I'm genuinely curious-- why? Art restoration is widely accepted; I just don't know why there is a special exception for cases like this... other than referencing the political/cultural reasons the penises were removed in the first place?
ETA: Sorry for the double post... my browser told me the first comment wasn't posted.
No problem. :D Actually, restoration of almost any kind is highly controversial when it comes to Classical art. Even more so when it's reconstructive like this. And it's just the idea of putting *magnets* in them.
I hadn't gotten that impression, though I myself am not a restoration artist. My husband does a lot of digital classical restoration (for recreating historical sculpture and places) and one of his closest friends does physical art restoration however, so I'll ask them about it in more depth.
Also, I just remembered that my husband spent a week restoring a classical satyr's penis for a client who wanted to recreate sculptures as they would have been originally. I was amused. :)
Got it. The two I've been around don't do that kind of work, but it may be because of the archaeologists we have: differnet institutions, diff. cultures.
I was wondering, didn't these statues initially have penises, but then in the 16th century or earlier The Catholic Church decided they shouldn't have penises?
Those kinds of mutilations were actually far more common in the first few centuries AD, and then *sometimes* by protestants later on. Not really a Catholic thing, though.
Reply
ETA: Sorry for the double post... my browser told me the first comment wasn't posted.
Reply
Reply
But yeah, magnets are super tacky.
Reply
Reply
I assume a private client, though?
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
jw
Reply
Reply
Reply
Nope, I think most of the time the just is missing simply because it's a slender appendage and bits break off. But I'm not a sculpture expert.
Reply
Leave a comment