Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros24ArticlesThe status of plaster casts after...

Articles

The status of plaster casts after antique statues. The German experience and its reception in France (1880-1920)

Le statut des moulages en plâtre d’après des statues antiques. L’expérience allemande et sa réception en France (1880-1920)
Cecilia Hurley

Résumés

Cette contribution porte sur les collections de plâtres d’après l’antique, qui se multiplient dans les musées et les collections universitaires dans les pays germaniques au cours de la seconde moitié du xixe siècle. Vers 1900, les copies en plâtre d’après des sculptures commencent à perdre de leur attractivité auprès du public. Pourtant, le développement important de l’archéologie antique dans les universités redonne un nouvel essor à ce type de collections : elles servent à donner forme aux hypothèses les plus récentes formulées sur l’état original, et l’articulation des sculptures grecques et romaines conservées dans les collections internationales. Ce nouvel instrument scientifique fascine la France, dont les universités vont s’inspirer de ce modèle. Pourtant, dans les états allemands, la pratique de la reconstruction de sculptures antiques par le plâtre pose rapidement de grands problèmes ; elle suscite même une crise qui débouche finalement sur le déclin des collections universitaires de plâtres, au profit de la photographie.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

Introduction

  • 1 The scientific literature on casts has increased considerably over the past decades: S. Weber-Unger (...)

1Public museums have contributed to the development of new scientific paradigms over the course of history. Museum displays should not be considered to be mere applications of new models that have already been elaborated in scholarly literature. Instead, they are one of the features that allow us to see the museum as a place of experimentation; several experiments made in museums had a decisive impact on scholars, on the history of art and on the wider public in general. Many of these displays were ostensibly characterized by a lack of coherence, largely because they were created over a long period of time or by different actors whose views and methods were often conflicting. But this should be seen as an advantage rather than a shortcoming. The museum has always been a place where several visions of art could coexist within the same space; in fact, this very heterogeneity was often a rich source of debates, forcing visitors and curators to reflect on the value of different displays. The fate of plaster casts in public museums at the end of the 19th century illustrates this point to perfection.1

  • 2 S. Klamm, “Sammeln – Anordnen – Herrichten: Vergleichendes Sehen in der Klassischen Archäologie”, i (...)
  • 3 F.M. Kammel, “Der Gipsabguss. Vom medium der ästhetischen Norm zur toten Konserve der Kunstgeschich (...)

2During the second half of the 19th century, most archaeologists in the German states began to develop large collections of plaster casts; these were considered to be important teaching aids and vital instruments for archaeologists and art historians working in universities. The trend proved to be short-lived since, by the end of the century, casts were losing their appeal. In art academies, young artists were less inclined to turn to ancient art for their models. Art museums preferred to collect original sculptures rather than modern copies. However, for a short period, the development of classical archaeology gave a new lease of life to casts. Students of antique art thought that they were important instruments to be put to the service of a new epistemology.2 In the end, by the 1920s, casts fell out of favour. Curators started to remove them from view. They ended up in repositories if they were not simply discarded.3

  • 4 See S. Altekamp, M.R. Hofter, M. Krumme (ed.), Posthumanistische Klassische Archäologie. Historizit (...)
  • 5 S. Marchand, “From antiquarian to archaeologist? Adolf Furtwängler and the problem of ‘modern’ clas (...)

3Archaeologists working in the German states adopted radically new methods over the 19th century.4 Amongst them was Adolf Furtwängler, a professor at Berlin and later at Munich universities, who was the greatest scholar in the field at that time. He realized that many antique sculptures – especially Roman copies after Greek originals – had been badly restored at the time of the Renaissance and ever since.5 Early restorers would ‘restore’ a fragment from a statue of Diana and turn it into a Venus, hoping thereby to entice rich collectors. The first task facing modern archaeologists was thus to develop a new iconographic method, enabling them to recognise the iconography of the various gods and humans represented in Antiquity. Furtwängler knew that Classical sculpture was highly repetitive, because most famous statues had been copied by the hundred and sold to Roman amateurs throughout antiquity. The wealth of models available was rich, but not unlimited; it should be possible to draw up a classification of precise types, which could then be ordered historically. Within this context, casts became excellent tools in the hands of any serious archaeologist: it was easier to plan how to remove old restorations from an antique statue by working out how to do it on a plaster copy first.

  • 6 Letter by C.N. Cochin, July 11, 1784. Warocqué collection, Musée de Mariemont, Belgium (Aut. 1147/2 (...)

4Archaeologists also became aware of the fact that several old casts after antique statues were inaccurate, either because early casting processes were too rudimentary, or because the original had already been amended according to modern aesthetic standards. Even as late as the end of the 18th century, a knowledgeable art lover such as Charles Nicolas Cochin could write that antique statues should be ‘corrected’, whenever their form seemed to be ‘wanting’ in beauty to the modern eye. 6In the light of these difficulties, a thorough re-examination of the whole corpus of older casts would be necessary.

  • 7 On the dialectics between archaeological research and restoration in Berlin, see A. Fendt, Archäolo (...)
  • 8 W. Geominy, “Zwischen Kennerschaft und Cliché. Römische Kopien und die Geschichte ihrer Bewertung”, (...)

5A concerted effort was made to distinguish between true, authentic components and later restorations. Once original fragments had been identified, archaeologists tried to complete them, basing their work on precise scientific hypotheses. Additional evidence was garnered from representations of antique statues which were found on ancient coins or mosaics. In 1883, the Berlin Museums opened a new collection of casts after the antique whose forms had been carefully vetted in order to guarantee their ‘archaeological’ accuracy; it was arranged in chronological order, illustrating the development of the plastic vocabulary of ancient artists, from the most primitive specimens to the best productions of the Hellenistic period.7 However, Furtwängler was aware that in the case of Roman copies after lost Greek originals, archaeologists had to call upon their imagination – even if their imaginative powers were to be tempered by solid visual erudition. They had no choice but to try to picture in their mind the original Greek shapes that had been imitated or emulated in these Roman copies.8 In other words, the epistemological status of casts was being comprehensively reevaluated, especially in the German-speaking states.

  • 9 See A. Domanig, “Karl Schwerzek und die Rekonstruktion des Parthenongiebel”, in S. Weber-Unger (ed. (...)
  • 10 C. Klose, Die Dresdner Gipsabgusssammlung im 19. Jahrhundert. Von der Künstlersammlung Anton Raphae (...)
  • 11 C. Klose, “Götterexperimente: Georg Treu und die Rekonstruktion der Giebelfelder des Zeustempels in (...)

6Several archaeologists attempted to reconstruct ancient sculptural groups, and iconographic programmes. In Vienna, a plaster caster named Karl Schwerzek tried to reconstitute the iconographic programme designed for the main pediment of the Parthenon. He enlisted several museum curators and a first-rate student of antique sculpture, Adolf Michaelis, a professor of archaeology at Strasbourg university. Schwerzek produced a plaster model of the pediment, and published two monographs on his reconstruction.9 In Dresden, Georg Treu, the curator of the sculpture collections, was equally passionate about the issue; he produced another version of the same pediment, which was put on show in the Albertinum in Dresden.10 Treu was excavating the site of the temple of Zeus in Olympia; in due course his reconstruction of some of the sculpture groups was also displayed in his museum (Figure 1).11

Figure 1: Parthenon gallery, Albertinum, Dresde (Museography by Georg Treu. 1891).

7These archaeologists aimed not so much to render the original ‘skin’ or even the style of the statues that were being completed, but rather to identify the original message conveyed by a pediment, the coherence of its iconographic programme, down to every last figure and every individual expression. Casts became important instruments in that respect as well. They lent themselves to a comparative approach to specimens, and thus to a better understanding of repetition in Antiquity. They allowed scholars to propose visual simulations of possible groupings of fragments from lost antique programmes, based on extensive textual and visual evidence. Archaeological casts became a common feature of university collections.

  • 12 C. Friedrichs, Königliche Museen zu Berlin. Die Gipsabgüsse antiker Bildwerke in historischer Folge (...)
  • 13 This is the comparison made by the famous archaeologist A. Michaelis, Die archäologischen Entdeckun (...)

8They also appealed to German public museums who had an important scientific programme. For example, the Berlin museums wanted to keep abreast of the latest archaeological discoveries and also to inform their visitors about the most recent attempts to reconstruct ancient sculptural groups.12 We should not underestimate the importance of these plaster cast collections in German higher education at the time. When they were being established, they were seen as the equivalent of a laboratory for those studying chemistry or experimental physics; their use was often explained and specified in the students’ curriculum.13

Scientific practices in Germany, and their misinformed reception by French observers. The case of cast collections in archaeological museums

  • 14 L. Therrien, L’Histoire de l’art en France : genèse d’une discipline universitaire, Paris, CTHS, 19 (...)
  • 15 J.-L. Martinez, “Les moulages en plâtre d’après l’antique du musée du Louvre: une utopie du xixe si (...)
  • 16 Proceedings of the congress Le Musée de Sculpture comparée : naissance de l’histoire de l’art moder (...)
  • 17 S. Jonas, A. Gérard et al. (ed.), Strasbourg capitale du Reichsland Alsace-Lorraine et sa nouvelle (...)
  • 18 S. Morinière, “Le processus de création des collections de moulages universitaires de France : un p (...)

9All was not plain sailing, however, since opinions differed on how these collections should be presented, and from the outset this was to occasion hefty debate. Despite this, French observers were in awe of the money lavished by many German institutions on their university collections, especially in the field of art history. French universities did not own plaster cast collections; the teaching of art history was elementary in France at the time, while on the other side of the border, several professorships had already been created.14 The Louvre museum had begun to assemble a collection of casts, but the project was quickly abandoned.15 The collection of casts at the École des beaux-arts in Paris was intended to transmit aesthetic principles to future artists, but they were shunned by the students. The Musée de Sculpture Comparée, created in 1882, claimed to be exhaustive but in reality it covered only French art from the Middle Ages to the 18th century.16 In effect, the first academic collection of casts after antique statues that opened in France was created for Strasbourg university, at a time when Alsace was actually part of the German empire.17 When a few French universities such as Montpellier (1890) followed suit at the very end of the century, they clearly had the German model in mind.18 It is important to understand why the German model encouraged such emulation.

  • 19 E. Michel, “Les Musées de Berlin”, Revue des deux Mondes, January 1882, p. 420-445.
  • 20 “Moreover, when the arrangement of these figures presents, as for Aegina and Olympia, some uncertai (...)
  • 21 “The public, moreover, is made aware of discoveries as they occur. Thus, it was scarcely a year ago (...)
  • 22 “On other occasions, it will be seen, these comparisons of photographs – and especially of casts, a (...)

10In 1882, just as the Musée de Sculpture Comparée was opening to the public, a couple of interesting articles appeared in France concerning several German collections of casts. The painter and critic Émile Michel (1828-1909) published several essays on Berlin museums in the Revue des Deux-Mondes. The first article appeared in two parts.19 After a concise history of the Berlin museums, Michel turned his attention to the plaster cast collection. Since 1855, it had been on show in the staircase and in the first-floor rooms of the recently constructed Neues Museum. Michel praised its size and quality stating that in his view it was truly encyclopaedic in scope, offering visitors a comprehensive overview of statues and architectural sculptures from Ancient Greece until the Renaissance. He also marvelled at the display methods that had been adopted. He was particularly struck by the deliberate grouping of various individual pieces that were thought to belong to the same pediment or to the same monument: “De plus, quand la disposition de ces figures présente, comme pour Égine et Olympie, quelque incertitude, les divers modes de groupement proposés sont mis sous les yeux du public, qui est ainsi plus à même d’apprécier le degré de vraisemblance qui recommande chacun d’eux.”20 This desire to offer the visitors the best possible material for imagining lost iconographic programmes greatly impressed Michel: “Le public d’ailleurs est mis au courant des découvertes à mesure qu’elles se produisent. Ainsi, il y a un an à peine, quand la nouvelle de la trouvaille faite à Athènes d’une Minerve attribuée à Phidias était annoncée à l’Europe entière, le directeur des antiques à Berlin s’étant procuré aussitôt deux photographies de cette statue, du reste assez médiocre, avait pris soin de les exposer immédiatement à côté des autres Minerves déjà connues.”21 And he added that on other occasions, “ces rapprochemens de photographies et surtout de moulages, permettent de constater des emprunts et même des copies formelles dans des œuvres jusque-là considérées comme originales.”22

  • 23 M. Collignon, “L’Enseignement de l’archéologie classique et les collections de moulages dans les un (...)
  • 24 F. Montargis, “Rapport au Ministère de l’Instruction publique sur l’organisation de l’enseignement (...)

11This use of plaster casts, and also of photographs, was bound to pique the interest of the French government. The Minister of Higher Education sent an official observer, Max Collignon, to Eastern Europe with the task of observing and reporting on these German innovations. Collignon’s brief was wide, since he was requested to examine the teaching of classical archaeology and collections of casts in German universities. Collignon, himself a professor of Greek archaeology in Bordeaux, lavished praise on the German model in the article that he published in the Revue internationale d’enseignement.23 He devoted nine pages to the various collections in Berlin, Munich and Halle, and compared the work being done in those collections with the academic syllabi in classical archaeology followed by students in leading German universities. At least three other observers were sent to Germany by the French authorities to report on German art collections during the next few years.24

  • 25 J.M. Hofman, “Generation and Regeneration of the cast collections of the Musée de sculpture comparé (...)
  • 26 J. Piggott, Palace of the People: The Crystal Palace at Sydenham 1854-1936, London, Hurst, 2004.
  • 27 P. Griener, Pour une histoire du regard. L’expérience du musée au xixe siècle, Paris, Hazan, 2017, (...)
  • 28 In 1867 at the Exposition universelle (Paris, 1867), fifteen nations signed an agreement to the eff (...)

12From the French point of view, collections of this kind were bound to seem almost exotic. The new Musée de la Sculpture Comparée in the Trocadéro had no direct links with any university, even if the École du Louvre, founded in the same year, made extensive use of it.25 Collignon underlined the fact that art history was gaining ground in his country: a large number of conferences on archaeology were held in France, and chairs in the subject were being created in several universities. However, for a long time, France had turned to Great Britain rather than to Germany for inspiration. There were very important collections of casts in London at that time: the largest museum of plaster casts in the world was held in the Crystal Palace at Sydenham.26 It was a commercial enterprise, but its success was unquestioned, and it could have been a useful point of reference for the Trocadéro; there was even a short-lived plan for a Crystal Palace in France.27 London was also home to the South Kensington Museum which had a very large collection of casts; the museum’s director, Henry Cole, had instigated the International Convention of 1867 for a system of “exchange of copies of objects”.28

  • 29 M. Marvin, “Copying in Roman Sculpture: The Replica Series”, in H.A. Millon (ed.), Retaining the Or (...)

13However, by the later decades of the 19th century, when the French hoped to develop their collections, it was to Germany that they turned for inspiration. In universities like Bonn, Goettingen, Berlin, Munich and Leipzig, casts were used extensively by teachers.29 The French realized that in France, as in Britain, museums were building up cast collections, without involving the universities and the academics. It was this fact that led many French authors to become fascinated by the potential offered by the German (and Austrian) model, where an integral link between museums, universities and the greater public was paramount to the success of any art collection. However, carried away by their enthusiasm, these same authors did not seem to notice that in the German states, cracks had started to appear, and that people were questioning the use that could be made of plaster cast collections.

A new model in crisis – the German debates on the scientific status of plaster casts after the Antique

  • 30 Museumskunde. Deutscher Museumsbund. 1.1905 - 17.1923/24. Museumskunde, first published in 1905, wa (...)
  • 31 I. Peiró and G. Pasamar, La Escuela Superior de Diplomática (Los archiveros en la historiografía es (...)
  • 32 P. Durey, École du Louvre. Jalons pour une histoire (1882-1998), Paris, École du Louvre et Fage édi (...)

14In effect, despite the pleas of archaeologists, the status of plaster casts and their relevance in art museums and universities soon became a subject of heated debate in most parts of Germany. Responses to objections raised were varied, each museum trying to find its own answer to the question. A flurry of articles appeared in the periodical Museumskunde, whose declared purpose was to discuss and clarify difficult questions pertaining to museums.30 In itself, the creation of Museumskunde was remarkable because, at that time, ‘museum studies’ as we now know them were virtually inexistent. In 1856, the Spanish government had established the Escuela Superior de Diplomatica that trained librarians and archivists; it offered some basic training related to museums.31 Above all, in 1882, the École du Louvre began to train future museum professionals in art history, archaeology and the allied disciplines.32 But a specialized course entitled ‘museography’ was only opened there in 1929.

  • 33 See B. Daun, “Die Bemalung antiker Gibsabgüsse”, Museumskunde, 11, 1915, p. 193-198.

15One clear symptom of the unease felt by curators and university professors concerning the scientific status of plaster casts is the wide-ranging series of debates that raged over their appearance. Everyone could agree that these casts were not the real thing; they were copies, substitutes. Some art historians believed that students and the public should be made aware of the difference between a genuine ancient sculpture and its three-dimensional modern representation. Their opponents retorted that a true scientific copy required a very close, faithful imitation of the outer appearance of the original work. And so, the debate raged: what should these copies look like, how similar should they be to the originals and how should the public be informed of their status as an Ersatz? For example, should they remain white? Should they be patinated? Should they even be coloured, to illustrate the antique practice of polychrome statuary? Should copies be made in the same material as the originals?33 Likewise, the way in which they were displayed aroused discussion. Should one offer a wide, empty space around casts, allowing people to circulate around them? Or should they be placed in front of a coloured wall, to encourage a purely frontal contemplation? Over the following paragraphs several conflicting positions will be examined; they document a rich understanding of the cognitive limits of any representation made after an original artwork.

  • 34 B. Gräf, “Die Aufgaben einer Sammlung von Abgüssen nach antiken Skupturen”, Museumkunde, 4, 1908, p (...)

16Several scholars, like Botho Gräf, a professor of archaeology at Iena university, firmly believed that plaster casts after the Antique should remain white, “pure”, because they had to relay the abstract form of an ancient statue, especially if they reproduced Roman copies after Greek originals (Figure 2).34

Figure 2: Casts before and after cleaning. Friedrich Rathgen, Ueber die Auffrischung verschmutzer Gipsabgüsse, Museumskunde XIII, 1917 p. 33-40, p 39.

  • 35 F. Rathgen, “Ueber die Auffrischung verschmutzer Gipsabgüsse”, Museumskunde, 13, 1917, p. 33-40.
  • 36 E. Panofsky, Idea: A Concept in Art History, Columbia, University of South Carolina Press, 1968; P. (...)
  • 37 F. Haskell and N. Penny, Taste and the Antique: the Lure of Classical Sculpture, 1500-1900, A. Aymo (...)
  • 38 E. Falconet, Observations sur la statue de Marc Aurèle, et sur d’autres sujets relatifs aux beaux-a (...)

17Were plaster casts to turn grey as dust accumulated on them, they should be cleaned; Friedrich Rathgen, the first Director of the Chemical Laboratory of the Royal Museums of Berlin, proposed a thorough cleaning process to this end.35 The neo-classical period had encouraged a neo-platonic interpretation of antique sculpture which was highly misleading, but still very popular in late 19th century Germany. Johann Joachim Winckelmann (1717-1768) had hypothesized that the most perfect antiquities were faithful imitations of perfect, ideal forms, invisible to the eye, that ancient Greek artists could contemplate only in their mind’s eye.36 By the end of the 18th century, it was accepted that most known antique sculptures were Roman copies after lost Greek originals. Amateurs endeavoured to imagine the perfect, invisible forms that the beautiful albeit imperfect Roman statues emulated.37 Since the 18th century, some sculptors had gone so far as to propose a rationalist vision of artistic forms; for example, the sculptor Étienne Falconet believed that one should establish a clear distinction between form and matter. For Falconet, a clean, white plaster cast after the equestrian statue of Marcus Aurelius rendered the true form of the statue, whereas the dark patina that covered the original in Rome actually impeded the viewer’s perception, making critical judgment much more difficult. He drew a general conclusion from this observation: “il est plus aisé & plus sûr d’étudier d’après un plâtre que d’après un marbre”.38 Paradoxically, an archaeologist like Furtwängler remained totally convinced by this neo-platonic representation of ancient sculpture expounded by Winckelmann and Falconet. In his quest for lost Greek originals, he believed that the white, abstract shapes of these casts after Roman copies would enable him to extrapolate the perfect forms of their Greek model; he would also rely on his own imagination and draw upon his vast visual erudition.

  • 39 R. Kekulé von Stradonitz, Die Vorstellungen von griechischer Kunst und ihre Wandlung im neunzehnten (...)
  • 40 W. Klein, “Die Aufgaben unserer Gipsabguss-Sammlungen”, Museumskunde, 8, 1912, p. 1-10, p. 100-114.
  • 41 Proceedings of the congress Il Cortile delle Statue: Akten des Internationalen Kongresses zu Ehren (...)
  • 42 C. Keller and C. Schmälze (ed.), Archäologien der Moderne. Winckelmann um 1900, Hamburg, Meiner, 20 (...)
  • 43 R. Cooper, Roman Antiquities in Renaissance France 1515-1565, London, Routledge, 2016, p. 127-169.
  • 44 L. Winkler Horacek, “Appreciation and Rejection. Plaster Casts in the Discourse of Copy and Origina (...)

18Other archaeologists rejected this view. Reinhard Kekulé von Stradonitz, a director of the antiquities collection in the Berlin museums, and a professor of archaeology at Berlin University, opined that white casts resembled raw eggs, and recommended that they should be patinated in imitation of pale stone.39 This was the colour of most antique statues, as they have been seen and studied in European collections for centuries. By the end of the 19th century, however, several scholars had realized that almost all antique statues had been painted in bright colours when they were created. One of Stradonitz’s colleagues, Wilhelm Klein, a professor at Prague university, developed a similar perspective on modern collections of casts. In an article on the purpose of plaster cast collections (“Die Aufgaben unserer Gipsabguss-Sammlungen”), Klein suggested that they owed their existence to an enduring love of classical sculpture.40 From the Renaissance onwards, Greco-Roman sculpture had been highly regarded, leading many travellers to flock to Rome to admire the greatest masterpieces of ancient art, such as those on show in the Belvedere courtyard in the Vatican palace.41 This had inspired countless amateurs – monarchs and nobles – to order plaster or bronze copies after these famous statues. In other words, claimed Klein, copies and originals should not be seen as two distinct types of artworks; they were closely interconnected. Casts enabled a whole generation of scholars to train their eye, to compare different sculptures. Winckelmann had in fact been inspired to analyse classical statuary after looking at copies. Furthermore, Klein considered the new archaeological method to be philological in nature.42 Most earlier casts had been taken from originals which had been restored during the 17th and 18th centuries; as such, they bore witness, not only to the grandeur of Greco-Roman art, but also to the changes that the reception of antique sculpture had known over the centuries. Distinguishing between these two aspects required a highly trained eye. For example, the copy of the Sleeping Ariadne after a famous antique sculpture known in two original versions had been made for the Berlin Museum in 1858-60. This cast was not made after either of the two known originals, but after an earlier cast made under the supervision of Primaticcio in 1540 for the royal collection at Fontainebleau.43 When compared with the two famous antique versions of the Sleeping Ariadne held in the Prado (Madrid) and in the Vatican Museum, this Berlin cast seems inaccurate; it is nonetheless important for the history of taste, since it documents the 16th century reception of the Ariadne44

  • 45 R. Stiassny, “Vom Gipsmuseum der Wiener Kunstakademie”, Museumskunde, 6, 1910, p. 1-17, p. 12.
  • 46 J. Sieveking, “Nachbildungen antiker Kunstwerken im städtischen Museum zu Stettin”, Museumskunde, 5 (...)

19Other scholars believed that such purism was dangerous; amongst them was Robert Stiassny, the curator of the cast collection at the Academy in Vienna and a ‘Dozent’ at the Technische Hochschule in the same city. Stiassny felt that it was much more sensible to reproduce approximately the original aspect of an antique sculpture, and then to paint the plaster copy accordingly.45 In this spirit, Johannes Sieveking, a curator of the Antiquarium in Munich, published a heavily coloured Medusa Rondanini, wearing what appeared to be full eye make-up. The painted plaster cast was so completely different from the famous white marble original held in the Munich collections that it must have caused quite a stir (Figure 3).46

Figure 3: Medusa Rondanini, with added polychromy. Johannes Sieveking, Nachbildungen antiker Kunstwerken im städtischen Museum zu Stettin, Museumskunde V, 1909 p. 130.

  • 47 Georg Treu published his views on the ancients’ practice of polychromy: G. Treu, Sollen wir unsere (...)
  • 48 P. Jockey, Le Mythe de la Grèce blanche. Histoire d’un rêve occidental, Paris, Belin, 2015.
  • 49 H. Bosecker, “Die Ästhetik des Archäologischen: Georg Treu und Auguste Rodin in Dresden”, in S. Kön (...)
  • 50 On Treu and Rodin, see the very illuminating remarks by J.A. Schmoll gen. Eisenwerth, Rodin-Studien(...)

20In Dresden, the archaeologist Treu held similar views. He believed that copies after antique sculptures should illustrate the original appearance of these statues.47 An archaeologist as well as the director of the Albertinum, Treu was perfectly aware of the practice of polychromy in ancient times. But these opinions were not always popular either with the wider public or even with some of Treu’s colleagues, who could not bring themselves to abandon the idea that antique statues were always white or patinated.48 Treu also believed that copies and originals were equally valuable as documents, but that their value varied throughout history. One of the museum’s tasks was to trace how this value had evolved over the centuries.49 Treu collected plasters after the antique and original statues. He even had the courage to buy plaster casts from contemporary artists like Auguste Rodin, since he recognised that in his own time, plaster had become an important plastic material and that most sculptors were modellers, and not carvers. Very few of his colleagues dared to follow him along this path. He was among the first curators to understand the value of contemporary plaster casts as original artworks per se, bearing witness to a radically new practice of the artistic process.50

  • 51 R. Stiassny, op. cit. note 45: “the physical effect of the original”.
  • 52 B. Daun, op. cit. note 33, p. 196.
  • 53 Ibid., p. 197.
  • 54 F. Rionnet, Les Bronzes Barbedienne : l’œuvre d’une dynastie de fondeurs, 1834-1954, Paris, Arthena (...)
  • 55 On the concept of transmediality, W. Wolf, “The Concept of ‘Transmediality’, and an example” Repeti (...)
  • 56 B. Daun, op. cit. note 33, p. 195.
  • 57 J. Sieveking, op. cit. note 46, p. 129. On this attempt by F. Hauser, see P. Arndt, Photographische (...)
  • 58 B. Daun, op. cit. note 33, p. 198. Brandely ainé, Nouveau manuel complet de galvanoplastie, 2 vols, (...)
  • 59 B. Bucher, “Die Aufgabe der kunstgewerblichen Museen”, Mittheilungen des K. K. Osterreichischen Mus (...)
  • 60 J. Sieveking, op. cit. note 46, ill. p. 134.
  • 61 B. Daun, op. cit. note 33, p. 198: “the copyist will never achieve the true form of the original, a (...)

21Casts had not only admirers but also detractors; several museum curators and scholars argued that the material dimension of sculpture should not be neglected since it constituted a crucial component of any piece of statuary. Casts, in that respect, lacked substance. For example, countering Gräf’s insistence on the abstract form, Stiassny underlined the “körperhafte Wirkung des Originals”.51 Berthold Daun, a ‘Dozent’ at the Technische Hochschule in Braunschweig, argued more subtly. He stressed the fact that a cast renders the form of an original that most often was made in a different material; any ‘translation’ or copy has to take this material difference into account.52 Daun pointed out that the most gifted ancient copyists already knew how to adapt their methods when making a marble copy after a bronze statue; these artists were aware of the fact that they needed to amend the original form in order to adapt it to a new medium.53 This sensitivity to the transmedial character of artistic creation was very new at the end of the 19th century; copying forms had by that time become extremely easy, thanks to several new mechanical devices and processes.54 It is very significant that Daun also made a reference to Rodin when explaining the transmedial dimension of any reproduction.55 Rodin, he wrote, always adapted his forms to the material that he chose when translating a form from one medium to another; the materiality of his sculptures therefore had a direct impact on their shape.56 But these ideas did not convince everybody. Sieveking mentioned that a firm specialized in casts at Geislingen had produced a reproduction in bronze after a group in marble that an archaeologist had recently reconstituted.57 Casting this marble in bronze seemed to offer a means of reversing the course of time, since it would bring back to life the original Greek statues in bronze that had since vanished, leaving only their Roman marble copies to embody them. For his part, Daun believed that the only copies that were true to their original were those made in metal after originals in bronze thanks to the galvanoplastic technique. It is true that this mechanical process could create perfect copies, because it reproduced in the smallest detail the ‘skin’ of any original surface.58 But for this very reason, some amateurs complained that galvanoplastic copies in metal after originals in metal were so perfect that it became impossible to distinguish the originals from their imitations.59 In the art museum at Stettin, the curators chose to adopt a totally different strategy, which had been abandoned by most museums: they ordered a professional carver active in Rome – Johannes Everding – to produce a copy in marble after an original in marble (the Cnidian Venus).60 (Figure 4). However, this experiment aroused much scepticism. It is true that the copy was made in the same material as the original; nonetheless, the stylistic mannerisms characteristic of a modern sculptor were all too easily detected on his copy; this became a source of concern. Daun remarked that “der Kopist die wirkliche Form des Originals, wie sie die Wissenschaft unbedingt fordern muss, in den ohnehin kostpieligen Marmorkopien nie erreichen wird.”61. Copies of this sort could not be described as scientific, due to their formal inaccuracy. Daun’s opinion was widely accepted, and artistic copies of this type did not flourish in German museums.

Figure 4: Cnidian Venus carved by Johannes Everding for the museum in Stettin. Johannes Sieveking, Nachbildungen antiker Kunstwerken im städtischen Museum zu Stettin, Museumskunde V, 1909, p. 134.

  • 62 See the famous painting by Lawrence Alma-Tadema, Phidias Showing his Friends the Frieze of The Part (...)
  • 63 H. Wölfflin, “Wie man Skulpturen aufnehmen soll”, Zeitschrift für bildende Kunst, N.F. 7, 1896, p.  (...)
  • 64 A. von Hildebrand, Das Problem der Form in der bildenden Kunst, Strasbourg, Heitz, 1893; S. Raupric (...)
  • 65 H. Bulle, “Das kunstgeschichtliche Museum der Universität Würzburg”, Münchner Jahrbuch der bildende (...)

22Furthermore, German curators could not even agree on how the casts should be displayed. In Dresden, Treu believed that most casts should be grouped together to offer a general view of a sculpted programme, of a temple pediment for example. He did of course realise that modern viewers could see these sculptures at close range in the museum, whereas ancient viewers could only have admired the pediments of Greek and Roman temples at quite some distance.62 Strangely enough, by the end of the 19th century, several art historians had begun to defend the idea that sculptures, like paintings, should be seen from a dominant, frontal viewpoint. The two major proponents of this idea were the Swiss art historian Heinrich Wölfflin and the German sculptor Adolf von Hildebrand.63 Wölfflin used photographs extensively for his research, to such an extent that he came to believe that all sculptures had to be seen from a single dominant point of view, just like two-dimensional representations. As for Hildebrand, in his essay entitled Das Problem der Form in der bildenden Kunst (1893), he developed the idea that there are two major modes of aesthetic contemplation, the Gesichtsvorstellung, and the Bewegungsvorstellung.64 The first mode is static, mostly frontal. The second mode is dynamic; it involves the body of the viewer, who should be able to walk around a sculpture to see it in full. However, believed Hildebrand, only the intrinsic quality of the Gesichtsvorstellung attests to the beauty of an artwork. Both Hildebrand and Wölfflin felt that only the frontal view of a sculpture could offer optimal viewing conditions. Some museums, such as the Art Historical Museum in Würzburg, attempted to apply this method. The curators displayed their casts in front of a curtain, or of a board covered with green, yellow or grey velvet (Figure 5).65

Figure 5: Display of casts after antique sculptures in the Arthistorical museum at Würzburg. Ex.: Heinrich Bulle, Das kunstgeschichtliche Museum der Universität Würzburg, Münchner Jahrbuch der bildenden Kunst 1910 ill. after p. 156.

  • 66 Ibidem; F. Fries, “Der Erweiterungsbau des städtischen Museums Elberfeld”, Museumskunde, 10, 1914, (...)
  • 67 On the perception of objects of the past during the 19th century, J. Siegel, Material inspirations. (...)

23Professional photographers greatly appreciated such displays, since they made it easy for them to produce a good image of casts.66 This trend bears witness to what one could call the intermedial character of the museum experience in the 19th century.67 Photography was becoming so widespread among amateurs, editors and the wider public, that the medium assumed the status of a dominant cognitive scheme of perception, and could thereby impose its law on museum displays. These displays reinforced the idea that most people had assimilated by that time: that photographs were faithful, ‘transparent’ representations of three-dimensional objects. Museums sometimes adapted their displays in order to reinforce this impression.

Conclusion

24To a very great extent, the French reception of German plaster cast collections was misinformed. French observers were certainly captivated by the rich scientific collections that were accessible to the public on the other side of the border, but they did not realise that these same collections occasioned hefty debates concerning their composition, their use, and their exhibition. This in turn encouraged several interesting experiments. Germany, at that time, was already a federal state with ‘Länder’ who prized high culture and also enjoyed considerable cultural diversity. This diversity aided the debates and experiments that centred on the scientific status of the plaster cast during the 19th century. However, these debates were to deal the death blow to these cast collections, largely because they had raised a number of questions concerning their relevance and their use in public museums and in universities.

  • 68 On photography of sculpture at the time, see C. Caraffa, Fotografie als Instrument und Medium der K (...)

25One fact seems to become clear, and that is that 19th-century museum displays should be analysed as medial forms within an intermedial system of perception. The invention of photography, of electrolytic reproduction, as well as of various processes facilitating the reproduction of sculptures, all contributed to the construction of a visual system of references which was to have a huge impact both on scholars and on the wider public.68 Museum visitors admired most art objects through the lens of this integrated system of representation, as it developed steadily after the industrial revolution.

  • 69 O. Homburger, Museumskunde, Breslau: Hirt, 1924, p. 40: “Long praised, then much reviled in recent (...)
  • 70 J. Baum, “Gipsabgüsse”, Museumskunde, NF III/4, 1931, p. 141-143, p. 143.

26By the beginning of the 20th century, even the plaster casts made for archaeological study purposes began to lose their status as proxies for genuine antiquities. People preferred to study real antiquities or (if they were not available) photographical reproductions of these masterpieces. Reactions varied. On the one hand, in a manual of museology published in 1924, Otto Homburger registered this change with a tinge of sadness: “Lange Zeit laut gepriesen, dann in neuerer Zeit viel geschmäht.”69 On the other hand, in 1931, Julius Baum noted this change without any regret: he stated that plaster casts could not elicit any aesthetic pleasure, nor offer any scientific information of value to art historians.70 From then on, the plaster cast collections were doomed.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Appendix: major articles pertaining to the question of casts in the periodical Museumskunde, 1905-1920:

W. Neumann [alias Vilhelms Neimanis, J.W.C.N.], “Das Museum in Riga”, Museumskunde, 2, 1906, p. 68-74.

B. Gräf, “Die Aufgaben einer Sammlung von Abgüssen nach antiken Skulpturen”, 4, 1908, p. 55-65.

J. Sieveking, “Nachbildungen antiker Kunstwerken im städtischen Museum zu Stettin”, Museumskunde, 5, 1909, p. 129-158.

R. Stiassny, “Von Gipsmuseum der Wiener Akademie”, Museumskunde, 6, 1910, p. 1-17.

W. Klein, “Die Aufgaben unserer Gipsabguss-Sammlungen”, [parts 1 & 2], Museumskunde, 8, 1912, p. 1-10, p. 100-114.

F. Fries, “Der Erweiterungsbau des städtischen Museums Elberfeld”, Museumskunde, 10, 1914, p. 1-13.

P. Abramowski, “Die Neugestaltung der Danziger Kunstsammlungen”, Museumskunde, 11, 1915, p. 173-182.

B. Daun, “Die Bemalung antiker Gipsabgüsse”, Museumskunde, 11, 1915, p. 193-198.

F. Rathgen, “Ueber die Auffrischung verschmutzer Gipsabgüsse”, Museumskunde, 13, 1917, p. 33-40.

O. Wulff, “Lehrsammlungen. Eine Neuaufgabe unserer Museen”, Museumskunde, 15, 1920, p. 121-147.

Haut de page

Notes

1 The scientific literature on casts has increased considerably over the past decades: S. Weber-Unger (ed.), Gipsmodellen und Fotografie im Dienste der Kunstgeschichte 1850-1900, Vienna, Kabinett, 2022; M. Szőcs and M. Tóth (ed.), Casting a New Light. Plaster Casts and Cast Collections in Europe and Beyond, Budapest, Museum of Fine arts, 2024, especially the splendid article by E. Marchand, “‘The best laid schemes’: The Politics of the universal museum & the vicissitudes of their plaster cast collections at the turn of the twentieth century”, in ibid., p. 12-39.

2 S. Klamm, “Sammeln – Anordnen – Herrichten: Vergleichendes Sehen in der Klassischen Archäologie”, in L. Bader, M. Gaier, F. Wolf (ed.), Vergleichendes Sehen, Munich, Fink, 2020, p. 383-405; A. Alexandridis and L. Winkler-Horaček (ed.), Destroy the Copy – Plaster Cast Collections in the 19th-20th Centuries: Demolition, Defacement, Disposal in Europe and Beyond, Berlin, de Gruyter, 2022.

3 F.M. Kammel, “Der Gipsabguss. Vom medium der ästhetischen Norm zur toten Konserve der Kunstgeschichte”, in A.M. Kluxen (ed.), Ästhetische Probleme der Plastik im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert, Nürnberg, Aleph, 2001, p. 47-72.

4 See S. Altekamp, M.R. Hofter, M. Krumme (ed.), Posthumanistische Klassische Archäologie. Historizität und Wissenschaftlichkeit von Interessen und Methoden, Munich, Hirmer, 1999; C. Güthenke, Feeling and Classical Archaeology: Knowing Antiquity in German Scholarship, 1770-1920, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2020.

5 S. Marchand, “From antiquarian to archaeologist? Adolf Furtwängler and the problem of ‘modern’ classical archaeology”, in P.N. Miller (ed.), Momigliano and Antiquarianism, Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 2007, p. 248-285.

6 Letter by C.N. Cochin, July 11, 1784. Warocqué collection, Musée de Mariemont, Belgium (Aut. 1147/2). See M.-J. Durry (ed.), Autographes à Mariemont, Paris, Nizet, 1959, p. 200-205.

7 On the dialectics between archaeological research and restoration in Berlin, see A. Fendt, Archäologie und Restaurierung. Die Skulpturergänzungen in der Berliner Antikensammlung des 19. Jahrhunderts, 3 vols., Berlin, de Gruyter, 2012.

8 W. Geominy, “Zwischen Kennerschaft und Cliché. Römische Kopien und die Geschichte ihrer Bewertung”, in G. Vogt-Spira and B. Rommel (ed.), Rezeption und Identität: die kulturelle Auseinandersetzung Roms mit Griechenland als europäisches Paradigma, Stuttgart, Steiner, 1999, p. 38-59.

9 See A. Domanig, “Karl Schwerzek und die Rekonstruktion des Parthenongiebel”, in S. Weber-Unger (ed.), op. cit. note 1, p. 7-16.

10 C. Klose, Die Dresdner Gipsabgusssammlung im 19. Jahrhundert. Von der Künstlersammlung Anton Raphael Mengs’ zu Georg Treus experimentellem Lehrmuseum, Berlin, de Gruyter, 2024.

11 C. Klose, “Götterexperimente: Georg Treu und die Rekonstruktion der Giebelfelder des Zeustempels in Olympia”, Dresdener Kunstblätter, 1, 2023, p. 16-23.

12 C. Friedrichs, Königliche Museen zu Berlin. Die Gipsabgüsse antiker Bildwerke in historischer Folge erklärt. Bausteine zur Geschichte der griechisch römischen Plastik, P. Wolters (ed.), Berlin, Seemann, 1885; on the history of the collection, L. Winkler-Horacek, “The Fate of the Berlin plaster cast collections: from veneration to destruction, defacement, and disposal”, in A. Alexandridis and ‎L. Winkler-Horaček (ed.), op. cit. note 2, p. 349-374.

13 This is the comparison made by the famous archaeologist A. Michaelis, Die archäologischen Entdeckungen des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts, Leipzig, Seemann, 1906, p. 256; F.M. Müller (ed.), Archäologische Universitätsmuseen und -sammlungen im Spannungsfeld von Forschung, Lehre, und Öffentlichkeit, Berlin, LIT, 2013.

14 L. Therrien, L’Histoire de l’art en France : genèse d’une discipline universitaire, Paris, CTHS, 1998, ch. 6 and 7.

15 J.-L. Martinez, “Les moulages en plâtre d’après l’antique du musée du Louvre: une utopie du xixe siècle”, in exh. cat., D’après l’antique, J.-P. Cuzin, J.-R. Gaborit, A. Pasquier et al. (ed.), Paris, musée du Louvre [16 October 2000-15 January 2001], Paris, Réunion des musées nationaux, 2000, p. 78-82; F. Ravaisson, “Projet d’un musée de plâtres”, Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 4, 1875, p. 291.

16 Proceedings of the congress Le Musée de Sculpture comparée : naissance de l’histoire de l’art moderne, Paris, Musée des monuments français, 8 et 9 décembre 1999, published under the direction of C. Pieri, Paris, Éditions du patrimoine, 2001.

17 S. Jonas, A. Gérard et al. (ed.), Strasbourg capitale du Reichsland Alsace-Lorraine et sa nouvelle université 1871-1918, Strasbourg, Ed. Oberlin, 1995; J.C. Richez and R. Recht (ed.), Dictionnaire culturel de Strasbourg 1880-1930, Strasbourg, Presses universitaires de Strasbourg, 2017, p. 487-488 (Seminar). The palace was inaugurated in 1884 (the architect was Otto Warth): J.Y. Marc, “Le Kunstarchäologisches Institut de Strasbourg : un modèle pour l’université française ?”, in M. Lagrange (ed.), Université et Histoire de l’Art. Objets de mémoire (1870-1970), Rennes, Presses Universitaires de Rennes, 2017, p. 15-39.

18 S. Morinière, “Le processus de création des collections de moulages universitaires de France : un phénomène national”, in M. Lagrange (ed.), op. cit. note 17, p. 81-94; R. Plana-Mallart and G. Mallet, “Le projet de rénovation et de valorisation du Musée des moulages et les collections d’Art et d’Archéologie de l’Université Paul-Valéry Montpellier 3”, In Situ, 17, 2011 (Les Patrimoines de l’enseignement supérieur) online. The collection was created in 1890, explicitly following the German model.

19 E. Michel, “Les Musées de Berlin”, Revue des deux Mondes, January 1882, p. 420-445.

20 “Moreover, when the arrangement of these figures presents, as for Aegina and Olympia, some uncertainty, the various modes of grouping proposed are presented to the public, who is thus more able to appreciate how likely each of them is to be correct”, Ibid., p. 429-430.

21 “The public, moreover, is made aware of discoveries as they occur. Thus, it was scarcely a year ago, when the news of the discovery made at Athens of a Minerva attributed to Phidias was announced to all Europe, that the director of antiquities at Berlin having obtained immediately two photographs of this statue, albeit mediocre, had taken care to expose them at once next to the other Minervas already known.”, Ibid., p. 430.

22 “On other occasions, it will be seen, these comparisons of photographs – and especially of casts, allow us to note borrowings and even formal copies in works hitherto regarded as original.” Ibid., p. 431.

23 M. Collignon, “L’Enseignement de l’archéologie classique et les collections de moulages dans les universités allemandes”, Revue internationale de l’enseignement, 3, 1882, p. 256-270.

24 F. Montargis, “Rapport au Ministère de l’Instruction publique sur l’organisation de l’enseignement de l’art dans les universités allemandes”, Journal Officiel, 37, February 7, 1887, p. 625-630; P. Vitry, “Musées d’enseignement en Allemagne. Musées de moulages antiques et modernes”, Revue internationale de l’Enseignement, 35, 1898, p. 529-537; A. Blanchet, “Rapport sur les musées d’Allemagne et d’Autriche”, Ministère de l’Instruction publique et des Beaux-Arts. Nouvelles archives des missions, II, 1892, p. 655-696.

25 J.M. Hofman, “Generation and Regeneration of the cast collections of the Musée de sculpture comparée”, in R. Frederiksen and E. Marchand (ed.), Plaster Casts. Making, Collecting and Displaying from Classical Antiquity to the Present, Berlin, de Gruyter, 2010, p. 58-73.

26 J. Piggott, Palace of the People: The Crystal Palace at Sydenham 1854-1936, London, Hurst, 2004.

27 P. Griener, Pour une histoire du regard. L’expérience du musée au xixe siècle, Paris, Hazan, 2017, p. 116-117.

28 In 1867 at the Exposition universelle (Paris, 1867), fifteen nations signed an agreement to the effect that they should exchange plaster casts of their best monuments. This document was drafted by H. Cole: Convention for promoting universally reproductions of works of art for the benefit of museums of all countries; D. Bilbey and M. Trusted, “‘The Question of casts’ – collecting and later reassessment of the cast collections at South Kensington”, in R. Frederiksen and E. Marchand (ed.), op. cit. p. 463-484; on the collection of plaster casts at the Victoria and Albert Museum, J. Bryant, Designing the V&A: the museum as a work of art (1857–1909), London, Lund Humphries and the V&A, 2017, p. 141-145.

29 M. Marvin, “Copying in Roman Sculpture: The Replica Series”, in H.A. Millon (ed.), Retaining the Original: Multiple Originals, Copies and Reproductions, Washington D.C., National Gallery of Art, 1989, p. 29-45.

30 Museumskunde. Deutscher Museumsbund. 1.1905 - 17.1923/24. Museumskunde, first published in 1905, was subtitled Zeitschrift für Verwaltung und Technik öffentlicher und privater Sammlungen. It became a leading publication in the field of museums. It had been founded by a professional curator: Karl Koetschau had been the director of several museums in Germany before moving to Dusseldorf where he was appointed head of the collections until his retirement in 1934. A. Meyer, Kämpfe um die Professionalisierung des Museums: Karl Koetschau, die Museumskunde und der Deutsche Museumsbund 1905-1939, Bielefeld, transcript Verlag, 2021.

31 I. Peiró and G. Pasamar, La Escuela Superior de Diplomática (Los archiveros en la historiografía española contemporánea), Madrid, Anabad, 1996.

32 P. Durey, École du Louvre. Jalons pour une histoire (1882-1998), Paris, École du Louvre et Fage éditions, 2021.

33 See B. Daun, “Die Bemalung antiker Gibsabgüsse”, Museumskunde, 11, 1915, p. 193-198.

34 B. Gräf, “Die Aufgaben einer Sammlung von Abgüssen nach antiken Skupturen”, Museumkunde, 4, 1908, p. 55-65, esp. p. 64.

35 F. Rathgen, “Ueber die Auffrischung verschmutzer Gipsabgüsse”, Museumskunde, 13, 1917, p. 33-40.

36 E. Panofsky, Idea: A Concept in Art History, Columbia, University of South Carolina Press, 1968; P. Griener, “La sculpture antique chez les modernes : propos de Johann Joachim Winckelmann”, Aufklärung, 27, 2015, p. 209-218.

37 F. Haskell and N. Penny, Taste and the Antique: the Lure of Classical Sculpture, 1500-1900, A. Aymonino and E. Dodero (revised ed.), 3 vols, London/Turnhout, Harvey Miller/Brepols, 2024.

38 E. Falconet, Observations sur la statue de Marc Aurèle, et sur d’autres sujets relatifs aux beaux-arts, Amsterdam, Rey, 1771, p. 131: “it is easier and more certain to study [a form] from a plaster cast than from a marble sculpture”.

39 R. Kekulé von Stradonitz, Die Vorstellungen von griechischer Kunst und ihre Wandlung im neunzehnten Jahrhundert [1901], Berlin, Reimer, 1908; opinion recorded by B. Daun, op. cit. note 33, here p. 194; W. Schiering, “Kekulé von Stradonitz als Interpret griechischer Plastik”, Jahrbuch der Berliner Museen, 21, 1979, p. 5-19.

40 W. Klein, “Die Aufgaben unserer Gipsabguss-Sammlungen”, Museumskunde, 8, 1912, p. 1-10, p. 100-114.

41 Proceedings of the congress Il Cortile delle Statue: Akten des Internationalen Kongresses zu Ehren von Richard Krautheimer, Rom, 21. – 23. Oktober 1992 = Der Statuenhof des Belvedere im Vatikan, M. Winner, B. Andreae and R. Krautheimer (ed.), Rom/Mainz, Bibliotheca Hertziana/von Zabern, 1998.

42 C. Keller and C. Schmälze (ed.), Archäologien der Moderne. Winckelmann um 1900, Hamburg, Meiner, 2022.

43 R. Cooper, Roman Antiquities in Renaissance France 1515-1565, London, Routledge, 2016, p. 127-169.

44 L. Winkler Horacek, “Appreciation and Rejection. Plaster Casts in the Discourse of Copy and Original. With an excursus on the Sleeping Ariadne in the Berlin Cast Collection,” in M. Szöcs and M. Tóth (ed.), op. cit. note 1, p. 130-143, esp. p. 137.

45 R. Stiassny, “Vom Gipsmuseum der Wiener Kunstakademie”, Museumskunde, 6, 1910, p. 1-17, p. 12.

46 J. Sieveking, “Nachbildungen antiker Kunstwerken im städtischen Museum zu Stettin”, Museumskunde, 5, 1909, p. 129-158, ill. 1, p. 130.

47 Georg Treu published his views on the ancients’ practice of polychromy: G. Treu, Sollen wir unsere Statuen bemalen?: ein Vortrag, Berlin, Oppenheim, 1884; see B. Daun, op. cit. note 33, p. 193-194, who remarked that plaster casts after works from the Italian Renaissance, in the Kaiser Friedrich Museum, were painted in imitation of marble or bronze, to good effect, without leading the viewer into the erroneous impression that the object was an original. One of the great modernist curators of the time, Alfred Lichtwark, also advocated the use of polychromy on casts: A. Lichtwark, “Farbige Skulptur”, in Studien, 2 vols, Hamburg, Luttke & Wulff, 1896, vol. 1, p. 87-131, esp. p. 93. Several authors published essays on the colouring of plaster, for instance L. Bernhard, Gibsabgüsse Stuckarbeinten und Künstlicher Marmor. Ihre Herstellung und Färbung, Frankfurt, Bechhold, 1893.

48 P. Jockey, Le Mythe de la Grèce blanche. Histoire d’un rêve occidental, Paris, Belin, 2015.

49 H. Bosecker, “Die Ästhetik des Archäologischen: Georg Treu und Auguste Rodin in Dresden”, in S. König, G. Lupfer and M. Obenaus (ed.), Drehscheibe Dresden, Dresden, Verband Deutscher Kunsthistoriker, 2018, p. 92-99. See the superb remarks by A. Potts, “The Public Gallery as Arena for Modern Sculpture”, in M. Baker and I. Reist (ed.), Sculpture collections in Europe and the United States 1500-1930, Leiden, Brill, 2021, p. 223-253.

50 On Treu and Rodin, see the very illuminating remarks by J.A. Schmoll gen. Eisenwerth, Rodin-Studien, Munich, Prestel, 1983, p. 329-365; Treu wrote some important essays on Rodin, “Auguste Rodin”, Jahrbuch der bildenden Kunst, 2, 1901, p. 81-86; “Bei Rodin”, Kunst und Künstler, 1904-1905, p. 3-17, and “Rodin auf der Großen Kunstausstellung”, Dresdner Anzeiger, August 2, 1904. See cat. exp, Vor 100 Jahren: Rodin in Deutschland, M. Kuhlemann (ed.), Skulpturensammlung, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Dresden [10 June-13 August 2006], Munich, Hirmer, 2006.

51 R. Stiassny, op. cit. note 45: “the physical effect of the original”.

52 B. Daun, op. cit. note 33, p. 196.

53 Ibid., p. 197.

54 F. Rionnet, Les Bronzes Barbedienne : l’œuvre d’une dynastie de fondeurs, 1834-1954, Paris, Arthena, 2016, p. 30 (machine and Collas process).

55 On the concept of transmediality, W. Wolf, “The Concept of ‘Transmediality’, and an example” Repetition, 1, 2022, p. 213-232.

56 B. Daun, op. cit. note 33, p. 195.

57 J. Sieveking, op. cit. note 46, p. 129. On this attempt by F. Hauser, see P. Arndt, Photographische Einzelaufnahmen antiker Skulpturen, Munich, Verlagsanstalt für Kunst und Wissenschaft, 1893, cats. 1724-1730, cols 41-44; M. Bieber, “Die Söhne des Praxiteles”, Jahrbuch der Kaiserlich Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, 28-29, 1925, p. 242-245, esp. p. 267-268. The museum ordered most of these copies from the Württembergische Metallwarenfabrik, a factory in Geislingen in der Steige (Baden Würtemberg): see their catalogue, which proudly mentioned the museum among its clients: Württembergische Metallwarenfabrik. Abteilung für Galvanoplastik. Galvanoptastische Nachbildungen antiker Statuen etc. nach Abgüssen von den Originalen, Geislingen, 1909.

58 B. Daun, op. cit. note 33, p. 198. Brandely ainé, Nouveau manuel complet de galvanoplastie, 2 vols, Paris, Roret, 1873, I, p. 240 ff., explains this process, which made it possible to produce incredibly precise copies. On this process, see E. Rodriguez-Castresana, L’Aura et le multiple : une histoire de la réception de la reproduction mécanique d’objets d’art au xixe siècle, Paris, Mare & Martin, 2025.

59 B. Bucher, “Die Aufgabe der kunstgewerblichen Museen”, Mittheilungen des K. K. Osterreichischen Museums, 1897, p. 337-445, esp. p. 339. This is quite correct: for example, an ‘original’ beaker (Ulrich zem Luft-Eberler) believed to have belonged to the Treasury of the cathedral at Basle, and now in the Victoria and Albert Museum (London), was only identified as a galvanoplastic copy in 2001! T. Husband and J. Chapuis (ed.), The Treasury of Basle Cathedral, New York, Museum of Modern Art, 2001, cat. 60 and pl. xx, p. 145.

60 J. Sieveking, op. cit. note 46, ill. p. 134.

61 B. Daun, op. cit. note 33, p. 198: “the copyist will never achieve the true form of the original, as science absolutely demands, in the already costly marble copies”.

62 See the famous painting by Lawrence Alma-Tadema, Phidias Showing his Friends the Frieze of The Parthenon, 1868 (Birmingham museums, UK), which shows Phidias’ friends walking on scaffolding which allows them to admire his bassorilievos as they were being carved. This painting provided the imaginary legitimation for this possibility of a close-up view of the friezes, which in fact only became possible during the museum age – as it was offered to visitors at the time in the British Museum.

63 H. Wölfflin, “Wie man Skulpturen aufnehmen soll”, Zeitschrift für bildende Kunst, N.F. 7, 1896, p. 224-228 and N.F. 8, 1897, p. 294-297; H. Wölfflin, “Wie man Skulpturen aufnehmen Soll? (Problem der italienischen Renaissance)”, Zeitschrift für bildende Kunst, N.F. 26, 1915, p. 237-244; see H. Wölfflin, How One Should Photograph Sculpture, transl. and commentary by G.A. Johnson, Art History, 36, 1, February 2013, p. 52-71.

64 A. von Hildebrand, Das Problem der Form in der bildenden Kunst, Strasbourg, Heitz, 1893; S. Rauprich, Aspekte der Betrachtung und Rezeption von Plastik in der deutschen Kunstwissenschaft des 18. und 19. Jahrhunderts. Ein wissenschaftsgeschichtlicher Versuch, Weimar, VDG, 1995, chap 5.

65 H. Bulle, “Das kunstgeschichtliche Museum der Universität Würzburg”, Münchner Jahrbuch der bildenden Kunst, 1910, p. 147-162.

66 Ibidem; F. Fries, “Der Erweiterungsbau des städtischen Museums Elberfeld”, Museumskunde, 10, 1914, p. 1-13, esp. p. 12.

67 On the perception of objects of the past during the 19th century, J. Siegel, Material inspirations. The Interests of the Art Object in the Nineteenth Century and After, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2020, and P. Griener, op. cit. note 27.

68 On photography of sculpture at the time, see C. Caraffa, Fotografie als Instrument und Medium der Kunstgeschichte, Berlin, Deutscher Kunstverlag, 2009; G.A. Johnson and D. Schultz (ed.), Photo Archives and the Place of Photography, London/New York, Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, 2025; H.E. Roberts (ed.), Art History Through the Camera’s Lens, Amsterdam, Gordon and Breach, 1995; E. Edwards and E. Ravilious (ed.), What Photographers Do. The Making and Remaking of Museum Cultures, London, UCL Press, 2022; S. Hamill and M.R. Luke (ed.), Photography and Sculpture: the Art Object in Reproduction, Los Angeles, The Getty Research Institute, 2017; R. Marcoci (ed.), The Original Copy: Photography of Sculpture 1839 to Today, New York, Museum of Modern Art, 2010.

69 O. Homburger, Museumskunde, Breslau: Hirt, 1924, p. 40: “Long praised, then much reviled in recent times”.

70 J. Baum, “Gipsabgüsse”, Museumskunde, NF III/4, 1931, p. 141-143, p. 143.

Haut de page

Table des illustrations

Légende Figure 1: Parthenon gallery, Albertinum, Dresde (Museography by Georg Treu. 1891).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/cel/docannexe/image/36751/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 18k
Légende Figure 2: Casts before and after cleaning. Friedrich Rathgen, “Ueber die Auffrischung verschmutzer Gipsabgüsse”, Museumskunde XIII, 1917 p. 33-40, p 39.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/cel/docannexe/image/36751/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 65k
Légende Figure 3: Medusa Rondanini, with added polychromy. Johannes Sieveking, “Nachbildungen antiker Kunstwerken im städtischen Museum zu Stettin”, Museumskunde V, 1909 p. 130.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/cel/docannexe/image/36751/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 58k
Légende Figure 4: Cnidian Venus carved by Johannes Everding for the museum in Stettin. Johannes Sieveking, “Nachbildungen antiker Kunstwerken im städtischen Museum zu Stettin”, Museumskunde V, 1909, p. 134.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/cel/docannexe/image/36751/img-4.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 51k
Légende Figure 5: Display of casts after antique sculptures in the Arthistorical museum at Würzburg. Ex.: Heinrich Bulle, “Das kunstgeschichtliche Museum der Universität Würzburg”, Münchner Jahrbuch der bildenden Kunst 1910 ill. after p. 156.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/cel/docannexe/image/36751/img-5.png
Fichier image/png, 1,3M
Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

Cecilia Hurley, « The status of plaster casts after antique statues. The German experience and its reception in France (1880-1920) »Les Cahiers de l’École du Louvre [En ligne], 24 | 2025, mis en ligne le 01 décembre 2025, consulté le 08 février 2026. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/cel/36751 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/15bjx

Haut de page

Auteur

Cecilia Hurley

Cecilia Hurley étudie les langues anciennes et l’archéologie à l’université d’Oxford, avant de soumettre une thèse à l’université de Neuchâtel sur l’antiquaire Aubin-Louis Millin et son ouvrage consacré au patrimoine français à l’époque de la Révolution française. Elle a ensuite rédigé son habilitation à diriger les recherches de l’Université de Lyon 2, avec un mémoire inédit sur les salles de chefs-d’œuvre dans les musées européens au xixe siècle (1780-1919). Elle enseigne à l’École du Louvre depuis 2006 (histoire des musées, histoire du patrimoine, la muséographie et la mise en scène des collections), et est membre du Centre de recherche depuis 2014. Elle a publié sur l’histoire des musées, l’histoire des collections, la notion de canon artistique, ainsi que sur la classification, l’organisation et la diffusion des connaissances théoriques et historiques dans le domaine de l’art (xvie au xixe siècles).

Cecilia Hurley studied ancient languages and archaeology at Oxford University before submitting a thesis to the University of Neuchâtel on the antiquarian Aubin-Louis Millin and his work on French heritage during the French Revolution. She then wrote her habilitation thesis at the University of Lyon 2, with an unpublished dissertation on masterpiece galleries in European museums in the 19th century (1780-1919). She has been teaching at the École du Louvre since 2006 (history of museums, history of heritage, museography and the staging of collections), and has been a member of the Research Centre since 2014. She has published on the history of museums, the history of collections, the notion of artistic canon, as well as on the classification, organisation and dissemination of theoretical and historical knowledge in the field of art (16th to 19th centuries).

Articles du même auteur

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont susceptibles d’être soumis à des autorisations d’usage spécifiques.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search