"Two Styles More Opposed"

Melissa L Gustin
{"title":"\"Two Styles More Opposed\"","authors":"Melissa L Gustin","doi":"10.21825/jolcel.v6i0.11801","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper explores how Harriet Hosmer (1930-1908) positioned two early busts, Daphne (1853/4) and Medusa (1854) in opposition to Gianlorenzo Bernini's works of thes same subject through careful deployment of Winckelmannian principles. This engages with the first English translation of Winckelmann's History of the Art of Antiquity by Giles Henry Lodge in 1850, as well as the rich body of antique material available to Hosmer in Rome. It problematises art historical approaches to Hosmer's work that emphasise biographically-led readings over object-led interpretations informed by contemporary translations, discourses of originality, and display practices. It demonstrates the conflicting position of Bernini in the middle and late nineteenth century as the \"Prince of Degenerate Sculpture\", and shows that Winckelmann's victimisation of Bernini led to his poor reputation. This reputation as skilled but degenerate provided the foil for Hosmer to reclaim these subjects, demonstrate her correct understanding of classical principles and citation, and prove her superiority. Ultimately, however, the two artists will be shown to have more similarities than differences in their use of classical references; only access to Winckelmann's writings separates their reception in the nineteenth century.","PeriodicalId":421554,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Latin Cosmopolitanism and European Literatures","volume":"72 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Latin Cosmopolitanism and European Literatures","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21825/jolcel.v6i0.11801","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper explores how Harriet Hosmer (1930-1908) positioned two early busts, Daphne (1853/4) and Medusa (1854) in opposition to Gianlorenzo Bernini's works of thes same subject through careful deployment of Winckelmannian principles. This engages with the first English translation of Winckelmann's History of the Art of Antiquity by Giles Henry Lodge in 1850, as well as the rich body of antique material available to Hosmer in Rome. It problematises art historical approaches to Hosmer's work that emphasise biographically-led readings over object-led interpretations informed by contemporary translations, discourses of originality, and display practices. It demonstrates the conflicting position of Bernini in the middle and late nineteenth century as the "Prince of Degenerate Sculpture", and shows that Winckelmann's victimisation of Bernini led to his poor reputation. This reputation as skilled but degenerate provided the foil for Hosmer to reclaim these subjects, demonstrate her correct understanding of classical principles and citation, and prove her superiority. Ultimately, however, the two artists will be shown to have more similarities than differences in their use of classical references; only access to Winckelmann's writings separates their reception in the nineteenth century.
“两种更对立的风格”
本文探讨了哈丽特·霍斯默(1930-1908)如何通过仔细运用温克尔曼原理,将两个早期的半身像《达芙妮》(1853/4)和《美杜莎》(1854)与贝尔尼尼的同主题作品对立起来。这与温克尔曼在1850年由吉尔斯·亨利·洛奇(Giles Henry Lodge)所著的《古代艺术史》的第一个英文翻译相结合,以及在罗马的霍斯默(Hosmer)可以获得的丰富的古董材料。它对霍斯默作品的艺术史方法提出了质疑,强调以传记为主导的阅读,而不是以当代翻译、原创性话语和展示实践为依据的以对象为主导的解释。它展示了贝尔尼尼在19世纪中后期作为“堕落雕塑王子”的矛盾地位,并表明温克尔曼对贝尔尼尼的伤害导致了他的不良声誉。这种熟练但堕落的名声为霍斯默重新夺回这些主题提供了陪衬,展示了她对古典原则和引用的正确理解,并证明了她的优越性。然而,最终,这两位艺术家将被证明在使用经典参考方面有更多的相似之处而不是不同之处;只有温克尔曼的作品才能在19世纪被接受。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信