“Copied” Originals: The Evolution of Rape of a Sabine Bronze Statuettes

________________________________________________________BOWDOIN JOURNAL OF ART, 2015

1

“Copied” Originals: The Evolution of Rape of a Sabine Bronze Statuettes ANNIE BENNETT University of Pennsylvania, Class of 2016 ABSTRACT What makes a work of art original? How have measures of originality changed since the early Italian Renaissance? The bronze statuette of Rape of a Sabine at the Davis Museum at Wellesley College is a nineteenth-century copy of the original, marble group sculpted by Giambologna in 1583. When assessing originality, one must consider the workshop context of production, where copying was a necessary practice. This assessment becomes even more complicated when considering works in bronze—a material that aids in replication and reproduction. But by the late sixteenth-century, patrons had become more concerned with issues of attribution. Growing wary of the collaborative nature of workshop production, they placed greater value on the identity of the artist and his unique style. However, these patrons’ new interest in collecting art created a greater market for popular works like Giambologna’s bronzes, and craftsmen made copies to meet the demand. Through their creation of copies, the craftsmen were creating their own, original interpretations of the marble original. Tracing the history of the Davis’ statuette allows one to evaluate its originality and reveals that some copies are more original than others.


2

“The new is never truly new. The absolutely new would be incomprehensible. Rather, the work restages the given and creates an impression of novelty. The authored work must comply with conventions in order to be understood at all.”1

- Alexander Nagel and Christopher S. Wood, in The Anachronic Renaissance.

“Originality in the Renaissance arose…not from some desperate search for the new but from the belief that one could work best within the boundaries of hallowed, time-honored tradition.”2

- William U. Eiland in The Craft of Art: Originality and Industry in the Italian Renaissance and Baroque Workshop.

The Davis’ statuette of Rape of a Sabine is at once a copy of Giambologna’s celebrated, original marble group (c. 1583) and an original bronze cast created by another, unknown artist (figure 1). The great number of bronze statuettes of this subject attests to the popularity of Giambologna’s colossal group in the Loggia dei Lanzi in Florence (figure 2). However, the existence of these “copied originals” prompts one to consider issues of attribution and originality in sixteenth-century Renaissance Italy.

1 Nagel, Alexander, and Christopher S. Wood. The Anachronic Renaissance. New York: Zone Books, 2010. 15. 2 Eiland, William U., Andrew Ladis, and Carolyn Wood. The Craft of Art: Originality and Industry in the Italian Renaissance and Baroque Workshop. Athens: The University of Georgia Press, 1995. 3.


3

Figure 1. Rape of a Sabine; from the original circa. 1583 (after)

Giambologna. Bronze – The Davis Museum.

Figure 2. Rape of a Sabine by Giambologna, 1583. Marble.

The Davis’ object label identifies this bronze statuette as: “Rape of a

Sabine, Giambologna (after), from the original of ca. 1583.” This information is incomplete. It does not include when this specific statuette was created and does not identity the artist who created it. In this way, the object label misleads the viewer into believing that this work was made by


4

Giambologna’s own hand. Giambologna carved a monumental, marble version of the same subject matter in 1583. One may consider this 1583 version to be the “original” Rape of a Sabine, but the Davis’ statuette, in its own way, is original as well.

What makes a work of art “original”? More importantly, has this definition changed from sixteenth-century Renaissance Italy to today?3 When answering these questions, one must consider the workshop context in which these objects were made. Perhaps a work is only original because the workshop master created it. However, one then might consider all workshop pieces, even if made by students, to be original because they are direct reproductions of the master’s work. Alternatively, originality may be attributed to a person, in this case Giambologna, or originality may refer to a new style created by one artist or more.4 Or, does originality imply a subsequent stylistic evolution, meaning that the original work is the work from which all others were derived?

When determining the originality of the Davis’ statuette, one must consider its origins: the who, what, and when of its creation. Each object has a set of specific circumstances that characterizes its production. These factors, when unique or rare, make an object “original.” There is a considerably large number of bronze statuettes of this subject matter, but only a small number can be traced back to the Renaissance, or to Giambologna himself. To trace the history of the Davis’ statuette is to evaluate its originality.

The ambiguity of terms such as originality and attribution results from the collaborative nature of a Renaissance artist’s workshop.5 Copying

3 Although, Italy in the sixteenth-century was not the unified nation that it is today. Comparatively, the peninsula was a collection of city-states with the region surrounding Rome controlled by the papacy. 4 Radnóti, Sándor. The Fake, Forgery, and Its Place in Art. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1999. 37. 5 Eiland, 1.


5

was an accepted and necessary feature of workshop production.6 Apprentices were trained to reproduce the master’s recognizable style.7 All pieces produced within the workshop context under the master’s tutelage were considered originals, even if they were created by the students.8

By the end of the sixteenth-century, the expectations of the patrons who commissioned pieces from these workshops had changed. In response to artists asserting their own identity and unique talents, this elite clientele had begun to value a work for its attribution rather than its subject or style of execution.9 When building collections, the names of “good artists” mattered more than “good art.”10 Thus, patrons grew more wary of the collaborative nature of the workshop. Contracts with the artists now included terms that stipulated the master’s level of involvement in the commissioned work. Similitudine defined standard copying practice.11 Under this provision, students were allowed to more freely adapt their master’s work.12 Retrahere, or, “to draw again,” required precise replication, ensuring students created copies that strictly adhered to the master’s original.13 Evidently, patrons accepted that an “original” work was not necessarily created entirely by the master himself.

Therefore, if the Davis’ statuette was made in the workshop of Giambologna under his tutelage, Renaissance contemporaries would have considered it to be an original. However, this originality did not imply that it

6 Orgel, Stephen. "The Renaissance Artist as Plagiarist." English Literary History 48, no. 3 (1981): 476-495. 486. 7 Eiland, 3. 8 Orgel, 485. 9 Nagel, Alexander, and Christopher S. Wood. "Toward a New Model of Renaissance Anachronism." The Art Bulletin 87, no. 3 (2003): 403-415. 413. Wittkower, Rudolf. The Sculptor's Workshop: Tradition and Theory From the Renaissance to the Present. Glasgow: University of Glasgow Press, 1974. 11. 10 Radnóti, 37. 11 Campbell, Stephen J., and Stephen J. Milner. Artistic Exchange and Cultural Translation in the Italian Renaissance City. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. 48-9. 12 Campbell, 48-9. 13 The term retrahere was used in the contract that commissioned the second version of Leonardo’s Madonna of the Rocks in 1508; Campbell, 48-9.


6

was the only copy or edition of that work. After its unveiling in 1583, the popularity of Giambologna’s colossal, marble group prompted the production of bronze copies of the marble original. However, according to the circumstances of their production, some of these copies may be more original than the others.

The definition of an artist’s original work becomes especially complicated when considering works in bronze. Bronze is a material that aids in replication and reproduction, unlike carving from stone or painting on canvas.14 Depending on the casting technique, some works in bronze can be recast from the same molds to perpetually produce identical pieces. Other bronze works are created using lost-wax casting, a process that destroys the “original” mold.15 The Davis’ Rape of a Sabine was most likely created using the latter method.

In all likelihood, Giambologna never handled the Davis’ statuette.16 Giambologna may have initially created molds for his workshop assistants to use, but his students soon achieved a high level of independence.17 They were reportedly so skilled at reproducing his style that he rarely handled bronze himself.18 Even so, Giambologna would have maintained some quality control over the statuettes originating from his workshop. These bronze statuettes—produced in his lifetime and in his workshop—should be considered the most original of the copies.

14 Nagel, The Anachronic Renaissance, 103 and 265. 15 Smith, Dylan, and David Saunders. "Technical Characteristics of Bronze Statuettes from the Workshops of Antonio and Giovanni Francesco Susini." In The Renaissance Workshop. London: Archetype Publications, 2013. 29-41. 31. 16 Dupre, Maria Grazia Ciardi. Small Renaissance Bronzes. 1966. Reprint, Feltham: Hamlyn, 1970. 111-2. 17 Maginnis, Hayden B.J.. "The Craftsman's Genius: Painters, Patrons, and Drawings in Trecento Siena." In The Craft of Art: Originality and Industry in the Italian Renaissance and Baroque Workshop. Athens: The University of Georgia Press, 1995. 25-47. 18 Avery, Charles, and Anthony Radcliffe. Giambologna, 1529-1608: Sculptor to the Medici : An Exhibition Organised by the Arts Council of Great Britain and the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna. London: Arts Council, 1978. 33.


7

His workshop also included highly skilled assistants such as Antonio Susini (1558-1624), who presided over Giambologna’s forge for twenty years before establishing his own workshop in 1600.19 Susini’s nephew, Gianfrancesco, continued to produce the statuettes after Giambologna’s and Susini’s respective deaths.20 Even though they are associated with Giambologna’s workshop, Susini’s and Gianfrancesco’s creations significantly differ from those of the workshop students. While the students were trained to recreate Giambologna’s unique style, these two artists each developed their own, unique style, or maniera. The workshop context encouraged anonymity in service of advancing the master’s style, whereas Susini signed his name on many of the bronze statuettes he created (figure 3).21 The bronze statuettes produced by Susini or Gianfrancesco may be considered original in that the two men were closely associated with Giambologna and his workshop, although, the style in which these casts were created was also original to Susini or Gianfrancesco.

19 Radcliffe, Anthony, and Nicholas Penny. Art of the Renaissance Bronze - 1500-1650. London: Philip Wilson, 2004.155. 20 Radcliffe, Art of the Renaissance Bronze, 155. 21 Eiland, 1.


8

Figure 3. Rape of a Sabine by Antonio Susini; dated 1627. Bronze – Private Collection.

Meanwhile, to meet popular demand, other craftsmen had been producing Giambologna’s bronze statuettes without his permission. Though they did not have Giambologna’s endorsement, they had knowledge of his original composition. By this time, the marble sculpture was so popular that pamphlets with detailed, wood-cut prints freely circulated throughout greater Europe (figure 4).22 Thus, these craftsmen could reproduce the composition without ever having seen the original. Later on, some of these craftsmen undoubtedly studied from Susini’s or Gianfrancesco’s bronze versions, picking up their stylistic differences in the process. Although these statuettes may imitate Giambologna’s original composition and the bronze statuettes that followed, they had no other connection to the original artist. These renegade workshops moved further away from Giambologna’s original work as they moved farther away from Florence, the initial center of Giambologna’s production.23 Nevertheless, even though these copies were unsanctioned, they had a more “original” quality because they were produced around Giambologna’s lifetime using contemporary casting techniques and technology.

22 Nagel, “Toward a New Model…”, 413. 23 Avery, 10 and Dupre, 105.


9

Figure 4. Rape of a Sabine Woman by Andrea Andreani; 1584. Chiaroscuro

woodcut print – the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

By the late seventeenth-century, Susini’s and Gianfrancesco’s heirs were producing the statuettes. In the mid-nineteenth century, founders such as Crozatier in Paris and Hatfield in London were selling the statuettes.24 In 2014, a quick Google search yields several options for purchasing the bronze statuette: www.museum-shop.it claims to be selling a bronze version “by Giambologna” for 3,000€ (figure 5).25 The item can be ready to ship in three days.26

24 Avery, 10. 25 “The Rape of the Sabine in Bronze.” 26 “The Rape of the Sabine in Bronze.”


10

Figure 5. Rape of a Sabine by Giambologna; 1583. Bronze with base -

www.museum-shop.it.

One wonders when and where the Davis’ statuette belongs in this evolution of Rape of a Sabine bronze statuettes (figure 6). The Davis’ statuette is most likely a mid to late nineteenth-century, Italian-made copy. While traveling in Italy in 1900, German Colonel Wilhelm von Bode purchased Rape of a Sabine for his friend Paul von Schwabach, a wealthy German banker.27 Bode first started purchasing bronze works in the 1890s while traveling throughout Europe.28 He most likely purchased this statuette directly from a foundry. As an avid collector and connoisseur of bronzes, Bode probably believed this to be a high-quality piece, but without scientific testing, there is no way of knowing exactly when the Davis’ statuette was 27 Object File Accession No. 1955.3, Davis Museum, Wellesley College (Wellesley MA).

28 Bode, Wilhelm von, and James David Draper. The Italian Bronze Statuettes of the Renaissance. New ed. New York: M.A.S. de Reinis, 1980. viii.


11

created.29 David Saunders and Dylan Smith analyzed copper alloys and casting techniques to identify characteristic differences in Giambologna’s and Susini’s workshop production in "Technical Characteristics of Bronze Statuettes from the Workshops of Antonio and Giovanni Francesco Susini."30 This kind of analysis would be the only way to accurately date and determine the circumstances of the Davis’ statuette’s creation. Bode’s extensive collection, which he donated to the German government, is now housed in the Bode Museum in Berlin.

Figure 6. Photograph from “Giambologna’s Conception of The Rape of the

Sabine Women;” A Study Exhibition in the Connoisseurship of Bronze Statuettes. Washington University Gallery of Art: Steinberg Hall; Saint

Louis, Missouri. October 25 – November 14, 1971.31

29 Smith, 29. 30 Smith, 29. 31 Object File Accession No. 1955.3, Davis Museum, Wellesley College (Wellesley MA).


12

The practice of collecting art began in the Renaissance. In the late fifteenth-century, the uppermost echelons of Renaissance society no longer solely commissioned art, but began to collect it.32 The popularity of Giambologna’s marble original made these bronze statuettes impressive additions to any nobleman’s collection.33 The catalogue of a 1978 exhibition of Giambologna’s work organized by the Arts Council of Great Britain explains how “his statuettes made handsome gifts and were rapidly distributed through the courts and studios of Europe, disseminating a knowledge of, and enthusiasm for, his elegant style far beyond Florence.”34 In this way, Giambologna’s colossal composition was disseminated throughout Europe in miniature. The business of copying was a lucrative one, and many others besides Giambologna and his contemporaries profited from his work.35

Because of this, there are now no less than six well-known variations of the Rape of a Sabine bronze statuette.36 A seventeenth-century statuette that the Kunsthistorisches Museum purchased in 1802 features a more naturalistic base with lizards and fauna (figure 7).37 Another statuette at the Metropolitan Museum of Art features softer treatment of the strands of hair and altered poses and proportions (figure 8).38 The Frick Collection has a version similar to the Davis’ statuette but lists Susuni as the artist and provides a more accurate date of ca. 1585 (figure 9).39 The Frick’s statuette is

32 Radcliffe, Anthony. “Replicas, Copies and Counterfeits of Early Italian Bronzes.” Apollo: The International Magazine For Collectors 124 (September 1986): 183-187. Art Full Text (H.W. Wilson). 183. 33 Gibbons, Mary Weitzel. Giambologna: Narrator of the Catholic Reformation. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995. 25. 34 Avery, 16. 35 Radcliffe, Replicas, Copies, and Counterfeits, 183. 36 Object File Accession No. 1955.3, Davis Museum, Wellesley College (Wellesley MA). 37 Avery, 108. The Kunsthistorisches Museum was then known as the Imperial Collection of Coins and Antiquities. 38 “The Metropolitan Museum of Art.” 39 The Frick Collection.


13

a different color bronze and has a smaller base than the Davis’.40 In 2013, Christie’s sold a statuette also attributed to Susini for $642,938. This highly finished statuette features a much more delineated and harsher treatment of musculature than the Davis’ (figure 10). All of these works are noticeably different—yet still recognizable as byproducts of Giambologna’s original marble statue.

Figure 7. Rape of a Sabine by Giambologna; late seventeenth century.

Bronze – Kunsthistorisches Museum.

40 The Frick Collection.


14

Figure 8. Rape of a Sabine after a model by Giambologna; last quarter of the

seventeenth-century. Bronze – the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Figure 9. Rape of a Sabine by Antonio Susini; circa 1585. Bronze – The Frick

Collection.


15

Figure 10. A Bronze Group of the Rape of a Sabine; after Giambologna, cast

attributed to Antonio Susini; circa 1620-1650. Bronze with bronze base – Christie’s Auctions and Private Sales.

Although the Davis’ statuette is a late eighteenth-century version, it is still, in its own way, an original work. With the creation of each new copy, the composition of Rape of a Sabine bronze statuettes evolved over time to include new, stylistic details not conceived by the creator and not found on the marble original. Thus, through their creation of copies, the craftsmen were creating their own, original interpretations of the marble original. Despite not knowing its attribution or year of creation, the Davis’ bronze statuette is still a valuable teaching tool for the museum. With proper scientific analysis and testing, the object can be interpreted as an excellent example of nineteenth-century casting techniques and practices. Even if the statuette is not a “real” Giambologna, it raises real questions about the complexity of originality and attribution during the sixteenth-century Italian Renaissance.


16

Works Cited

Avery, Charles, and Anthony Radcliffe. Giambologna, 1529-1608: Sculptor to the Medici : An Exhibition Organised by the Arts Council of Great Britain and the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna. London: Arts Council, 1978.

Bode, Wilhelm von, and James David Draper. The Italian Bronze Statuettes

of the Renaissance. New ed. New York: M.A.S. de Reinis, 1980. Campbell, Stephen J., and Stephen J. Milner. Artistic Exchange and

Cultural Translation in the Italian Renaissance City. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

Dupre, Maria Grazia Ciardi. Small Renaissance Bronzes. 1966. Reprint,

Feltham: Hamlyn, 1970. Eiland, William U., Andrew Ladis, and Carolyn Wood. The Craft of Art:

Originality and Industry in the Italian Renaissance and Baroque Workshop. Athens: The University of Georgia Press, 1995.

Even, Yael. "On the Art and Life of Collective Sexual Violence in Renaissance

Italy." Notes in the History of Art 23, no. 4 (2004): 7-14. Gibbons, Mary Weitzel. Giambologna: Narrator of the Catholic

Reformation. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995. Maginnis, Hayden B.J.. "The Craftsman's Genius: Painters, Patrons, and

Drawings in Trecento Siena." In The Craft of Art: Originality and Industry in the Italian Renaissance and Baroque Workshop. Athens: The University of Georgia Press, 1995. 25-47.

Nagel, Alexander, and Christopher S. Wood. "Toward a New Model of

Renaissance Anachronism." The Art Bulletin 87, no. 3 (2003): 403-415.

Nagel, Alexander, and Christopher S. Wood. The Anachronic Renaissance.

New York: Zone Books, 2010.


17

Object File Accession No. 1955.3, Davis Museum, Wellesley College (Wellesley MA).

Orgel, Stephen. "The Renaissance Artist as Plagiarist." English Literary History 48, no. 3 (1981): 476-495.

Perrault, Gilles. "Original Sculptures and Subsequent Copied Works."

Chronicles Scientific and Technical. http://www.gillesperrault.com/blog/en/loeuvre-originale-et-la-sculpture-dedition/ (accessed May 1, 2014).

Perrault, Gilles. "The Regulations Governing Bronze Sculptures." Chronicles

Legal and Judicial. http://www.gillesperrault.com/blog/en/the-regulations-governing-bronze-sculptures/ (accessed May 1, 2014).

Radcliffe, Anthony, and Nicholas Penny. Art of the Renaissance Bronze -

1500-1650. London: Philip Wilson, 2004. Radcliffe, Anthony. “Replicas, Copies and Counterfeits of Early Italian

Bronzes.” Apollo: The International Magazine For Collectors 124 (September 1986): 183-187. Art Full Text (H.W. Wilson).

Radnóti, Sándor. The Fake, Forgery, and Its Place in Art. Lanham:

Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1999. Smith, Dylan, and David Saunders. "Technical Characteristics of Bronze

Statuettes from the Workshops of Antonio and Giovanni Francesco Susini." In The Renaissance Workshop. London: Archetype Publications, 2013. 29-41.

The Frick Collection. "Rape of a Sabine." The Frick Collection.

http://www.frick.org/exhibitions/hill/9 (accessed May 2, 2014). The Metropolitan Museum of Art. "The Metropolitan Museum of Art - Rape

of a Sabine." Collections. http://www.metmuseum.org/collections/search-the-collections/205298 (accessed May 4, 2014).

"The Rape of the Sabine in Bronze." Museum Shop. http://www.museum-

shop.it/The-rape-of-the-Sabine-in-bronze (accessed May 1, 2014).


18

Wittkower, Rudolf. The Sculptor's Workshop: Tradition and Theory From the Renaissance to the Present. Glasgow: University of Glasgow Press, 1974.

Wutrich, Timothy Richard. "Narrative and Allegory In Giambologna's Rape

of a Sabine." Word & Image: A Journal of Verbal/Visual Enquiry 20, no. 4 (2012): 308-322.

“Copied” Originals: The Evolution of Rape of a Sabine Bronze Statuettes

Documents

Transcript of “Copied” Originals: The Evolution of Rape of a Sabine Bronze Statuettes