Classics and the Uses of Reception 2006
DOI: 10.1002/9780470774007.ch19
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Reception and Ancient Art: The Case of the Venus de Milo

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2007
2007
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…2 The aesthetic narrative of the classical display as a frame in which the transcendental aesthetic values of ancient art could be contemplated continued. There was increased focus on the concept of the ancient "masterpiece," understood as a pinnacle of artistic and cultural development, such as the Venus de Milo acquired by the Louvre in 1821 and immediately given a central position in the museum, physically as well as discursively ( Dyson 2006 , 142;Prettejohn 2006 ).…”
Section: The Imagined Geographies Of Collectingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…2 The aesthetic narrative of the classical display as a frame in which the transcendental aesthetic values of ancient art could be contemplated continued. There was increased focus on the concept of the ancient "masterpiece," understood as a pinnacle of artistic and cultural development, such as the Venus de Milo acquired by the Louvre in 1821 and immediately given a central position in the museum, physically as well as discursively ( Dyson 2006 , 142;Prettejohn 2006 ).…”
Section: The Imagined Geographies Of Collectingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…24 For these and other artists, Arman, Jim Dine, Ruy-Blas, etc. etc., see Cuzin et al 2000, 458-499;Salmon 2000;Prettejohn 2006Prettejohn , 2012 Kiilerich 2009, 244-249. 26 Kiilerich 2012, 51, fig.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The material form of the Venus effectively shaped the archival record at the Préfecture, ensuring that other kinds of evidence were re-made in its shadow, although the surface of the statue itself remained remarkably resistant to interpretation. Yet as Elizabeth Prettejohn (2006) has outlined, the reappearance of the Venus did have serious implications for its status as evidence, a status which was often more a product of its reception than anything known about the statue's original production or meaning: on recovery it was discovered that the two blocks of the statue had been assembled incorrectly when it first appeared at the Louvre, making it lean forward and to the side. However, the idea of presenting the Venus to the French people in an unfamiliar form was considered politically undesirable, and it was not exhibited in its 'authentic' state until 1883 -19th-century viewers saw more than one 'Venus', and the lack of original documentation regarding the statue's proper function in antiquity paradoxically enabled its use as evidence in support of an array of nationalistic, aesthetic and otherwise ideological positions.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%