discourage 'curious' museum visitors, lol. Reportedly, Shakespeare had this curse chiseled into his tomb at Holy Trinity Church, Stratford-on-Avon:
"Good frend for Jesus sake forebeare,/ To digg the dust encloased heare;/ Bleste be the man that spares thes stones,/ And curst be he that moves my bones."
Folks and their souvenirs . . . what can you do? :D
Yesterday's Guardian has a article that includes before and after images of the work:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/22/silvio-berlusconi-penis-statue
>>I think the ‘rehabilitative’ aspect is true, but can the eye-mind not imagine such rehab? Can missing parts not work as exorcism?<<
Maybe. On the one hand there's something psychiatry/psychology calls 'aversion therapy'; on the other, there's Origen's self-mutilation held to have been conducted so that he might focus less distractedly on his calling . . . which do you mean?
>>. . . if we think about the complicated history, then the very concept of ‘lost parts’ in an incestuous arrangement has several dimensions that include an other-worldly foreboding.<<
Here it strikes me that 'lost parts' might have some synonymity with lost or inaccessible roles, i.e. from the idea of gender confusion to finding that elusive 'motivation' lending to authenticity in the performing arts . . .
Ah, Potter, harried by his half-blood status. Yes, grins aside (I had to consult with my resident experts, lol, as I haven't been following JK Rowlings' work), the allusion may indeed be apt. :)
Mark:
ReplyDeleteLast year he was assaulted, as I understand it, with a scale replica of the iconic Milan Cathedral . . .
Wasn’t there some moral compulsion together with phallic symbolism here?
Back during the Clinton administration there was a report that employees at Madame Tussauds Wax Museum were having difficulty keeping the zipper on the trousers of then President Clinton's effigy zipped up.
Poetic justice or auto-suggestion?
Shakespeare had this curse chiseled into his tomb…”…”
Folks and their souvenirs . . . what can you do? :D
Gather ye roses while ye may?
>>I think the ‘rehabilitative’ aspect is true, but can the eye-mind not imagine such rehab? Can missing parts not work as exorcism?<<
Maybe. On the one hand there's something psychiatry/psychology calls 'aversion therapy'; on the other, there's Origen's self-mutilation held to have been conducted so that he might focus less distractedly on his calling . . . which do you mean?
Well, now that you put it this way, both…distraction can result in aversion, isn’t it? Giving up instead of giving in subsumes the latter while sublimating.
I mentioned Potter more as a sotto voce. Lost parts as opposed to losing oneself in parts :)