The Critic Volume 43 (Paperback)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1905 Excerpt: ...been studying marbles in Greece, examined the stone closely and contradicted the opinions of the Greeks by saying that to his mind the marble was not Parian, Carraran, or Pentelic. On seeing the numerous flaws in the block he added that he believed that a man like Praxiteles would have taken a perfect piece of marble of less close texture, as did his contemporaries, but that the whole subject was one for sculptors to decide. Accordingly several of the most prominent American sculptors were asked by The Critic to give their opinions. In two cases they would only be quoted anonymously. The first reply is from a man well known for his recent equestrian statues. My opinion is that it is certainly not from the hand of Praxiteles, and, moreover, that it is not the original work of any sculptor, but that it is a copy. I arrived at my conclusions from the character of the modelling, which has not the precision and vigor of handling that characterizes original work. I sometimes doubt if any expert opinion is final. Another sculptor of prominence wrote: Unless some scientific examination, microscopic or otherwise, would reveal how long ago the surface was cut, no one can tell whether or not the Venus is a modern copy. It is so perfect, I mean has so few abrasions, that I feel almost certain it is a modern copy of the one at the gallery in Florence, with both its beauties and its defects. For in the two cases the arms are badly drawn and the lower legs and feet rather ungainly, though the rest of the figure possesses unusual charm, particularly the profiles. In both cases too the head is by no means as beautiful as many of the Greek heads. The Medicean Venus, in fact, is not one of the great ten or twenty antiques; perhaps it would be nearer to say not one of the firs...