Discovery and Rediscovery

In Roma a few bronzes, scores of friezes, sarcophagi, and sculpted triumphal arches have never been discovered as such. All have been plainly visible, having been above ground for numerous centuries but only considered the decorative remnants, of at best, a pagan society. More often they are regarded as the detritus of that culture, suitable only for the materials of newer structures, their marble stripped and their importance neglected. They have remained, most often, as elements on the city not worthy of examination or discussion by even the most intelligent and educated of the City. For centuries those objects have been given little value and considered unworthy of study. As I discussed briefly, in my previous work, the familiar may connect us to those objects of the past, yet that same familiarity may reduce a work to a banal object.

Much of this attitude of both benign and hostile neglect has changed over the course of the previous century. The members of the Collegio need only recall the sensation caused by the unearthing and collection of objects by the de’Medici, and the influence upon artists in Firenze. It is ironic that that which has been hidden by earth and then uncovered is given greater value and generates more attention than those objects we pass daily. For there are great works of importance in subject, execution, and style in plain view. Perhaps it is in the nature of Man to be drawn to those things which have been discovered, or imported, and take as common; and therefore insignificant, those things one passes each day.

To illustrate this point let us consider the Arch of Septimus Severus, a huge work of great craftsmanship and a certain beauty of bellicose nature, which few have written about. Men speak of it as they would any piazza or tavern as a meeting place, not as a piece of architecture. I have been told the Torso Belvedere may have been above ground for many years before someone recognized its’ importance, and placed it a position of prominence. Now, artists travel from all Europe to see and sketch this fragment of the past. They marvel at the masterpiece that had previously been treated as rubbish by generations of Romans.

The discovery of the Laocoon on 14 January 1506 A.D. is an example of a definitive work given even greater importance by being unknown and unseen. Upon being notified of this find Pope Julius promptly dispatched experts to confirm the statue’s authenticity. The work was raised from the earth and by July was installed in its own niche at the Vatican Palace where it remains on exhibition for those fortunate enough to be permitted a viewing.

Although the Laocoon is a work of inspiration and beauty it is not unique, except to itself. Even ten years since its installation at the Cortile Belvedere it has been often used as a paradigm in the service of divergent aesthetics. One may make the case that the artistic and historical life, if an object may have life, in current times has depended upon elevating the work to such status as to establish an aesthetic paradigm suitable for differing individuals and groups. By this I mean that artists and academics to exemplify and justify their own perspective and interpretation have appropriated the Loaocoon, the Torso Belvedere, the Apollo Belvedere, and other pieces. The object has a context imposed upon it to conform to the subjective reaction of the viewer. Such an observation on my part does not diminish the validity of such an act, but, I trust, only serves to demonstrate the act of appropriation, and the reasons for the action.

In this matter I do not wish to be considered cynical or derogatory. It is merely my sincere attempt to gain an understanding of the process of discovery, rediscovery, and transformation from ancient art upon recent art. It is my belief that such an understanding will permit a greater understanding of art itself, and hence a more profound understanding of both others and myself in this world. To many such a statement may appear vain or pretentious, but in truth, I cannot persuade another if my own views remain uninformed and free from opinion or observation. I must also state sincerely that I cannot be free from subjective judgments, nor can any truthful person. My present work makes no claim, or promise, of universality; quite to the contrary it will cause further debate and discourse. This, I contend, is all to the good. For it is worthwhile to understand that vast numbers of ancient objects have been placed in commerce, seen, copied, and written about during the course of time. It is proper to focus upon those works of fame that offer the promise of a canon; regarding those cases most completely documented and touching the greatest number of individual most deeply is a goal to strive to achieve. Yet to devise such a canon would result in a constriction of expression.
Importantly it would tend to dismiss the relative importance of a work that does not support the criteria a canon establishes, ultimately robbing each object of its individuality, and fail to give insight into the broader culture of the ancients. This. I fear, would also inhibit the spirit of our own culture, inhibiting the imagination of current artists.

Each subject has, in effect, its own Gradus ad Parnassum, or canon in the pursuit of knowledge. The individual canons proscribe a manner of study most conducive to reaching a fuller understanding of a given subject. An individual must study grammar before attempting poetry or verse. In Latin one must first understand grammar before reading Caesar, and read Caesar before Livy or Ovid. Simple arithmetic is studied before geometry, and so on. In the broadest sense each of these has its own archeology because each has a canon of ancient and modern works that must be read and understood. In my own view it is apparent that both Petrach and Dante are drawing upon the archeology of the great Latin writers of antiquity. While some may find such an assertion without merit I would advise them to reconsider, because each has written of their debt to the past. And, more importantly, an examination of the forms employed by each of these great men will reveal their use of ancient forms as the basis of their work. Here, I believe the assertion will be validated. Therefore the canon of each subject is archeology; we study old texts and build upon that knowledge. At times we also challenge that knowledge hoping to advance our understanding.

Presently a canon of ancient objects is impossible. What may some farmer’s plow unearth tomorrow? If we allow ourselves to ponder the distant future, what may be unearthed several hundred years hence? It would be vanity to presume that we have seen all that there is to be seen. Therefore a formal canon establishing the basic rules or principles, setting forth a standard of rules and criteria is to be avoided.

A canon of present artistic works is impossible because it is entirely dependent upon taste, and fashion. As an example, the grace of Donatello’s David, possibly influenced by the Apollo Belvedere has been supplanted by the force of Michelangelo Buonoratti’s David. Perhaps one day the paradigm will shift. But, for the present Michelangelo is the paradigm for sculpture. Generations hence may agree with our current sense of aesthetics, or reject them completely. Such an effort to create a canon is destructive to innovation and the free expression of an artist. For these reason, among others I reject any such formulation.

I my estimation it is far better to attempt to preserve the past as best as we are able, without placing objects in any order of superiority, and allow the viewer to arrive at their own evaluation. For those current works I propose that we collectively attempt to catalogue and record the history of these works, voice our individual opinions, and thus give posterity the advantage of our culture.