HENRY MOORE Henry Moore (1891-1986) is known as a, if not most, protuberant British sculptors of the 20th Century by receiving world-wide fame through popular commissions – he had become celebrated by the public for his works (his works became known as “modern art”). Moore was one of the first “modern” sculptors to stumble across the opportunity to put his works into the public realm through his connection with Jacob Epstein (an American-born British sculptor who helped pioneer modern sculpture) whose artwork was displayed outside of the British Museum- the “Primitive art” collection which was crucial to Moore’s development in the artist world. Henry Moore was born in Castleford in Yorkshire, he was seventh of eight children and the son of a coal miner. Apparently Henry decided he wanted to be a sculptor from the age of eleven after hearing a Sunday school story of Michelangelo – in my opinion the greatest sculptor to have lived. During the First World War he served his time in France in the Civil Service Rifle Regiment. Moore unfortunately suffered from a gas attack in 1917 leading him to be demobilized in 1919 where he was awarded a veterans grant to study. At first, Henry trained to be a teacher before moving on to doing artworks and sculptures where he got a place in Leeds Schools of Art and he met Dame Barbara Hepworth. In 1921, Moore gained a scholarship to study at the Royal College of Arts in London where he researched pre-Columbian, Oceanic, and African sculptures – similar to Epstein. The last years of Moore’s life were spent in a little village of Much Hadham (30 miles from London) where he died on the 31st of August 1986. Moore’s success was based on understanding art in its most uncomplicated and simple form, non-western art with its approach to “direct carving” and the idea of the “truth to materials” principle which gave artists a bottomless amount of respect for the medium in which they were working on. He was also influence by many artists before him, adding to his success and development as a sculptor. The artists that influence him were European modernists such as Hans Arp, Constantine Brancusi, Alberto Giacometti, Pablo Picasso all of whom manipulated Moore’s expression of the human form and humanistic form approach to his work. Moore was heavily influenced by Constructivism (a style or movement in which assorted mechanical objects are combined into abstract mobile structural forms) and surrealism (Surrealism style uses visual imagery from the subconscious mind to create art without the intention of logical comprehensibility) making him appreciated the abstract form and enable him to explore biomorphic forms and exploring the human figure to its essential fragmented parts. Moore’s education in sculpture and art climaxed in the practise of classical techniques such as clay and plaster, he worked on a large scale replicating classical plaster cast sculptures. For Moore these methods were outdated and he decided to use the “direct carving” method using traditional materials such as stone and wood. Moore wanted to make his sculptures looks “unfinished” with the use of claw chisel and is strongly evident in his earlier works with the marks left viable upon the sculpture, contrasting the smoothness of skin simulated in traditional classical sculpture. Moore felt that once you had chosen a certain material, for example stone, that the stone became more important than what it depicted.
The earlier sculptural works of Moore’s were more front facing, rather than in his later works he began exploring different angles the work could face the viewer. Then he moved on to making three-dimensional models which were more suited to public viewing as they weren’t restricted to what angle the artwork should be viewed from enabling the audience to fully understand the artwork being displayed. It is said his earlier works were influenced by Egyptian sculptures – these would have been placed against a wall. Moore looked to the primitive (it implies western cultural colonialism and a presumption of cultural superiority) arts to borrow and to assimilate to his own works, he looked at reclining figures from Mexican cultures, the Aztec reclining figure of the rain god associated with sacrifice and war Chacmool 900-1000AD, this sculpture made for sacrificial rituals shows none of the brutality or emotion associated with it. Moore used this as a source for his reclining woman, the reclining figure pose prevents more freedom compositionally and special. His mother and child sculptures displayed a powerful motif that he consequently tackled over and over again refining and defining their abstract forms to emulate the maternal human bond that a mother and child have. Toltec-Mayan sculpture from Chichen Itza, known as “Chacmool”. The Artist is unknown. Base: 99cm long, 54cm wide and 10cm thick. Figure: 106cm long, 49cm wide and 99cm high. The reclining figure is known to be one of Henry Moore’s signature themes, the inspiration coming from a visit to the Trocadero in Paris, where he was able to see a plaster cast of the “Chacmool” which he described and admired for its “intense vitality” of “primitive art”. The Chacmool figure- found at the Temple of Warriors – has been carved from a single block of Pleistocene lime-stone. It represents a human figure half reclining upon its back with its head facing 90 degrees from the front. The figure supports itself on its elbows with a bowl/disk upon its stomach, possibly sacrificing something to the Gods. The figure’s legs are bent at the knees with the feet drawn tightly to its buttock. On the torso of the figure is a bird wing shield. Interestingly, paint fragments have been found upon the figure suggesting at one point that the statue had been all covered in paint.
Henry Moore’s Reclining figure 1929
One of Henry Moore’s strengths was his knowledge and ability to manipulate stone, this figure is made from Brown Hornton stone sourced from the quarries from the North West of Oxfordshire, to achieve the best conformation that utilized the materials properties. For instance stone – with its low tensile strength- is not strong enough to allow protuberant limbs that could be easily broken off or cause the figure to topple over. “It is first the figure I did in brown Hornton stone in 1929 influenced by the Mexican sculpture, particularly by the Chac-Mool figure. I realise now where the influence was, but it is very different. Except for the turn in the head, the figure is a symmetrical figure of which both sides are the same, the two legs are exactly in the same position, where in my Hornton stone figure there is a big difference, a big change and it also began to have something that my sculpture until then hadn’t had, it began to have forms which really existed and worked against each other and with each other rather than one solid mass that was all crushed and stuck together. This had a freedom and yet kept a stormy strength and I knew when I finished it that it was the best sculpture I had done up to then.” Henry Moore quoted in Ionel Jianou, Henry Moore, translated by Geoffry Skelding, Arted, Paris 1968, pp.28-9
OLD FLO
Old Flo by Henry Moore is abstracted but with distinct references to the female human form. The forms are out of proportion a clear example of this is the head ‐ it is significantly smaller in relation to the rest of the body which is seated in a gap between two block with a plinth which is integral to the figure as it is supporting the weight of the sculpture. The arms appear to be incredibly slender and appear to look unable to support the upper body, contrasting this; both of the legs are quite extensive in comparison and the body as a whole is larger than life size ‐ monumental. The face is interesting as it appears to have no individuality or expression as there is a lack of detail. The clothing which is covering the torso has folds which run horizontally and accentuate the breadth of the sculpture, the technique of modelling the original material of plaster or clay is evident in the folds and texture of the drapery. The modelling has allowed the sculptor to create the somewhat smoother shapes of the arms and legs. The clothing dips between the legs; the hem of the clothing curves over one leg but is stretched over the other knee; no discernible neckline or sleeves can be seen. The sculpture has a somewhat precarious pose suggesting movement as the torso faces forward but the head is slightly turned. The legs below the knees face in the opposite direction to the head and the feet are set at an angle apart from each other. Moore chose bronze as the high tensile strength of the cast metal allows for the open format ‐ the bronze is tough and durable so can be exhibited outside with patina and the mass of the bronze enhances the monumentality of this sculpture. Who owns Old Flo? Henry Moore wanted Old Flo on public view but Tower Hamlets Council plan to press ahead with the sale of “Draped Seated Woman” to raise money towards its budget deficit. The work of Old Flo makes reference to “The Bethnal Green Tube Shelter Disaster”. The disaster happened on the evening of Wednesday March 3, 1943 where 173 people died in a crush at station's bomb shelter in the East End of London. A woman carrying her child slipped on the step, and others followed her. They smelt burning, however, no bomb struck and not a single casualty was the direct result of military aggression, making it the deadliest civilian incident of World War II. Henry Moore was thought to be an official War artist, it is often assumed that the figure of Old Flo represents the strong female characters of World War II waiting in the Bomb Shelters. The statue was gifted to the Stifford Estate in the East End of London but has been on loan to the Yorkshire Sculpture Park for the past 15 years. In 2012 Mayor Lutfur Rahman made the controversial decision to sell Old Flo to raise funds for the borough ‐ this prompted outrage from councillors, and residents. “It is with considerable regret that I make this decision but I have a duty to ensure residents do not suffer the brunt of the horrendous cuts being imposed on us." – Lutfur Rahman, mayor of Tower Hamlets Consequently, the sale of has been delayed. Now the London Borough of Bromley has written to Tower Hamlets to say it owns it, which they originally did as it was only on loan to Yorkshire. It said the sculpture remained the property of the GLC until its dissolution in 1985 and was then transferred to Bromley .But the borough is currently in a legal battle with Bromley Council over ownership of the artwork. Old Flo was originally sold to London County Council by Moore at a below‐market price in the 1960s on the understanding it would be placed in east London. Stephen Carr, leader of Bromley Council, said: "This sculpture must remain in public ownership which is line with the original principles of Henry Moore himself. “The idea that selling this internationally recognised sculpture will somehow tackle the financial situation facing Tower Hamlets is flawed. Local authorities need to face financial reality and look at the longer‐term challenges."
The artist Bob and Roberta Smith (one man), also known as, Patrick Bill was accompanied by friends and other artists that led a flash mob‐style protest within the site of Tower Hamlets council headquarters on the 12th November 2012. The campaign was against the decision to sell Henry Moore’s Old Flo, or known as Draped seated woman, which Moore sold to Tower Hamlets for £7400 in 1962. Old Flo is currently resided in Yorkshire as there was a demolition of the housing estate where Old Flo was situated and stopped it from getting vandalised. The photo shows Jessica Voorsanger, an American performance artist, dressed as Henry Moore on the right smoking his pipe. The other protesters are dressed in green clothing to copy the patina of Old Flo and are all copying the pose with banners declaring that she is “NOT FOR SALE” on the pavement outside of Tower Hamlets council offices.
"Hitler destroyed the East End, Henry Moore, with others, rebuilt it and now a council who seem ignorant of the area's less recent past is selling off its principle monument to peace. For me it is like smashing up a war memorial. Moore's shelter drawings were the inspiration for this period of his work. It is terrible that the borough where scores of people died during the war in a tube station air raid shelter at Bethnal Green does not have the imagination to see how wonderful Old Flo is as a symbol of our humanity. Old Flo is an East End survivor. She is a generous and defiant image. She is so clearly drawn from Moore's war artist work. Sitting on her plinth I imagine her to be taking air after some horrible near suffocation. The Mayor of Tower Hamlets should take a trip to Harlow and witness how amazing this kind of sculpture is not only for its formal values but for what it represents. Artists like Liz Frink ,and Barbara Hepworth wanted their art in Public spaces because in the post war era people equated public space with freedom. It was in that era that the NHS was conceived and our institutions were made meritocratic and democratic. In 2010 Chris Stevens at Tate Britain curated a great show looking at Moore's relationship with post war culture. My god that was some history lesson but obviously one which the councillors of Tower Hamlets did not heed or even care about." – Bob and Roberta Smith
BARBARA HEPWORTH Barbara Hepworth was born in Yorkshire, she loved undulating hills, which gave her inspiration for natural forms that is consistent through her work. Hepworth was particularly keen for her sculptures to be shown in the open air, where she felt they could “breathe” and be animated by the changing daylight, weather and seasons. Similar to Moore she developed shapes with mass, negative space, movement, tone and colour. She travelled to study painting and sculpture in Siena, Florence, Spain and Italy. In Italy she began to experiment in direct carving. In 1930, Hepworth married a fellow abstract painter Ben Nicholson, they travelled to Paris where they met the likes of Pablo Picasso, Piet Mondrian, Hans Arp and Constantine Brancusi.Hepworth promoted the modernist movement much like Moore, their public sculptures can be seen all over the world. Her pierced forms carvings in which a hole was carved through the centre, started one of the most important formal features of hers and Moore’s subsequent works, this central softly curving shape was related and inspired by the female form. One of Hepworth’s works was stolen from Dulwich Park, suspected to be taken by scrap metal thieves in south London. The bronze piece was called “Two Forms” (Divide Circle), was cut from its plinth overnight. The sculpture was designed in 1969 and been in the park since 1970, it is considered to be one of Britain’s most recognisable works. The sculpture is late work of Hepworth as it was created only 6 years before her death in St Ives in 1975. It includes two vertical bronze semi circles forming a broken circle completely (6ft 7in) across, each piece pierced by a large hole. All three elements are hollow and were cast in London by Morris Singer. Hepworth wasted the viewer’s body to be engaged with her work “You can climb through the Divided Circle – you don’t need to do it physically to experience it” – Barbara Hepworth
10th April 2015
THE HISTORY OR ART TIMES
GOODBYE OLD FLO?
Is public art a luxury the poor cannot afford? The mayor of one London borough wants to sell off a wonderful sculpture by Henry Moore. Times are hard, but its loss would be a tragedy. The mayor of the London borough of Tower Hamlets, Lutfur Rahman, will decide on the future of a major work of art in the council's possession. He has already declared his intention to sell it, but he will have to consider the views of the council's overview and scrutiny committee. The work is Henry Moore's “Draped Seated Woman” and the proposal is to sell it to the highest bidder, to fill some of the gap made by government spending cuts. Councillor Shahed Ali, one of Rahman's cabinet members, told the BBC that "we'd love to keep it in the borough", but it is "uninsurable", at a time when large bronzes like this are sometimes stolen for their scrap value. The proposal has aroused the fury of, among others, Henry Moore's daughter Mary, the local MP Rushanara Ali, and Danny Boyle, hero of the Olympic opening ceremony. In a letter to the Observer today, they write that it "goes against the spirit" of Henry Moore, who sold it to London County Council at a price – £6,000 – far below its then market value. It demonstrated the "belief that everyone, whatever their background, should have access to works of art of the highest quality". Moore, they say, was "delighted" that it was installed as the centrepiece of the Stifford estate, a group of tower blocks in Stepney. Boyle says that "it represents everything I believe in". He and his fellow objectors are right: Draped Seated Woman fulfils an ideal that nothing was too good for ordinary people, an ideal that modern local politicians are in danger of losing. To sell the sculpture as if it were a piece of real estate would be, according to Rushanara Ali, "a betrayal of working class heritage". It would also betray Moore's generosity. It would raise the question why anyone should ever want to offer anything to a local authority again. In a time of cuts, in a poor area, there is force to the argument that the money could be spent on something more directly useful to the people of Tower Hamlets. Except that, taken to its extreme, it could be used to cut off all cultural funding whatsoever.
The Whitechapel Gallery could be sold to Tesco, to raise money for deserving causes, houses could be built on parks and various council‐funded embellishments to the streets of the borough should never have happened. The Olympics, supported by Tower Hamlets, should – by this logic – certainly have been stopped. Worse, there is no guarantee that the proceeds of sale will go directly to needy residents. Rahman has not said where it will go, except somewhere in the council's billion‐pound‐a‐year budget. Labour councillor Josh Peck, who is opposing the move, claims this is "effectively a fire sale caused by the appalling financial deficit" brought on by the "profligacy and quite extraordinary waste" of the current administration. He gives me details – £1m a year on East End Life, a "newspaper" publishing stories favourable to the council; expenditure on banners with the mayor's face on it; a chauffeur‐driven Mercedes for his use; on advisers and consultants. Without going fully into debates about Tower Hamlets' spending policies, there is sufficient doubt that the proceeds of Old Flo would really go where they are needed most. As Peck says: "The challenge for Tower Hamlets is revenue funding. This is a one‐off piece of capital funding. It's only a stop‐gap measure, and the people of Tower Hamlets will have lost an asset for ever." He says: "There is a debate to be had but at present it's a dishonest one. The sculpture should not be sold just because the mayor wants to do it." The sculpture's value has been reported to be £20m. This price, though obviously not small, would not make that much difference to the council's budgets. Especially if, as it should be, the capital sum is annualised into a yearly revenue figure of a few per cent of the total value – it wouldn't do much more than pay for East End Life, the banners and the Merc. l
h
h
l
h
"
bl "
ART IN THE PUBLIC REALM Public art is not a set art form and it can vary. For instance it can be abstract or realistic and its size can alter, what distinguishes public art is the unique association of how it was made, where it is situated and what it signifies. Public art can express community values, enhance the environment, transform a landscape, heighten our awareness and question our assumptions. Being placed in public this art is for everyone to form a collective response and not to appeal to all but to attract attention; it is a part of public history, a part of our evolving culture and collective memory. “Art can make an empty space seem like a significant place. It can celebrate someone or something, or it can commemorate. It can express any kind of feeling or idea.” Public art isn’t necessarily permanent; it can be short lived by being a single performance or a temporary exhibition or display by an artist. What does it mean by “public”? The dictionary defines “public” as “relating to or concerning the people at large or all members of a community” and “open to everyone and typically frequented by large numbers of people” inferring that the general public having access to enjoy the art freely. The location of public art is very important for the affect it has on the public, it is usually placed in somewhere urban and popular so that it catches the majority of the public’s eye. These places may include: squares, plazas, pedestrian areas, entrances to public buildings (such as offices, courts, airports, museums, libraries, places of worship and universities. A more recent place for public art to be displayed is the night sky as holograms and firework displays can be projected onto – computer art is becoming more popular as technology is developing at an alarming rate. There are many types of public arts, the longest lasting which has survived from Antiquity is various types of stone work, examples being: funerary monuments, statues and other religious or architectural sculptures. As time has gone on public art includes a vast range of different forms such as detailed and decorative plastic arts, architecture, sculptures, stained glass, ceramics, mosaics and tapestry to then the more contemporary art works including: Earthworks, Installation art, transient displays, temporary exhibitions or temporary architectural constructions to celebrate important events Public art has been around for centuries, starting from the early Greeks to the modern day. The Greeks were one of the first advocates to having public art mainly in the form of sculptures which were appreciated by the community as a whole and would be viewed my many. An example of public art in Ancient Greece is the Parthenon (c.447-422 BCE) in Athens. Public art can be a used a powerful tool for planners, architects, designers and managers of open spaces (in both urban and rural areas of their towns and cities to use at their will), this enables them to define and give their town or city a sense of geographical identity for local communities and people who travel to and through the places. Having public art can give civic pride to a local community which reinforces public art on a global scale. Furthermore, public art has the power to enliven communities, drawing people together and strengthening the identity of the town or city, public art demands an opinion from the people and draws people together by inviting communication about or of the said public art, expressing emotion and social bonding. For me, public art is positive. It allows an artist work to be appreciated by many and those who don’t take interest in visiting art galleries and museums but can enjoy, discuss and interpret the art work for themselves allowing them to formulate their own opinion independently. Public art may not please everyone but it was always provoke an opinion from everyone who comes into contact with the said art work. A beautiful thing about art that it may not include words but it always speaks with an emotional expression which can be moulded to your own personal one.
Public art in Swindon Town The Old Wiltshire Horn, Dewell Mews, Swindon (FIGURE ONE)
“Golf For All”, Highworth Gold centre, Highworth (FIGURE FOUR)
Artist: Jon Buck, a sculptor
Artist: Michael Henderson
Public artwork: A ram, commemorating the livestock market that used to be where the artwork is placed. Material: Bronze
Public artwork: The painted panels are at the end of the drive in front of the centre and show the different sides of golf, the amateur and the professional.
Year of Unveiling: 1989
Material: painted steel
Commissioned by: Thamesdown Borough Council through Percent for Art Policy funded by Trencherwood New Homes (Western) Limited
Year of Unveiling: 1990 Commissioned by: Thamesdown Borough Council through Percent for Art Policy funded by Trencherwood New Homes (Western) Limited
The Golden Lion, Swindon, Canal Walk (FIGURE TWO)
“Looking To The Future”, Swindon, Westlea Play Park area (FIGURE FIVE)
Artist: and was recreated by local sculptures Artist: Jon Buck, a sculptor Material: It is made of cement and is a replica of the lion that once stood on the Golden Lion pub on the canal
Year of Unveiling: 1985 Material: Glass Fibre Resin
Year of Unveiling: It was made in 1977 the year of the Queen's silver jubilee.
Project Details: This sculpture was completed by the first artist in residence during the development of West Swindon.
Commissioned by: Thamesdown Borough Council through Percent for Art Policy funded by Trencherwood New Homes (Western) Limited Brick Panels and Paving Design, the Haydon Centre, Haydon Wick, Swindon Artist: Angelo Bordonari Public artwork: The artist, architect and local community worked together on this project. One panel describes the activities within the Centre whilst the other maps the area of Haydon Wick itself and introduces a benign giant as a guardian. Material: Brick
Commissioned by: Thamesdown Borough Council through Percent for Art Policy funded by Trencherwood New Homes (Western) Limited “Texts”, Chandler Close, Lawns, Swindon (FIGURE SIX) Artist: Caroline Webb Public Artwork: The texts are taken from writings by the local agrarian Richard Jefferies. Material: Purbeck stone
Year of Unveiling: 1992
Year of Unveiling: 1989
Commissioned by: Thamesdown Borough Council through Percent for Art Policy funded by Trencherwood New Homes (Western) Limited
Commissioned by: Thamesdown Borough Council through Percent for Art Policy funded by Trencherwood New Homes (Western) Limited
Public art in Swindon Town “Seat, Railings and Window Boxes”, The Prinnels,
Diana Dors Statue, Shaw Ridge Leisure Park, West Swindon. (FIGURE EIGHT)
West Swindon (FIGURE SEVEN) Artist: Dean Harvey and Adela Sadler [Type a quote from the document or the summary of an interesting point. You can Public artwork: The seat surrounds a mature oak tree, position the text box anywhere in the saved by the developers, which stands as a focal point document. Use the Text Box Tools tab to in a peaceful green enclosed by handcrafted railings change the formatting of the pull quote text box.] Material: English Oak Wood and painted steel Year of Unveiling: 1993
This statue is a flamboyant tribute to one of Swindon's most famous residents, the glamorous film star Diana Dors, fittingly it stands outside the cinema Artist: John Clinch Material: Bronze Year of Unveiling: 1991 Commissioned by: Thamesdown Borough Council through Percent for Art Policy funded by Trencherwood New Homes (Western) Limited
Commissioned by: Thamesdown Borough Council through Percent for Art Policy funded by Trencherwood New Homes (Western) Limited “The idea was that water is at its best when it’s not being controlled by designers but when you see a natural waterfall or when it’s tumbling over rocks. He said: “It was suggested that we might want to work with water because of the history of there being a canal there.
Photos of Public art in Swindon Town
FIGURE THREE FIGURE ONE FIGURE TWO
FIGURE FIVE FIGURE FOUR
FIGURE EIGHT
FIGURE SIX FIGURE SEVEN
EQUESTRIAN STATUES
Art and politics were closely linked in ancient Roman world. Leaders were aware of the power of art to promote their political agendas as well as to celebrate their accomplishments in both war and peace. Public monuments, commemorative reliefs and motifs were replicated on utilitarian objects and coins that were dispersed throughout the Roman Empire and served as works of imperial promotion. These items were later elevated to the status of art. Often, inscriptions detailed not only family lineage but also the most recent military success of the maintenance of a length period of peace and prosperity, in keeping with the roman concern for actual events as they unfolded. In imperial times, emperors or members of their families were depicted in commanding positions, leading an army into battle of giving out food to the poor. A popular subject in roman art was that of an emperor addressing a crowd. One of the most influential pieces of public art in the Roman Empire was equestrian statues – a well-known statue is of Marcus Aurelius.
Prince Albert
WHAT IS AN EQUESTRIAN STATUE? A free standing statue of a named historical, mythological or well-known fictional character that is depicted astride a horse which is either isolated or grouped into a larger setting composition that is situated within the realms of the public space or possibly a museum. There are many reasons why they have used equestrian statues since antiquity. It was often wondered why exactly they thought to play a man astride a horse on a platform or elevated upon a plinth in the public realm where people will admire, honour and ponder the memory or knowledge they have of the said man on the horse. Henri IV
Through art the equestrian statue portrays a sense of aggrandising the rider that has endured throughout history, today we acknowledge the skill and the mindset of the artists who have made it possible for us to admire them for so long created by the intricate and difficult lost wax process signifying wealth power and political implications. The horse has been used as a tool for mankind transforming the stationary existence to the nomadic wanderer and then conquering others. The horse has been used to plough fields, pull carts and fine carriages to transporting goods all over the country. A working animal that has served man up until the invention of engines.
King Louis XIV
In Greece, according to Pliny, equestrian statues were first dedicated to those successful in the games. Afterwards those who distinguished themselves during a war. But what about the horse? The horse has been a domesticated animal for thousands of years as noble and athletic with its strength, stamina and spirit. The horse reinforces the status and wealth of the rider, asserts power of the ruler with its authority, when we elevate our gaze we know we are in the company of someone with higher status.
CHARLES I
This bronze equestrian portrait sculpture is of Charles I, by Hubert Le Sueur (1580-1658) is at Charing Cross, London, it had previously stood at the Eleanor cross. It was commissioned by Sir Richard Western, the then lord treasurer and late 1st earl of Portland for £600.00. Now it is on show for all of the public to see in the middle of London and to appreciate. In mid-January 1630, Le Seuer’s sculpture was originally intended to be placed in Western’s garden at Mortlake Park, Roehampton. It has stood here since 1674-5 and is believed to be the first and oldest equestrian statue of a king in this country. It was cast in 1638 before the English Civil war by Hubert Le Sueur, third son of Pierre Le Sueur master armourer and possible pupil of Giovanni Bologna, this French sculpture came to England in the retinue of the French princess Henrietta Maria (1606-1669), at the time of her marriage to Charles I in 1625. By all accounts the king was not pleased with Le Sueur, calling him a second rate artist, old fashioned with an inflated sense of worth, much like the description of the inflated statue, not modelled by blown up within, from a far distance it has some sense of majesty but no great detail on close inspection. The statue was never erected but after the end of the civil war that statue was sold by parliament to a John Rivet from Holborn, London, a metal smith, under the instructions that it was to be melted down and reused as new bronze trinkets, as macabre souvenirs of the execution of Charles, however Rivet may have been a royalist at heart and hid the statue until the restoration of the monarchy of Charles II, who was restored to the thrown in 1660 having been exiled in Holland during the Civil War. Western’s son, 2nd Earl of Portland claimed ownership of the statue but died shortly afterwards and it feel to his widow who later offered it to Charles II, the sale was completed and overseen by the Earl of Danby, whereby Sir Christopher Wren was then instructed to draw up plans for the pedestal made of Portland stone with carved reliefs by master mason Joshua Marshall.
The king bare headed, no crown, sits upon his horse wearing a demi suit of armour with high falling collar. Across his cheat he has a scarf tied into a bow on his right shoulder. In his right hand he holds the baton that rests upon the pummel of the saddle and reins of the horse in his left hand. His sword attached to his left hip and rests upon the horses rear flank, his legs are cased in long boots that are much crinkled as was the fashion of the day. The horse is of Flemish origin with full equipment as shown, his neck is arched and stands with his right foreleg raised that it protrudes over the pedestal; his flowing tail almost reaches to the floor of the pedestal. The statue plus the pedestal stand 518.2 cm tall, ornamented with trophies, palms, infants and royal coat of arms all sat on a Portland stone rectangular base. It is said that the portrait of Charles I does not portray a man as a warmonger and does not reflect the turbulent past of his reign. Perhaps the original intention has been lost to instil the virtues of a king, to honour him as befitting for a king and place him high above the heads of his subjects for all to see, he set amongst over heroes in Trafalgar square.
Sir Anthony van Dyck, principle painter to Charles I in 1633, a Flemish artist who specialised in portraiture which revolutionised British painting, the scale alone is unprecedented that depicts a ruler, warrior and knight that draws on a long established iconographic tradition of antique and renaissance monuments. equestrian
The painting “Charles I with M. De St Antoine” by Anthony Van Dyck, oil on canvas 1633, shows the crowned royal coat of arms and the triumphal arch that frames the King and reinforces the image of the ruler of Great Britain all echoing the equestrian statue in Charing cross, loose hair and the sash of the Order of the Garter worn over his armour that conveys the impression of a chivalrous knight. Skilled horseman ship was regarded as the epitome of virtue, Seigneur de St Antoine was a master in the art if horsemanship, he carries the king’s helmet, his pose establishes the scene filled with theoretical baroque movement.
WHO IS CHARLES I? Charles I was born in Fife on 19 November 1600, the second son of James VI of Scotland and Anne of Denmark. On the death of Elizabeth I in 1603 James became king of England and Ireland. Charles's popular older brother Henry, whom he adored, died in 1612 leaving Charles as heir, and in 1625 he became king. Three months after his accession he married Henrietta Maria of France. They had a happy marriage and left five surviving children. Charles's reign began with an unpopular friendship with George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham, who used his influence against the wishes of other nobility. Buckingham was assassinated in 1628. There was ongoing tension with parliament over money - made worse by the costs of war abroad. In addition, Charles favoured a High Anglican form of worship, and his wife was Catholic - both made many of his subjects suspicious, particularly the Puritans. Charles dissolved parliament three times between 1625 and 1629. In 1629, he dismissed parliament and resolved to rule alone. This forced him to raise revenue by non-parliamentary means which made him increasingly unpopular. Constant arguments with Parliament over many issues lead Charles to lock out Members of Parliament for 11 years - from 1629 to 1640 - Charles as king could do this under what was known as Royal Prerogative. Parliament being locked out was not a cause of much anger to the people of England. Many Members of Parliament used their position for their own gain usually at the expense of the people. What did anger them were the methods Charles used to collect money. He did by himself without the support of Parliament. His two chief advisors during the Eleven Years Tyranny were William Laud, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Earl of Stafford ("Black Tom Tyrant"). In 1637, Charles tried to impose a new prayer book on the Scots - he had been crowned King of Scotland in 1633. The Scots wanted simple and plain prayer services while the new prayer book required more ritual and grandeur. This clash lead to the Scots invading England and occupying Durham and Newcastle. In November 1640, Charles was forced into recalling Parliament as only they had the money needed to finance a war with the Scots or, as happened, giving the Scots a sum of money to get them to leave England and return to Scotland. Such demands clearly challenged Charles' belief in the divine right of kings to govern as they saw fit. Both king and Parliament were on a collision course. In 1642, Charles attempted to arrest his 5 leading critics in Parliament. They had fled to the safety of the city of London and it became obvious that conflict was all but inevitable.
DONATELLO’S EQUESTRIAN STATUE
Donatello’s Equestrian monument to Erasmo da Narni 1443-1453, or Gattamelata (honey cat), 1370-1443 as he was affectionately known.
This bronze statue is set high on a marble plinth, the height of the statue is 340cm in the location of the piazza del Santo, framed outside the bascilla of sant’ Antonio, Padua. This monumental tomb is to honour one of Venice’s greatest condottiere, a war captain who led military campaigns for Italian principalities and city republics, thanks to gattamelata’s military skills he was able to defend Padua from the might of th3e rulers in Milan. Donatello is synonymous with Florence, the Italian city-state republic where he was born. Along with the Medici family, whose patronage enabled them through their wealth as bankers to the contribution of renaissance art. Donatello through his knowledge, technical skill and artistic has created the first equestrian statue since roman times. According to Vasari’s Lives, Donatello has accompanied Brunelleschi to Rome around 1409 and again 1425, here Donatello would have surely studied the equestrian statue of Marcus Aurelius near the Lateran Basilica, bringing back this knowledge whereby he used this to create a uniquely visual representation that would surpass all previous works of art. The work is powerful statement of Renaissance respect for military commander since only heads of state would have received such honour, Donatello has transformed the Venetian captain into a triumphant Caesar. Gattamelata is seen striding out in the the open space of the square, self-aware and fully in command riding masterfully with the baton of command across the horse’s neck, the horse and rider’s head are both turned to their left s if towards an awaiting crowd or some kind of military line up inspecting the troops, momentarily frozen in time conveys a dynamic posture, his feet are in the stirrups which gives him a dominant seat through the vertical and horizontal axes that creates a balanced and harmonious composition. His intense prominent facial features – knitted brow, piercing stare, pursed lips, stiff neck with stout concentration clearly identifying his intellectual and inner nature, for Donatello has not placed a helmet on his head much like Marcus Aurelius, not to confuse him as a warmonger but to see him as a heroic humanist figure – a great strategist and ruler. His tunic has been embellished with all sorts of iconography, we see winged Putti, small naked boys that encircle his waist on a leather belt, portraits on rosettes, with two larger Putti on either side of his hips. The chest plate is emblazoned with a winged head with Christ like features all of this is offset by the dark matt patina of the horse and rider emphasizing the effect of weight, power and presence. We know the casting of the bronze was completed in sections, whereby the modelling in clay has allowed for all the fine detailing
through the lost wax process, the high tensile strength of the bronze allows for the equestrian statue to support itself on the thin legs of the horse an almost impossible or difficult problem had it been carved from stone. Donatello’s interest in the equine anatomy has clearly been portrayed through the intricate detailing and naturalism of the horse’s body , flaring out the nostrils, veins that look tucked up against the neck that look like their pulsating on the neck, ears are realised waiting for the commands, the head tucked up against the neck that has resulted in folds of the skin to gather in the creases. Donatello may have been influenced by Leon Battista Alberti’s treatise De Equo Animante, “On the Living Horse”, which discusses the ideal civic horse, festive in triumphal parades, peaceful at home, courageous at war, that must have a great chest, large body with strong limbs, with flowing tail. Gattamelata retired in 1442 in Padua where he died in 1443 and is buried in the Basilia of the Holy with a solemn state funeral that was attended by the Doges, this famous statue was erected by his wife and son at their own expense after the consent of the Republic in 1453. Donatello’s public sculpture has inspired other artists such as Verocchio’s Bartolommeo Colleoni in 1441-2 in Venice.
FLORENCE Florence was a republic in the sense that there was a constitution that limited the power of nobility, this ensured not one person of group had full political control. Political power was in the hands of the middle class merchants (a person or company involved in wholesale trade, especially one dealing with foreign countries or supplying goods to a particular trade), the powerful guilds (a medieval association of craftsmen or merchants, often having considerable power) and a few wealthy families (such as the Medici who were powerful bankers and later had full political control over Florence) The 1400s saw Florence continually engaged in the struggles from the duke of Milan to take over her, their liberties and freedoms that entrusted pride in their republic by the individuals reinvestment of monies to enrich the lives of the Florentines that would have been lost but luckily the duke of Milan caught the plague and died. Between 1408-1414 Florence was threatened again, this time by the king of Naples who like the duke of Milan fortunately died before able to successfully conquer Florence. , by 1423 Florence was again attack this time by filippo Maria the duke who was defeated in 1425. None of these struggles prevented Florence from prospering, the new ruling classes called popolo (Italian for “people” in the communes organised groups on a corporate basis (guilds), wealthy middle class of merchants and business men that dominated the economic and political life of the Italian communes to rise to power.) The guilds was housed in Orsanmichele (a contraction of Orto San Michele “the orchard of Saint Michael). The building was originally an open arcaded loggia (a gallery or room with one or more open sides, especially one that forms part of a house and has one side open to the garden) on the ground floor that shared space with a grain market. In 1304 fire damaged the loggia, by 1337 – 1339 a new building was built and completed in 1404 which was commissioned by the silk guilds under the orders of signoria that was financed by the grain taxes
MARCUS AURELIUS
There is a bronze equestrian This is the only equestrian sculpture to survive from antiquity, many statues were public statue and portrait of destroyed so that it could be melted down to be used as coins or for new the Emperor Marcus Aurelius emperors. When Rome converted to Christianity a lot of previous statues were which shows him heroically destroyed because they had thought of them to be pagan idols, luckily Marcus a horse, such an image Aurelius was thought to be mistaken as the first Christian emperor – Constantine riding was meant to portray the (AD 306-337) which could explain its survival. emperor as victorious but it is The unknown sculptor addresses the power of clearly evident that he has the rider in a number of different ways, we been shown without a know Marcus Aurelius was a sensitive man weapon or any armour, he and thinker, a stoic philosopher, he has been could of been portrayed as a portrayed with a long face, heavy eyelids, persecutor to the Christians curly hair and a short beard. A fashion as it is said he was very inaugurated by Hadrian to signify intellect. He hostile towards them as he wears a tunic and a cloak (also known as a considered them as a threat paludamentum), his outstretched hand raised to establish order in the towards the crowd of people or soldiers – the empire. However it seems his gesture is known as adlocutio. love for philosophy and stoicism showed him as a man rather than a tyrant of an emperor the people had expected from him. The trotting stance of the seen here with its horse front right leg raised, this pose is intended to echo The tail and the main is the emperor’s right hand demonstrates movement, raised as if both rider and with hair flowing backwards, horse are giving a sign of the autonomy demonstrates approval to the attending the full extent of the artist’s crowd and we can knowledge of horses and of The statue of the horse, with its barrelled belly, is assume that the crowd how the muscles and bones strongly portrayed to emphasise the power and the are on the right side as are placed of the horse status of the rider yet at the same time being they pass them. around the body that showing to exert intelligence independent to the portrays a realism between rider. The ears are pricked up, twitching in different this public display and the directions distracted by the noise of the crowd – this viewer’s ability to suggests the sculptor had first-hand experience and comprehend the narrative knowledge of a horse in real life. shown in the statue. No saddle just a geometric cloth shown in a zig-zag There is a theory that patterned shape that covers the horse’s back, his there was a subdued relaxed posture and peaceful gesture suggest that the solider laying prostate emperor didn’t want any violence. The defining detail on underneath the horse’s the bronze was created through the lost wax process hoof, now long gone, to that enables the sculptor to create life like details shown signify a submissive on the laced leather sandals that cling to his feet and enemy and show Marcus you can see the detail on the emperor’s toes. as the conquering hero.
In the 10th century it stood in front of one of the great basilicas in Rome st john Lateran palace, from there it was relocated in 1538 to Piazza del Campidoglio under the orders of pope Paul III for Michelangelo to incorporate the statue as the centre piece on the new square on the Capitoline Hill in anticipation of the impending visit of the Holy roman emperor Charles V. Here the statue had stood for nearly 450 years but in 1981 due to the deteriation of bronze after almost lasting 2000 years to Rome’s history it was to be restored and installed in the Capitoline Museums.
WHO IS MARCUS AURELIUS?
Marcus Aurelius,121 - 180 AD, is looked back as the ideal Roman emperor who had a difficult road to the throne. Born in Rome in 121 AD as “Marcus Annius Verus”, he came from a family that combined a distinguished record of service to Rome with enormous wealth. Aurelius was chosen by Emporer Hadrian to be his eventual successor. In 161, Aurelius took control of the Roman Empire along with his brother Verus. War and disease threatened Rome on all sides. Aurelius held his territory, but was weakened as a ruler after the death of his brother Verus The emperor won glowing opinions for his intelligence and efficiency, his skill in handling people and his kindness. In the year 177 he made his son Commodus co-emperor with him. Commodus would prove to be one of the most vicious Roman emperors ever, but in 180 Marcus Aurelius caught smallpox and then starved himself to death at the age of 58. His reign was remembered as a golden age.
Marcus’ education had been entrusted to the best possible tutors and he became deeply interested in Stoicism, the Greek philosophy which believed in the ability of every human being, regardless of origin, background and circumstances, to live a useful and contented life. It would become his major source of inspiration and consolation. Marcus’ reign saw the empire menaced by what must have seemed an endless succession of threats and invasions along the frontiers, which Marcus and his generals held off. There was also a serious famine and persistent outbreaks of plague, a type of smallpox, which took millions of lives. Somehow Marcus managed to make time for himself to write, in Greek, philosophical reflections on life, his famous Meditations. When they were first published, in the 16th century, they were more sensibly given the title To Himself. ‘Everything that happens,’ he wrote, ‘happens as it should’ and ‘nothing happens to any man that he is not formed by nature to bear’. Perhaps his most inspiring maxim was ‘Do every act of your life as if it were your last.’
GEORGE IV’S EQUESTRIAN STATUE
The statue of King George IV lies in the northeast corner of John Nash’s Trafalgar square, designed by him but he never got to see it completed due to his death in 1835. The square also contains three other plinths all of these were designer by sir Charles Barry (1795-1860) in 1841, three are permanently occupied whereas the fourth plinth has now been designated after 15o years of an absent sculpture that should of had William IV on top, but due to a lack of funds it was never completed. This flattering portrait does not reflect the true size of the king as he was renowned for his consumption of food and drink, Chantrey has portrayed him as slender youthful man dressed in classical roman clothing with his cloak thrown over his shoulders, he holds the baton in his right hand while holding the reins of the horse in his left, bareheaded no helmet that shows off his curly hair, but as historians have now found out that it was only a wig. The influence of Marcus Aurelius is clears as there are no stirrups or saddle, which elevates his statues as it associates him with antiquity, Chantrey also made an equestrian statue of Sir Thomas Munro for Madras, India, the horses are identical in their structure and pose. George commissioned the sculpture for 900 Guineas from Chantrey with the instruction to place all the horse’s feet firmly on the ground and in a standing still pose, not in a forceful attitude which is noticeable in other equestrian statues. Chantrey’s good friend Lord Egremont in his writing of his opinions of how to represent the horse he said “I am glad your horse is not walking off the edge of the pedestal, which would be more like a donkey than a sensible horse” R.A recollections of his life, Practise and Opinions by George Jones (page 116) published by E. Moxon, Dover Street, London 1838. In the original intentions of Nash, the statue was to be placed on top of the white Carrara Marble arch that faces Buckingham palace – due to the lack of funding it was cancelled and placed in Trafalgar Square closer to the ground for the public to engage with. Unfortunately this was not the case as over time people forgot who was actually on the plinth, according the Times newspaper on its unveiling, little ceremony was given, and was “somewhat suddenly erected” – because of this in the late 19th century an inscription was added to identify who the rider was. Chantrey was born in Norton, Derbyshire in 1781, an accomplished sculpture coming from a poor background, having chosen his career from an early age, he disliked ornamentation – combing indirect observation with simplicity of form. He made his name by executing portrait busts, public monuments and memorials, mush loved by kings of the time and established him in a fashionable society. He was influence by Andrea Verrocchio’s equestrian statue of the famous Condottiere, Bartolommeo Colleoni 1441-1442 after visiting the spirited rider in Venice.
The fourth plinth programme is the most highly profile and provocative contemporary art prize in the UK funded by the lord mayor of London with support from the Arts council London. It commissions world class artists to make challenging new works of art. The fourth plinth is one of the most exciting platform for international art in a rolling programme of new commissions, their key aims is to trigger public debate through the interaction about contemporary art in public spaces, there is only one objective, the artists must create something that compels passersby to stop, look up and think.
WHAT SHOULD BE ON THE FOURTH PLINTH? Celebrating years of feminism which has significantly developed over the past centuries, such as the change so women were eligible to vote. I personally feel that feminism is poorly represented in today’s society and that to increase its awareness it should be featured on the fourth plinth. One of several iconic women feminists is Emmeline Pankhurst, 1858-1928, who was a British political activist and the leader of the British suffragette movement which won women the right to vote. Likewise with the other heroes on the plinths in Trafalgar square, Emmeline Pankhurst stood up for something she was passionate about and can be considered very controversial with her methods, like with the war heroes which are represented on the plinths can be thought as inappropriate to be idolised in the public realm due to the devastation inflicted through the vast amount of lives lost for the sake of a war. It is thought that they have been poorly represented as the works were commissioned and therefore the artist is supposedly biased towards creating the statue to look empowered and not warmongers. I feel that having a British feminist is incredibly important as it is involves the history of solely the United Kingdom and the incredible change which took place and heavily influenced the way society works for women now and how little knowledge people have of what it was like for women before Emmeline Pankhurst, the statue on the plinth would be designed to satisfy the criteria of having people who were passing by to look up and be encouraged to think how far women have come to almost equal rights, and influence them that there is still a possibility for an equal society for men and women. In 1903 Pankhurst founded the women’s social and political union, an all women suffrage advocacy organization dedicated to “deeds, not words”. The group were identified as independent from political parties. It became known for its physical confrontations; its members smashed windows and assaulted police officers. The activists were sentenced to repeated prison sentences where they staged hunger strikes to secure better conditions.
THE FORTH PLINTH The fourth plinth programme is the most highly profile and provocative contemporary art prize in the UK, funded by Boris Johnson – the Lord Mayor of London. The Fourth Plinth is a plinth (a heavy base supporting a statue) in Trafalgar Square in to hold an equestrian statue of William IV, but central London. It was originally intended remained bare due to insufficient funds. For over 150 years the fate of the plinth was debated; in 1999, a sequence of three contemporary artworks to be displayed on the plinth was announced. It gives artists the opportunity to display their work in the capital of England in the heart of the public realm.
The fourth plinth has come a long way over the last few years, that has created controversy with the expressional ways of direction the public to focus their attentions of public art, what better way to present a new or old artist in one of the most public spaces ever created for people from all around the world to congregate and can share in this free sculptural exhibition in the city of London, for all the world to see and love. All because of one plinth has been left unadorned for over one hundred and fifty years, neglected but not forgotten, this solitary lump of stone has created a new room for new and exciting commissions that has stirred up the public’s imagination, that has artists from all around the world trying for a chance to showcase their work on such a large scale. The current Fourth Plinth commission is Hahn/Cock by Katharina Fritsch and was unveiled on 25 July 2013 in London’s Trafalgar Square. It is a 4.72m high rendition of a domestic farmyard cockerel in intense ultramarine blue, it is meant to symbolise “regeneration” awakening and strength, moulded fibreglass blue contrasts against its surroundings of neutral stone architecture, ultramarine was the most expensive mineral for painting pictures, only used for biblical pictures or for very wealthy patrons. This is a feminist sculpture prompting a humorous juxtaposition in a square full of all male figures. Fritsch a German female has represented her country at the 46th Venice Biennale and has exhibited all around the world with her art works and is one of the leading international contemporary artists The next winners have been announced one being Hans Haacke and his idea for the fourth plinth is a design Gift Horse depicts a skeletal, rider-less horse - a wry comment on the equestrian statue of William IV originally planned for the plinth. Tied to the horse’s front leg is an electronic ribbon displaying a live update of the London Stock Exchange, making a connection between power, money and history. The horse is derived from an etching by George Stubbs; the famous English painter whose works are represented in the National Gallery at Trafalgar Square. The 2016 winner is David Shrigley whose proposal called “Really Good” will see a tenmetre-high hand giving a thumbs up. Keeping continuity by having the same dark patina as the other statues in Trafalgar Square, looking at the thumb it is disproportionately long. Shrigley’s ambition is that this gesture will become a self-fulfilling prophecy; that things considered ‘bad’, such as the economy, the weather and society will become more positive. Antony Gormley's proposal was called “One and Other” is that the Fourth Plinth was occupied for 100 consecutive days, 24 hours a day, by members of the public who volunteered to stand on it for an hour at a time. 2,400 people participated. “The idea is very simple. Through putting a person onto the plinth, the body becomes a metaphor, a symbol. In the context of Trafalgar Square with its military, valedictory and male historical statues, this elevation of everyday life to the position formerly occupied by monumental art allows us to reflect on the diversity, vulnerability and particularity of the individual in contemporary society. It's about people coming together to do something extraordinary and unpredictable. It could be tragic but it could also be funny." Antony Gormley, 2009.
Michael Elmgreen (1961) from Denmark and Ingmar Dragset (1969) born in Norway have collaborated together since the 1990’s, redefining the way in which art is presented and experiences, their diverse works of art arise from social political, performance architecture and sculptural installations, that play on the past reinvented for the future, reconfiguring the familiar with characteristic wit and subverse humour. Many of their works have been installed within the public realm, seen through an international market, such as the at Trafalgar square – “Powerless structure” in 2012. The sculpture raises issues from Antiquity fourth plinth concerning the equestrian statues whereby heroic male heroes have been elevated high on a plinth for public honour normally went to generals, rulers and kings. The sculpture of the golden boy astride his Bow display, this rocking horse is a reinvention of the past with a modern twist, for the boy is neither heroic nor dead but has been elevated to the status of the rest. I am led to believe when I look at the olden bronze boy that I am to celebrate the heroism of growing up, the artist have portrayed with the visual concept of combining the heroic statues of the past with playful child’s toy which evokes a time in my life, though there is not yet a history to celebrate or commemorate- only the future to hope for, memory not a military victory for defeat that engages us with the history of the rest of the plinths. a childhood The semi naked boy, only wearing shorts and braces, sat upon is steed, a boyish memory when he plays – possibly re-enacting one of his heroes, his arm is raised as if waving to his imaginary men, the bronze shows us the high status the artists are trying to portray through traditional iconography, although the horse does have abstract quality, a flat plank of work with simple lines a featureless horse except for the ringlets of the main and the tail, a button like eye, no mouth or reins, all stripped back to the basics, a time of innocence when his career of the future is being played out in his mind whilst sat on the horse. The tradition of horse play goes back thousands of years, when a simple stick would have been use for a horse, but in medieval times we saw the introduction of the Hobby Horse a simple construction of a horse’s head mounted on a pole with a leather bridle acting as the reins, the toy was placed between the legs whereby the child could stimulate the riding of the horse. th In the 17 century the child’s toy progressed to become the rocking horse that is around today, known as the Bow rocking horse, which allowed the child to rock back and for the in a see-saw motion. The rocking horse symbolises middle and upper class affluence, today hand carved horses are largely for the wealthy, continuing the tradition of the rich affording a horse even if it is made out of wood.
The Lost-wax Process Lost-wax casting, also known by the French name of cire perdue, is the process by which a metal object is cast from an initial artists work. The process has been around for centuries in fact since the Bronze Age and today will vary from foundry to foundry, but the steps which are usually used in casting metal sculptures and objects in a modern foundry are generally quite standardised. The process itself can invariable be used for many types of metals but  the most common use of Lost-wax casting would be for Bronze Sculptures. The "Lost-wax" Process The Art Piece. The first phase is the creation of the initial sculpture. An artist creates an original artwork this can be from any type of material, obviously some materials are better than others to then go on to create the final bronze. Classic sculptures could be made from wax, clay, resins or another materials. The Mould. A mould is made of the original sculpture. Moulds are usually comprised of two pieces. A locator key is placed between the two halves during construction so that the mould can be easily and accurately put back together. The mould is made from Silicone rubber with a fibre glass jacket. To preserve the fine details on the original artwork's surface a liquid of silicone is applied. Once that has gone off another batch of silicone rubber is made up with a fixative additive. This is applied onto the initial silicone rubber coating to make the rubber approximately 1cm thick. Then onto this a fiberglass jacket it applied. Unfortunately in most cases the original artwork is destroyed during the making of the mould. This is because the originals are solid, and do not easily bend when the mould is removed. In many cases the original art piece is moulded using multiple moulds especially when large or complex items are to be cast. The wax. Once the mould is complete molten wax is either painted or poured in depending on the size and shape of the mould. The mould therefore creates a carbon copy of the original artpiece in wax. This hollow wax copy of the artwork is removed from the mould. The artist can reuse the mould to make more wax copies of the original art piece, but wear and tear on the mould limit their number. Once the wax has been removed from the mould the foundry man will "Chase" the wax to remove imperfections that may of occurred in the wax moulding process. Common imperfections may occur around the rim where the two halves of the mould met. Using heated metal implements and wax the foundry man melts, smooth and moulds the wax copy into shape. The wax copy is "sprued" with a treelike structure of wax that will provide paths for molten metal to flow and the air to escape. Invariable there are two main sprus but for more complex models more sprus may be used. The two key sprus are the "Runner" and the "Riser". The runner has a funnel shape attached where the molten metal will be poured and the riser is where the air will escape as the metal moves through the mould. It will also show the foundry man that the mould is full as the metal rises up it. Ceramic Mould Making. A "sprued" wax copy is dipped into a slurry of liquid silica, then into a sand-like "stucco", or dry calcified clay of a controlled grain size. The slurry and grit combination is called "ceramic shell" mould material. This shell is allowed to dry, and the process is repeated until at least a 10mm coating covers the entire piece. The bigger the art piece, the thicker the shell must be. Only the inside of the funnel is not coated and the funnel's flat top serves as the base upon which the piece stands during this process.
The Wax Burnout. Once the ceramic shell is in place the whole piece is moved to a kiln. Placed on its head with the funnel facing down the mould and wax object is heated to extremely high temperature. This allows all of the wax to melt and burn out of the mould, leaving only its intricate imprint. Testing the shell. The ceramic shell is allowed to cool, then is tested to see if water will flow through the feeder and vent tubes as necessary. At this stage any cracks or leaks can be patched with thick refractory paste. Pouring the metal. The shell is reheated in the kiln to harden the patches, then placed cup-upwards into a sand filled bin. Bronze ingots are melted in a crucible using a furnace. When the metal has reached approximately 1100-1150 degrees centigrade the metal is carefully poured into the mould using the crucible. By preheating the shell the molten metal flows more freely through the mould. The metal-filled mould is then allowed to cool. Knocking out the sculpture. Once cooled the shell is hammered and sand-blasted away, sometimes very high powered water jets are also used. Once released the metal sprus are removed using an angle grinder, and thrown back into the pot to be reused in the next casting. Metal-chasing imperfections. Just as the wax copies were chased for imperfections so are their metal counter parts. Using air powered grinders and sanding tools the areas where the sprus were are reworked as well as any other areas where imperfections may be. In some cases welding may need to be used to cover up larger problem areas. Patinating the sculpture. Once cleaned and chased the artwork can be patinated. Patination colours the bronze to give a final effect and also protects the bronze from the elements and decoloration. The bronze is colored to the artist's preference, using chemicals applied to heated or cooled metal. Using heat is probably the most predictable method, and allows the artist to have the most control over the process. This colouring is called patina, and is often green, black, white or brownish to simulate the surfaces of ancient bronze. Different chemicals and techniques will give different results. Ancient bronzes gained their patinas from oxidisation and other effects of being around for many years. Many effects can be reached. After the patina a sealer is generally applied — traditionally a coating of wax, but sometimes lacquer over more unstable patinas. This helps protect the piece from ultraviolet rays, and can slow the discoloration of patinas by oxidation. Patinas invariable don't last forever so touch ups need to be done down the years to keep the piece looking fresh. Â
FRANCE’S TIMELINE
ROMANTICISM vs NEOCLASSICISM
Romanticism was a period in history of art that originated in Europe – towards the end of the eighteenth century. It was seen as a revolt against the more aristocratic social and political views and norms of the “Age of Enlightenment” and a reaction against the growing scientific discoveries which tried to rationalize the natural. Romanticism is seen most commonly through the use of music, literature and art but also influenced the natural sciences and education. The romanticism period is often associated with liberalism and radicalism. It is arguably one of the largest artistic movements in the history of art as its influence was felt across many continents and was seen in almost every artist discipline into the mid nineteenth century – with its values and beliefs can be seen in the contemporary artworks. Romantic poets sophisticated individualism, admiration for the natural world, idealism, physical and emotional passion and most importantly a great interest in the mystic and supernatural. The difference between neoclassicism and romanticism is that the romantics set themselves apart from the rational and against the order. They also oppose themselves from the neoclassical artistic principles enabling them to embrace freedom and revolution in their arts, and politics. Main German romantics included Fredrich Schiller and Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, and the British poets such as Wordsworth, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Percy Bysshe Shelley, George Gordon Lord Byron and John Keats who propelled the English Romantic Movement.
Caspar David Friedrich, Wanderer above the sea of fog, 1818 oil on canvas
Neoclassicism, a reaction to a nobler and more serious style of sculpture to emerge that ascended the rococo style during the Regency period in 1740, when Louis XIV died leaving his grandson Louis XV o France to rule, as he was only five at the time France was ruled by the regent Philippe II of Orleans. In the second half of the eighteenth century Europe saw an increasing influence of classical antiquity, an artistic style and development of taste. From the Renaissance period Raphael (1483-1520), saw a renewed interest in harmony, simplicity, and proportion, interest gained from archaeological excavations in Rome. The Neoclassical style arose from such first-hand observations and reproductions of antique works which came to dominate European architecture, painting, sculpture and the decorative arts. Places like Herculaneum and Pompeii were also being discovered, travel expeditions had been able to bring back through illustration, reproductions of frescoes, drawings of temples and mausoleums and sculptures, all of this broadened the public’s historical interests that stirred and stimulated the passion for all things related to the ancient past. The term Neoclassical gives a misleading impression, implying a style devoted essentially to the revival of antique forms, the writings of Johann Joachim Winckelmann (1717-1768), completed a reappraisal of the art of antiquity in his book (thoughts on the imitations of Greek works of Art) took the viewpoint of aesthete (a person who is appreciative of or sensitive to art and beauty) in discussing Greek works of art, to him they embodied the essence of the Greek spirit – its liberty and love of good, the beautiful and the true. He wrote “the only way to become great and if possible is imitation of the ancients” not to slavishly copy but by emulating their essential aesthetics and moral qualities, this is what inspired artists to react against rococo, this shifted the emphasis from form to spiritual essence. This created a new theory of art which became more expressive rather than copying.
Liberty leading the people, Delacroix,
David ‘The Oath of the Horatii’, 1784-5
ARC DE TRIOMPHE The Arc de Triomphe, on August 15th 1806 the first cornerstone of the foundation was alid of this monumental grandiose project commissioned by Napoleon (17691821), to coincide on his 37th birthday as a tribute to the French armies who fought with him in 1805
Jean-francois therese chalgrin (1739-1811), pupil of boullee (1728-1799), who was the father of commissionaire architecture. Chalgrin was the original architect chosen to design the Arc along with Jean-arnaud Raymond (1738-1811), inspired by ancient roman antiquity and the Arch of Titus, he romantic and neoclassical design was influenced by winning the de rome in 1758 at the age of nineteen in the following year he visited rome seeking inspiration amongst the ruins. Napoleon and chalgrin would have been aware of other arches like constantine’s and Trajan’s that would link to napoleon to a past roman life. The arch measures 50 metres in height, 45 metres in width and 23 metres in depth. Made from stone quarried in Beaune in Burgundy. The location of the arc was settled upon which determined the future layout of the French capital, the place de Etoile was a near-deserted hill called Chaillot, a rural cross-roads surrounded by lawns and five avenues, while the champs-elysees was an almost entirely undeveloped strip of land. This formed the central basis that connected the east which was dotted with monuments honouring the revolution, such as the July column on the Place de Bastille and place de Republique, while on the affluent west side, home to the Bourgeoisie and many of the city’s national military buildings. Today there are twelve radiating avenues projecting from the arc, each street is named after a French military. Although Chalgrin had started the project he died in 1811, work was suspended in 1814 when napoleon fell from power in the treaty of Fontainebleau and was exiled to the island of Elba, napoleon was never to see the arch completed. Jean Nicolas Huyot (1790-1840) continued the work in 1823 and in 1833 when the new restored bourbon monarchy, King Lousie-Phillippe I, the citizen king came to power it was his task to get the people on board his side, dedicating the arch to the armies of the revolution and empire, an act off propaganda. It was finally completed by guillaume-Abel Blouet (1780-1840), and inaugurated in July 29th 1836. The monarchy wanted public art as a way of remembering themselves as well as representing a patriotic symbol as well as a historic monument. This illustrated the new government’s efforts at national unity and reconciliation. Many have passed through the Arch de Triomphe over the years, Napoleon’s ashes pashed through in December 15th 1840 on their way to their final destination making this a turning point in history marking out the archway to be associated with funeral celebrations. Each year the president of France places a wreath as a mark of respect to the fallen in World War 1 and 2 on Armistice Day.
The Arch of Constantine – Marble c. 312-315 Rome, erected on the 25th July – the 10th anniversary of Emperor Constantine’s reign. It commemorates the Roman Emperor’s victory over the tyrant Maxentius on the 28th October 312 CE, at the Battle of Milvian Bridge in Rome. It is the largest surviving triumphal arches and the last great monument to imperial Rome. The monument is 21 metres high and 25.6 metres wide rectangular block of grey and white Proconnesian marble, consisting of three separate arches each divided by four detached Corinthian columns in Numidian yellow marble. Each is standing on pedestals and is topped with an entablature. Four Dacian prisoners are carried on up over the columns to the block or “attic” storey. An inscription in Latin is visible a common feature of triumphal arches, these letters would have been inlaid with glided bronze. This arch is a mixture of 1st century and 2nd century monuments parts of roman sculptures, roman recycling to save money and time. The people in the foreground reflect the imposing scale that reflects power and status of the emperor.
Trajan’s arch Ancona – the finest roman monument in the Marche was erected at the beginning of the 2nd century AD in honour of the Emperor Trajan. Constructed in marble, it was built as part of an ambitious project to create a major seaport linking Ancona with other meditrianian cities. The arch stands on the harbour wall itself, built on s high plinth with a travertine stone base. The limited width of the wall, which is only 11 metres wide at this point, made it necessary to create a structure which was tall but narrow so that it was clearly visible both from land and sea. It has a single high archway, with a height of approximately 2 ½ times its width. It is flanked on each side by 2 pairs of Corinthian columns. The inscription above the arch on the city side – originally in bronze lettering – is dedicated to Trajan who has “given ships safer access to Italy with the construction of this port at his own expense”. The arch was dedicated to the emperor between December 114 AD and December 115AD and was topped by bronze statues of Trajan, his wife Plotina and sister Marciana. Trajan’s arch is depicted in a scene on Trajan’s column in Rome where the roman army leaves Italy to fight in the 2nd Dacian war.
LA DANSE When Jean-Baptiste Carpeaux's La Danse was unveiled on 27 July 1869, it sparked an outcry on two counts: its asymmetrical composition and its boldness. The artist's depiction of drunkenness and nudity shocked the public,  while the non-hieratic composition outraged critics accustomed to more conventional approaches. The press called it immoral, and some journalists even wrote that the female figures "smell of vice and reek of wine". Carpeaux broke   with the academic style: he deemed it too stiff and wanted to evoke perpetual movement. The day after a wellorchestrated press campaign in late August 1869, vandals threw bottles of ink at his masterpiece, and time has not wiped away the stains. At first, the government demanded the group's removal. Then, Charles Gumery was commissioned to make a sculpture to replace it. But the Franco-Prussian War and the fall of the Second Empire made everybody forget about the scandal, and Carpeaux's work is still there. The sculpture expresses joy, representing dance, but not the disciplined and routine classical dance which was being performed at the time. The dance that this sculpture represents is almost out of control. The figure that represents dance itself is the one in the centre which is flinging his arms up with a tambourine in his right hand. With five nymphs which surround his lower body that are enriched out of the sculpture in a baroque manner in its occupation and utilisation of space.
The sculpture was commissioned for outside the Paris opera house that was being built under napoleon the third. This is the moment that Paris was being reborn, the modern Paris today. There a is a figure springing vertically out of the sculpture whilst having two other figures leaning diagonally creating an unstable sculpture creating an upside down pyramid. It is clear that there is a delicate balance between the figures which is endangered as the central figure is thrown towards the viewer, but their hands are clasped which is enough to hold it in.
At first it received a lot of negative criticism as it expressed naturalism and the honesty of the body and the pleasure. It also broke beyond the boundaries of the space it should be defined in, it is completely different from the idealised neoclassical forms, with the emotional quality with the grinning and their hair flying back giving a sense of movement and joy. The amazing complex composition it made to look simple. The nymphs that circle the genie are brought forward which breaks the circle. Carpeaux is able to do things simultaneous within the sculpture. He is able to create the ring around the genie at the same time with the intimacy between the figures with the pleasure of the bodies together which collapses the ring.
Carpeaux's visionary composition reflects his reverence for Michelangelo, as well as his own painstaking concern with anatomical realism. Ugolino and His Sons was completed in plaster in 1861, the last year of his residence at the French Academy in Rome. A sensation in Rome, it brought Carpeaux many commissions. Upon his return to France, Ugolino was cast in bronze at the order of the French Ministry of Fine Arts and exhibited in the Paris Salon of 1863. Later it was moved to the gardens of the Tuilieries, where it was displayed as a pendant to a bronze of the Laocoön. This marble version was executed by the practitioner Bernard under Carpeaux's supervision and completed in time for the Universal Exposition at Paris in 1867. The date inscribed on the marble refers to the original plaster model's completion. Carpeaux depicts the moment when Ugolino, condemned to die of starvation, yields to the temptation to devour his children and grandchildren, who cry out to him.
This marble version was made by the practitioner Bernard under Carpeaux's supervision and completed in time for the Universal Exposition at Paris in 1867. Ugolino is not only larger than life but the sculpture is placed on a pedestal, making the sculpture tower over its viewers. Besides the large scale of the sculpture the viewer is drawn to Ugolino’s face, it is twisted in anguish, he isn’t only biting his fingernails but is gnawing at his own flesh. Ugolino’s teeth are viable and his gingers between them. His eyes are sunk and drawn with a furrowed brow – driving it down into the top of his nose as his gaze bores into some distant object. Ugolino is hunched over, with his knees and arms drawn in, his fingers rake at his face. He has one foot over the other near a chain fastened to the ground. Ugolino’s toes are clenched in an angular pedal death-grip. His spine is clear and distinct through his back with the skin drawn tightly over every bone, tendon, vein and muscle. It appears to me that the only thing that is preventing him from imploding are his sons which gaze up at him in despair. The two larger boys grasp and cling to their father, they appear to have forced their arms and bodies into the crevices that Ugolino has left for them. The eldest son wraps his arms about is father’s legs, Carpeaux has been precise in his details as there is creases in Ugolino’s calf where the son has pressed his fingers making the sculpture look more realistic.
‘Study for the Modelling Stand of the Ugolino Group’, ca. 1860. Pen and brown ink
JEAN-BAPTISTE CARPEAUX
Jean-Baptiste Carpeaux born on the 11 May 1827 and died on the 12 October 1875. Carpeaux was a French sculptor and painter during the Second Empire under Napoleon III. Born in Valenciennes, Nord, son of a mason, his early studies were under François Rude. Carpeaux entered the École des Beaux-Arts in 1844 and won the Prix de Rome in 1854, and moving to Rome to find inspiration, he there studied the works of Michelangelo, Donatello and Verrocchio. Staying in Rome from 1854 to 1861, he obtained a taste for movement and spontaneity, which he joined with the great principles of baroque art. Carpeaux sought real life subjects in the streets and broke with the classical tradition. In Carpeaux's sculpture, he is a Romantic hero. His chin rests in his hand in melancholic thought, like the figure of Lorenzo de'Medici on his tomb by Michelangelo, but he is gnawing on his fingers, surrounded by the dying boys whose suffering drives him to distraction. Carpeaux has illustrated the moment when the boys see Ugolino chew his hands in rage and believe it is from hunger, the moment when they plead that he eat them - the moment when they put this fatal possibility in his mind.
“For very grief both of my hands I bit, And suddenly from the floor arising they, Thinking my hunger was the cause of it, Exclaimed: Father eat thou of us, and stay Our suffering: thou didst our being dress, In this sad flesh; now strip it all away.”- Dante
In the 32nd canto of Dante Alighieri ‘s poem “Inferno”, he describes how he came across, deep in hell, two heads, all that was visible of two sinners trapped in ice, one chewing on the other's skull "and the other things". In the next canto, the gnawing sinner reveals he is Count Ugolino, and the other Archbishop Ruggieri. In July 1288, the duplicitous Pisan Archbishop Ruggieri imprisoned Ugolino, himself a double-dealing politician, with his two sons and two (or three) grandsons in a tower in Pisa, known afterwards as Hunger; they probably died in March 1289. Ugolino and His Sons, modeled ca. 1860–61, executed in marble 1865–67
DELACROIX
Ferdinand Victor Eugène Delacroix born on the 26 April 1798 and died on the 13 August 1863. Delacroix was a French Romantic artist regarded for his career as the leader of the French Romantic School. Delacroix's use of expressive brushstrokes and his study of the optical effects of colour profoundly shaped the work of the Impressionists, while his passion for the exotic inspired the artists of the Symbolist movement. A fine lithographer, Delacroix illustrated various works of William Shakespeare, the Scottish writer Walter Scott and the German writer Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
In contrast to the Neoclassical perfectionism of his chief rival Ingres, Delacroix took for his inspiration the art of Rubens and painters of the Venetian Renaissance, with an attendant emphasis on colour and movement rather than clarity of outline and carefully modelled form. Dramatic and romantic content characterized the central themes of his maturity, and led him not to the classical models of Greek and Roman art, but to travel in North Africa, in search of the exotic. "Delacroix felt his composition more vividly as a whole, thought of his figures and crowds as types, and dominated them by the symbolic figure of Republican Liberty which is one of his finest plastic inventions…" - Wellington, page xv ‘Liberty Leading the People’ 1830 oil on canvas large scale
In the foreground lay two dead bodies. The figure on the left is intended to enrage the viewer. He is dressed in a long nightshirt as his body was dragged into the street from his bed where he had been shot. In this sense the painting is propaganda. Delacroix is alluding to the royal troops who spread terror by murdering suspected revolutionary sympathizers in their beds and then dragging the bodies into the streets as a warning. In the middle ground there are two figures that stand together but are representing two very distinct social and economic positions.
Delacroix breaks with the tradition of subtle modulation of colour as seen in neoclassical art He applies brilliant pure pigment such as the sharp primary colours: the blues, yellows and the especially powerful reds are evident in the painting. Delacroix’s message is the revolution unites the distinct classes against the ruling of aristocracy. The female figure, named as Marianne, is not a painting of an actual person but rather is the embodiment of an idea, which is allegorically representing a democracy. Marianne holds the tricolor, this was the banned flag of revolution and democracy. Democracy was born in Ancient Greece and Delacroix reminds us by his use of partial nudity. The figure of Liberty dominated the composition; as she leads the charging people trampling over the corpses beneath them, she commands attention. The brightly coloured flag she handles forces the eye directly to the centre of the canvas. The red - a direct diagonal to a half-naked corpse - floats just over the revolutionists. The action is congested, mainly taking up the lower portion of the canvas with a concentration spilling over to the centre. The background and righter-most portion of the canvas remain mostly desolate, engulfed in the clouds and smoke of the cannons. Delacroix has created a pyramid structure with Liberty as the peak and the dead soldiers on the ground as the base. This seemly unimportant, and maybe unnoticed, configuration provides balance to the dramatic and busy scene. The figure on the right with the raised arm represents a member of the working or lower class whereas the male in the top hat, waist coat and jacket is a member of the middle class.
Following the Revolution of 1848 that saw the end of the reign of King Louis Philippe, Delacroix' painting, Liberty Leading the People, was finally put on display by the newly elected President, Louis Napoleon (Napoleon III.) Today, it is visible in the Louvre museum.
Delacroix's most influential work came in 1830 with the painting Liberty Leading the People, which for choice of subject and technique highlights the differences between the romantic approach and the neoclassical style. Probably Delacroix's best known painting, it is an unforgettable image of Parisians, having taken up arms, marching forward under the banner of the tricolour representing liberty and freedom; Delacroix was inspired by contemporary events to invoke the romantic image of the spirit of liberty. The soldiers lying dead in the foreground offer poignant counterpoint to the symbolic female figure, who is illuminated triumphantly, as if in a spotlight. The French government bought the painting but officials deemed its glorification of liberty too inflammatory and removed it from public view. Nonetheless, Delacroix still received many government commissions for murals and ceiling paintings. He seems to have been trying to represent the spirit and the character of the people, rather than glorify the actual event, a revolution against King Charles X which did little other than bring in a different king, Louis-Philippe, to power. Following the Revolution of 1848 that saw the end of the reign of King Louis Philippe, Delacroix' painting, Liberty Leading the People, was finally put on display by the newly elected President, Louis Napoleon (Napoleon III.) Today, it is visible in the Louvre museum.
FRANCOISE RUDE
Francoise Rude (1784-1855) trained as a coppersmith in his native town of Dijon, here he also took lesson in drawing from Francoise Devosge III (1732-1811) before moving to Paris. From 1805 he studied under the neoclassicist Pierre Cartellier (1757-1831) in Paris, six years later he won the Prix de Rome, from the Academie de France. Unfortunately they did not have the money to send Rude to Rome to study, also he was a known sympathizer of Napoleon much like his father (who was a stove maker), at the age of eight he watched him join the volunteers to defend the new republic, rude had to leave France when Napoleon was exiled to Alba, and he moved to Brussels where he was asked to do numerous commissions.
Returning to Paris in 1827, he worked on a figure of a fishing boy, now in the Musee de Lourve, that was bought by the French government two years after it was finished, this success led to the commissioning of the relief sculpture for the Arc de Triomphe (The March of the Volunteers in 1792). This historical – allegorical sculpture that features the winged goddess Bellona, rallying the citizens of France to fight for the love of their country, the violent emotion and jagged contours of the densely packed group is typical of a romantic composition which is made of limestone and installed on the right socle of the East side of the monument facing the city. It shows a group of mixed aged volunteers that marched out of Marseilles on July the fifth 1792 to defend the revolution against the counter revolutionary forces outside the city. Overlapping pyramidal grouping, packed so tightly As they marched out the city they they are almost falling off the sang the song composed by the edge of the plinth, the bodies at army officer Claude Joseph the bottom are forming a Rouget de Lisle in Strasbourg on semicircle of soldiers April twenty-sixth. They call it Marseillaise and in 1876 it became the French national anthem. Deeply cut into the limestone, Rude has chiselled away the stone to show the intense anatomical details. Expressive figures that captures the sublime moment of subjective emotion of passion.
The smooth ashlar stone of the Arch is fitting for the background for this public figure. It is said that Louis Philippe I used this to sweeten the public to his reign.
Bilateral symmetry, positioning the figures along the two axis, horizontal, that divides the frieze grouping of soldiers and Bellona. It is clear to see a vertical divide from Bellona’s head to a split between the soldiers.
Seven people can be seen and one horse. Each of them are in a different action pose and state of undress. Her Phrygian cap is the symbol of a freed slave in antiquity adds the idea of fighting for a cause – a political statement, nationalism and liberty.
Intense exaggerated movement – ordinary people portrayed as heroic figures for all of France to inspired. Roman tunic, armour, classical references.
There is a clear pyramid shape in the statue where Bellona’s head is the tip.
Bellona soars above the patriot’s heads, with her thunderous battle cry exhorting them forward with an almost demonic facial expression and her striding posture is echoed in the soldiers
Semi-nude, undressed when the call to arms is raised. Allegorical, Romantic sculpture that rebels against neoclassical age of reason and enlightenment. Dominant European style.
ANTONIO CANOVA Antonio Canova (1757-1822) was considered the greatest sculptor of his time in Europe. His work and personality became a model for all sculptors for many years. In 1802, Canova was invited to Paris by Napoleon, in order to carve marble portraits of the emperor and his mother and sister. Canova illustrates the Romantic Classicism that was so valued at the time: he creates daring images of seductive elegance and form. Both the supple figures and tactful features of his work recall the earlier Rococo, with its charm and realism, but he is firmly Neoclassic in his approach. 'Psyche Revived by Cupid's Kiss' was commissioned in 1787 and acquired by Joachim Murat in 1800, and entered the Louvre in 1824. Canova was a prolific sculptor, and he seduced the whole of Europe with his mythological compositions in which the purity of contours was used to portray a discrete eroticism. In the area of portraiture he was the absolute champion of idealization. He displayed a sensibility both to naturalism and to the early Renaissance, opening the way to two dominant trends at the beginning of the century: skilled realism and historical subject matter. Cupid’s mother Venus, goddess of Beauty, demanded that Psyche Revived by Cupid's Kiss, first commissioned Psyche bring back a flask from the Underworld, strictly in 1787 by Colonel John Campbell, is a masterpiece forbidding her to open it. Psyche’s curiosity got the better of of Neoclassical sculpture, but shows the her; and no sooner had she had breathed in the terrible fumes mythological lovers at a moment of great emotion, than she fell into a deep, deathlike sleep. Seeing her lying characteristic of the emerging movement of motionless, Cupid rushed to her and touched her gently with Romanticism. It represents the god Cupid in the the tip of his arrow, to make sure she was not dead. This is the height of love and tenderness, immediately after moment caught by the sculptor: Cupid lifts his beloved Psyche awakening the lifeless Psyche with a kiss. The story in a tender embrace, his face close to hers. Psyche lets herself of Cupid and Psyche is taken from Lucius Apuleius' sink slowly backwards, languorously taking her lover’s head between her hands. Latin novel The Golden Ass. Canova seems to have Canova also made undertaken extensive studies of the position of research before beginning the arms as they prepare this complex composition, to close in a circular whose inspiration is a movement. The interplay Roman painting found in of the arms and the Herculaneum, a city the exchange of looks in this sculptor visited during his large plaster model of stay in Naples in 1787. Canova’s Venus Canova copied the man’s Crowning Adonis kneeling position exactly, foreshadow our statue. together with the woman’s The composition of the reclining pose and the group is to be found in the movement of her arms. He clay models: on a rock are then modelled numerous two intertwined bodies. In clay figures, gradually the final work, however, bringing out the intertwining the flexing of Cupid’s leg, of the bodies. In his the upright position of his sketches, drawings, and wings, and the lifting of models of loving couples we Psyche’s torso give the sense struggle as much as composition new embrace. This may intimate upthrust. the episode in which Cupid, stung by the drop of hot oil, suddenly wrenches himself In classical mythology, Cupid (Latin free of Psyche’s arms. Cupido, meaning "desire") is the god of desire, erotic love, attraction and Sculpture: Psyche Revived by Cupid’s Kiss affection. He can be recognised by Year: 1757 – 1822 his wings and his quiver filled with Type: Marble arrows. Dimensions: H. 1.55 m; L. 1.68 m; D. 1.01 m
ARCHITECTURE
Neoclassical Architecture (1640-1850) did not appear overnight. In its early forms (1640-1750), it co-existed with Baroque, and reacted against Baroque flamboyance. Neoclassicism was yet another return to the Classical Orders of Greek and Roman Antiquity. It was characterised by monumental structures, supported or decorated by columns of Doric, Ionic or Corinthian pillars, and topped with classical Renaissance domes. Neoclassicism originated in Paris, largely due to the presence of French designers trained at the French Academy in Rome. The French Revolution of 1789 did not affect the architectural style of Paris. None of the pre-1789 architectural legacy was discredited or even significantly questioned, and classical architecture continued in Paris without interruption. Until 1815, the neoclassical trend predominated. After 1815, no single fashion had the upper hand, but classicism was always unquestioned. Beaux-Arts architecture The academic neoclassical architectural style that was taught at the École des BeauxArts in Paris. The style was the result of two and a half centuries of instruction under the authority, first of the Académie royale d'architecture, then, following the Revolution, of the Architecture section of the Académie des Beaux-Arts. The competition for the Grand Prix de Rome in architecture, offering a chance to study in Rome, imprinted its codes and aesthetic on the course of instruction, which culminated during the Second Empire (1850-1870) and the Third Republic that followed. This culmination of Second Empire Beaux arts style in architecture, is closely related to the eclecticism seen in the work of artists trained in the Ecole des Beaux Arts, various historical styles are combined to create a new style The Ecoles des Beaux-arts is my opinion one of the world’s oldest and most prestigious graduate school of fine arts, architecture, drawing, sculpture, engraving, modelling and gem cutting. The Ecoles can trace back their origins to the Academie des Beaux-arts, founded by Cardinal Mazarin (1602-1661) in 1648 under the patronage of Louis XIV. The academie had greast influence over Europe and America with its architecture, but it remained in the hands of the French government that had brought it under control with the intention of guaranteeing a pool of artists that would be available to decorate the palaces and paint the nobility. It survived throughout the turbulent years of the French revolution in 1789 and afterwards. It was only in 1863 that it was made independent of the French government by order of Napoleon III, whereby it was christened again as L’Ecole des Beaux Arts.
Young architects were trained to have an in-depth understanding of architectural history mainly being Greco-Roman styles, to copy great landscapes of antiquity was considered a sign of cultivation rather than poverty of invention or originality. Many students took part in an entrance exam having studied at small independent studio (ateliers) where the students learnt directly under the guidance of an established master. These were not attached to a school but so the student could learn the knowledge to pass the five part examination. The competition was high as the school only admitted six students per term (45 French and 15 foreign). Students received broader knowledge and understanding of history, geometry, philosophy and mathematics. The students were given a lot of work, they had to produce dozens of highly accurate architectural drawings, the top prize for the best student was the Prix de Rome, this provided the opportunity to study in the French academia in Rome for five years soaking up all the ancient classical architecture of antiquity that the Ecole saw as one of the great eternal truths of architecture. Many of the defining characteristics of the Beaux-Arts style is to have classical elements like columns, arches, vaults and domes. There is a sense of a theatrical flavour of lavish decorations on surfaces. Other features include: Symmetrical articulation, dramatic colonnade as a centre composition, paired columns, multiple corner elements, entablatures, dramatic roof top figures , relief sculptures attached to lower walls on the façade, dramatic raised steps on approaching the front entrance, axial floor planning that established vista views. Buildings produced in the Beaux-Arts style were designed to make a formal statement to the people of France, Louis Napoleon XIV ordered the best materials to be used to show his commitment that could suggest that French modernisation was proceeding successfully, and that the imperial regime could provide constant security and guidance to the people of Paris. The most predominate material used was light-coloured stone, often limestone, this created a unique visual awareness that was a strong urban design planning component. Although the styles of the architectural legacy from the pre-1789 has not changed, this classical architecture has continued without interruption, until 1815, when Neoclassical trends predominated with its columns of Doric, ionic and Corinthian pillars topped with classical renaissance domes. Once again these styles have been brought together by the influence of French designers who travelled and trained at the French academy in Rome. The Beaux-Arts style was an eclectic mix of both classical and baroque architecture as we can see in the Charles Garnier’s opulent Paris Opera House (1861-1875), this building made up the centre piece of architecture for the re-modernisation of Paris under the ambitious second empire of Napoleon III and Baron Haussmann’s remodelling of Paris.
FAÇADE
At either end of the stage house's south side, two groups by EugèneLouis Lequesne depict Fame Holding Pegasus by the Bridle. They may look conventional in aesthetic terms, but a groundbreaking technical process, electroplating, was used to make them. The method involves a continuous electric current to apply a coating of metal cations dissolved in liquid to the sculptures' surface, thereby not only making them more beautiful, but also protecting them from oxidation. When Garnier asked Lequesne to make the groups, he entrusted him with creating his masterpiece's roofline. No wonder the architect dubbed some of the sculptors "collaborating architects". Aimé Millet created the third group, which depicts Dance and Music as a pair of female friends and Poetry as Apollo holding a lyre. This is the monument's "trademark", making it immediately recognizable in every bird's-eye view of Paris. ‘It took Millet nearly 18 months to create this colossal composition. His studio was at the Opera, and I was able to see him every day, up on his tall ladders. The sight of this rather small man barely coming up to these colossal statues' knees was quite odd. Apollo's arms were bigger than he was. I have always wondered how an artist could correctly proportion limbs and muscles of which he could only see a very small part at any one time.’ Charles Garnier Four other sculpture groups, made of Échaillon stone, stand out on the main façade, helping to give the decorative scheme a coherent wholeness: -Dance (Carpeaux) -Instrumental_Music (Guillaume) -Opera (Perraud) - Harmony (Jouffroy). If Dance makes such a distinct break with academic style, it is because Jean-Baptiste Carpeaux thought this style too static, and sought in contrast to give a sense of perpetual motion. At the end of August 1869, following a well-orchestrated press campaign, vandals threw bottles of ink over Carpeaux's masterpiece. It has never been possible to remove the stains. Initially, the public authorities wanted the group to be removed, and a second sculpture was commissioned from Gumery. however, the 1870 war and the fall of the Second Empire caused the scandal to be forgotten, and Carpeaux's work finally stayed where it was.
Two smaller domes flank the wings of the building, adding to the grandeur of this richly detailed public building.
Perspective calculated so that the stage house and auditorium disappear upon arrival in Place de l’Opera.
Each internal part is clearly expressed on the exterior, with a distinctive shape and its own roof
“Today, luxury is spreading, comfort is demanded everywhere” Garnier. In other words all citizens are kings in the Second Empire providing that they can afford it and subject to the usual rules of class Façade is divided into two levels The second level is faced with Corinthian paired columns. The building is decorated with carved decoration, coloured tiles and gold statuary on the roofline The lower entrance level has an arcade of arches adorned with sculpture
PARIS OPERA HOUSE
To make an economically and socially centred (rather than politically centred) city, as symbolised by the ‘Opera’. New spaces that were created during the renovation encouraged the bourgeoisie to flaunt their new wealth, creating a booming economy. The Emperor's wife, the Empress Eugénie, asked Garnier during construction as to whether or not the building would be built in the Greek or Roman style, to which he replied: "It is in the Napoleon III style Madame!" “iron should allow free reign to the artist’s imagination; architecture is a ‘vehicle for society’s dreams and fantasies’” – Garnier In later years Garnier campaigned against Gustave Eiffel’s iron tower for the 1889 Universal Exposition
AUDITORIUM The auditorium has a traditional Italian horseshoe shape and can seat 1,979. The stage is the largest in Europe and can accommodate as many as 450 artists. The canvas house curtain was painted to represent a draped curtain, complete with tassels and braid. The ceiling area, which surrounds the chandelier, was originally painted by Jules Eugène Lenepveu. In 1964 a new ceiling painted by Marc Chagall was installed on a removable frame over the original. It depicts scenes from operas by 14 composers – Mussorgsky, Mozart, Wagner, Berlioz, Rameau, Debussy, Ravel, Stravinsky, Tchaikovsky, Adam, Bizet, Verdi, Beethoven, and Gluck. Although praised by some, others feel Chagall's work creates "a false note in Garnier's carefully orchestrated interior."[18] The 7-ton bronze and crystal chandelier was designed by Garnier. Jules Corboz prepared the model, and it was cast and chased by Lacarière, Delatour & Cie. The total cost came to 30,000 gold francs. The use of a central chandelier aroused controversy, and it was criticized for obstructing views of the stage by patrons in the fourth level boxes and views of the ceiling painted by Eugène Lenepveu. Garnier had anticipated these disadvantages but provided a lively defense in his 1871 book Le Théâtre: "What else could fill the theatre with such joyous life? Who else could offer the variety of forms that we have in the pattern of the flames, in these groups and tiers of points of light, these wild hues of gold flecked with bright spots, and these crystalline highlights?" On 20 May 1896, one of the chandelier's counterweights broke free and burst through the ceiling into the auditorium, killing a member of the audience. This incident inspired one of the more famous scenes in Gaston Leroux's classic 1910 gothic novel The Phantom of the Opera. Originally the chandelier was raised up through the ceiling into the cupola over the auditorium for cleaning, but now it is lowered. The space in the cupola was used in the 1960s for opera rehearsals, and in the 1980s was remodeled into two floors of dance rehearsal space. The lower floor consists of the Salle Nureïev (Nureyev) and the Salle Balanchine, and the upper floor, the Salle Petipa Underneath the masonry in the interior, in the auditorium, an iron structural frame supports the dome and the balconies.The hidden iron structure allows Garnier to use fewer and thinner supports, better sightlines and acoustics.12 x cast iron columns, fireproofed and covered to look like masonry.The iron skeleton was covered with grander materials in the public areas
PARIS OPERA HOUSE "Although described by a contemporary critic as 'looking like an overloaded sideboard', it (the Paris Opera House) is now regarded as one of the masterpieces of the period. Here Garnier triumphed over a cramped and difficult site, handling the carriage-ramps and approach steps, the foyers and staircases, both in section and plan, with confidence and skill. The style is monumental, classically based and opulently expressed, as the times demanded, in an elaborate language of multi-coloured marbles and lavish statuary. Throughout his life, Garnier was criticized for his excessive use of ornament, as Napoleon and Haussman are still accused of being inspired by an out-of-date and imperialist showmanship expressed in a language already debased. Such critics forget that every city needs its occasional monuments and occasions of grandeur, and that thanks largely to these three men, Paris remains one of the most beautiful cities in the world." — John Julius Norwich, ed. Great Architecture of the World. p214. It sits alone in a diamond, isolating the building and emphasizing its importance in modern life. The Paris Opera House is much more richly decorated than any other building built during this time period, but it catered to the rich and those with the time to come spend time within its walls. The building served no governmental purpose, but was instead a site of leisure and pleasure, emphasised by the design Luxury quarter of hotels, shops, clubs and banks developed around the new Opera – this quarter epitomises Haussmann’s Paris, shown by its large scale and architectural language, form and structure via the materials used.
Architectural style: Second Empire and Beaux‐Arts Architect: Charles Garnier Location: Paris, France Height: 56 metres from ground level to the apex of the stage flytower
CHARLES GARNIER
Charles Garnier was born on November the 6th, 1825, in Paris. He attended the École de Dessin, the atelier of Louis Hippolyte Lebas, and then the École des Beaux-Arts in 1841, and he also worked for Eugène Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc. Garnier spent 5 years in Italy after winning the Grand Prix de Rome in 1848. Garnier entered the competition for the Académie Nationale de Musique, better known as the Opéra, in Paris in 1861. He won fifth prize in the first stage of a two-phase competition and later that year won the commission. The Opéra was built from 1862 to 1867; the interiors were not completed until 1874. Sited on an irregular diamond adjacent to the Grand Boulevard, the structure was inspired, according to Garnier, by Michelangelo and Jacopo Sansovino. The Opéra provided a setting for Parisian society. The foyer, grand staircase, and auditorium are spacious, open, and rich in decoration. Empress Eugénie had favored the project by Viollet-le-Duc and did not admire Garnier's sumptuousness, even though it suited the period. When asked by the Empress whether the Opéra was in the style of Louis XIV, XV, or XVI, Garnier tactfully replied, "It is of Napoleon III." The same plastic richness of effect was used by Garnier in his Casino in Monte Carlo (1878; extended 1881), even though the finish is in stucco. Its magnificent site facing the bay is again a stage setting, this time for the wealthy gamblers' game of roulette. The game rooms, salons, and waiting rooms are sumptuous. After the Casino, Garnier's style mellowed considerably in a host of works ranging from churches, libraries, hotels, and houses to tombs, including the tombs of his musical contemporaries Bizet (1880) and Offenbach (1883) in Paris. Garnier died on Aug. 3, 1898. Garnier did not fit into the emerging movements of functionalism or expressive structure, even though the structural innovations of the Opéra were of predominant significance. Structure for its own sake, as in the Eiffel Tower, he considered hideous. His plan for the Opéra, he freely admitted in his book Le Nouvel Opéra de Paris (18751881), was based upon no theory: "I leave success or failure to chance alone." The sweeping dynamic movement of Garnier's neobaroque can be found in the more linear forms of Art Nouveau. Garnier retired from his private architectural practice in 1896, but continued to serve on juries for architectural competitions and to appear at official functions. He died at 8 o'clock in the evening of 3rd August. After his death a public monument, completed in 1902 the designs by Jean-Louis Pascal and crowned with a copy of the bust of Garnier, which had been created by Jean-Baptiste Carpeaux in 1869, was erected west of the Rotonde de l'Empereur of the Palais Garnier
Transformation of Paris Most importantly, Napoleon wanted to make an economically and socially centred (rather than politically centred) city, as symbolised by the ‘Opera’. New spaces that were created during the renovation encouraged the bourgeoisie to flaunt their new wealth, creating a booming economy. In some cases, the government chose to complete previous achievements, as in its massive extension of the Louvre between 1837 and 1857. In others, it created something completely new, like the new Opera House commissioned in 1861 and finished by 1875. Political objectives made it necessary for most public buildings to adopt an architecture style which stressed continuity and associations with great reigns of the past, notably those of Louis XIV and Napoleon I. The need to attract royalist, and republican, support justified a variety of styles, all of which could be designated ‘modern’. Georges-Eugène Haussmann born 27 March 1809 and died 11 January 1891
Fine new public buildings could suggest that French modernization was proceeding successfully, and that an imperial regime could provide constant security and guidance. During the Second Empire, architectural production in Paris expanded to unprecedented levels. The Second Empire had shaped and reshaped Paris more energetically than any previous regime. Its aesthetic norms, however, were developments of an older, classical tradition. Napoleon III acted quickly, aware that his empire was under constant political threat and unlikely to survive his death unless its institutions could be firmly rooted, or appear to be so. After the Revolution of 1848, a nephew of Napoléon, Charles Louis Napoléon Bonaparte, was elected as President of the Republic, and in 1852 he had himself declared Emperor Napoléon III of the Second Empire. During the first half of the reign of Napoleon III, the French legislature had very little real power; all decisions were made by the Emperor. Beginning in 1860 Napoleon decided to liberalise the Empire and give the legislators real power. The members of the opposition in the parliament increasingly aimed their criticism of Napoleon III at Haussmann, criticising his spending and his high-handed attitude toward the parliament.
Haussmann and Napoleon III make official the annexation of eleven communes around Paris to the City. (The Painting is by Adolphe Yvon)
The cost of the reconstruction projects was also rising rapidly. In December 1858 the Council of State ruled that a property owner whose land was expropriated could retain the land that wasn't specifically needed for the street, greatly increasing the cost of expropriation. Property owners also became much cleverer in claiming higher payments for their buildings, often by creating sham shops and businesses within their buildings.
HAUSSMANNISATION Georges-Eugène Haussmann, (27 March 1809 – 11 January 1891), was the Prefect of the Seine Department in France, who was chosen by the Emperor Napoleon III to carry out a massive program of new boulevards, parks and public works in Paris, commonly called Haussmann's renovation of Paris. Napoleon III and Haussmann launched a series of enormous public works projects in Paris, hiring tens of thousands of workers to improve the sanitation, water supply and traffic circulation of the city. Napoleon III installed a huge map of Paris in his office, marked with coloured lines where he wanted new boulevards to be. He and Haussmann met almost every day to discuss the projects and overcome the enormous obstacles and opposition they faced as they built the new Paris
The Paris Opera House was the centrepiece of Napoleon III’s “new” Paris, Garnier described the style of the Opera House as simply “Napoleon the Third”
The reconstruction of the centre of Paris was the largest such public works project ever undertaken in Europe; never before had a major city been completely rebuilt when it was still intact; London, Rome and Lisbon had been rebuilt after major fires or earthquakes. Napoleon III began his grand projects when he was Prince-President, when the government had a full treasury. In his plan of 1851 He proposed to extend the Rue de Rivoli to connect the Louvre with the Hotel de Ville; to build a wide new avenue, the Boulevard de Strasbourg, on a north-south axis; and to complete the central produce market, Les Halles, long unfinished. He approached the Parliament and received authorisation to borrow fifty million francs. However, the Emperor's ambitions were much greater; he also wanted finish the building of the Louvre and to create an enormous new park, the Bois de Boulogne, to the west of the city. His prefect of the Seine, Berger, protested that the city did not have the money. At this point Napoleon dismissed Berger and hired Haussmann, and Haussmann looked for a better way to finance his projects
The Bois de Boulogne was built by Haussmann and Napoleon III (between 1852 and 1858) and designed to be a place of relaxation and recreation for all classes of Paris
The transformation of Paris under the Second Empire is the biggest commonplace of urban history after the Great Fire of London. It coincided with the first surge of French industrialization, beginning in the 1840s and lasting until the Franco Prussian War and the Siege of Paris (1871), and Great Depression of the 1870s. The main emphasis was on streets, which were laid out in the periphery, or driven through the centre at the cost of thousands of demolitions. New streets and new buildings on this scale were bound to affect the appearance of Paris and how artists reacted to it. Napoleon III wanted Haussmann to radically redesign Paris to make a suitably ‘Imperial’ Capital, instead of the mediaeval incoherence that existed in 1852. He wanted to clear the streets that had provided the ‘breeding ground for revolution, broad avenues (boulevards) allowed good access for troops etc. He also wanted to make better transport systems: new stations, train lines, straight roads, and to make the city healthier by
IRON AS A BUILDING MATERIAL Metal's application to buildings began as an essentially a decorative or practical role rather than structural. Wrought iron is an iron alloy with a very low carbon (0.04 to 0.08%) content in contrast to cast iron (2.1% to 4%), and has fibrous inclusions known as slag up to 2% by weight. Wrought iron nails, hinges and other necessary components were the most common forms. More skilled use of wrought iron was made in the provision of decorative elements of buildings but the structural use of iron only began in the late 18th century with Abraham Darby's Iron Bridge made entirely of iron arches and ribs cast in a foundry and transported to the building site for assembly. Although this advertised iron's remarkable architectural capabilities few architects designed buildings constructed entirely of this material. Smaller items, such as solid or hollow columns, did find widespread application from the 1770s onwards. Their use reduced the need for heavy load-bearing internal walls or masonry piers and could be assembled quickly by unskilled workers. However, even when it was used it was common for the iron work to be concealed by other, traditional materials. Iron continued to be employed on a grand scale only for major structures such as bridges. But the limitations of cast iron meant that it was essential to use wrought iron. The use of wrought iron trusses in combination with cast iron columns led to the creation of the first large scale iron buildings without supporting masonry. This began in the second quarter of the 19th century with the use of standardised cast iron beams with wrought iron trusses in the construction of the Crystal Palace, 1851. The trusses made it possible to replace masonry arches and vaulting between the vertical supports and create buildings with wider spans and large internal spaces. This technology was widely applied to a variety of buildings from conservatories to exhibition halls and railway stations. Steel can be rolled into shapes, such as railway tracks, but it is far less brittle than iron and could improve upon its predecessors. Independent steel-frame buildings were pioneered in the United States in the 1880s but the technology did not appear in Britain until 1906 at the Ritz Hotel. Even then the possibilities were not fully explored. The steel frame had a profound impact on the exterior appearance of buildings, which no longer relied on load-bearing masonry. The steel "skeleton" could simply be clad in a variety of other materials, principally glass. Steel trusses also allowed the construction of buildings with mighty internal spans.
AUGUSTE RODIN
François-Auguste-René Rodin was born in Paris on November 12 to Jean-Baptiste Rodin, a clerk with the police department, and Marie Cheffer Rodin. The family, which also included Rodin's sister Maria (born 1838), were devoutly Catholic. Auguste Rodin (1840–1917) had a career that spanned from the late nineteenth to the early twentieth centuries. Rodin was deeply inspired by tradition yet rebelled against its idealized forms, introducing innovative practices that paved the way for modern sculpture. It is said he believed that art should be true to nature, a view that shaped his attitudes to models and materials. Many know Rodin for the controversies surrounding certain of his works, such as the scandals around The Age of Bronze or the Monument to Balzac, and for his unfinished projects, most famously The Gates of Hell. In my opinion he was best at expressing inner truths of the human psyche, and he penetrates beneath the external appearance of the world. Rodin developed an agile technique for rendering the extreme physical states that correspond to expressions of inner turmoil or overwhelming joy. He sculpted a universe of great passion and tragedy, a world of imagination that exceeded the mundane reality of everyday existence.
The Burghers of Calais, 1885-1889, 217 x 255 x 177cm, bronze
Although Rodin was not educated at the École des Beaux-Arts in Paris like most famous sculptors, he was educated at Petite Ecole and was a successful student there but failed the entry exam for the Ecole des Beaux-Arts as his sculptures did not fit their criteria Rodin's inability to gain entrance may have been due to the judges' Neoclassical tastes, while Rodin had been schooled in light, 18th-century sculpture. Leaving the Petite École in 1857, Rodin earned a living as a craftsman and ornamenter for most of the next two decades, producing decorative objects and architectural embellishments. He had acquired skill and experience as a craftsman, but no one had yet seen his art, which sat in his workshop, since he could not afford castings. Rodin’s focus on the human form and use of various materials such as bronze, marble, plaster, and clay, illustrate his respect for sculptural tradition and his desire to work within the system for commissions and exhibition opportunities. Having saved enough money to travel, Rodin visited Italy for two months in 1875, where he was drawn to the work of Donatello and Michelangelo. Their work had a profound effect on his artistic direction Rodin said, "It is Michelangelo who has freed me from academic sculpture. Returning to Belgium, he began work on The Age of Bronze, a life-size male figure whose realism brought Rodin attention but led to accusations of sculptural cheating. The hallmarks of Rodin's style—his affinity for the partial figure, his focus on formal qualities and relationships rather than on narrative structure, and his desire to retain the marks of the sculptural process on his finished works—were revolutionary in his time. The age of bronze, 1877, bronze, life size
THE AGE OF BRONZE
Made in Brussels, this figure, in my opinion one of Rodin’s most famous works, attests to the sculptor’s masterly skill and his attention to living nature that informs the pose and the modelling is deceptively realistic appearance represented such a departure from the conventions of academic sculpture of the time that Rodin was accused of casting from a live model, a practice greatly frowned upon. Rodin preserved photographs of the human model on which the sculpture is based, a man named Auguste Neyt (a young Belgium solider).
Also known as The Awakening Man or The Vanquished One, the statue recalls one of the early ages of mankind. There was originally a spear in the left hand, as is shown in a photograph by Gaudenzio Marconi, but Rodin decided to suppress the weapon so as to free the arm of any attribute and infuse the gesture with a new liberality. For Rodin not only abandoned all of the elaborate repertory of symbols with which academic sculptors habitually equipped their works relying on the expressiveness of the figure itself to convey its meaning In addition, he changed the title from The Vanquished (Le Vaincu), possibly an allusion to the suffering and demoralization of his countrymen during the Franco-Prussian War, to the classical, but more ambiguous, The Age of Bronze (L'Âge d'Airain) When The Age of Bronze was first exhibited in Brussels in 1877, under the title The Vanquished, it received a great deal of negative press. Critics accused Rodin of creating the piece by taking a cast of a model, instead of carving it by hand. Such an accusation was serious as this was unacceptable in the art world at this time. Such criticism could be accredited to the realism of this piece and Rodin's skill at rendering a convincing human physique. Friends of the artist came to his defense and Rodin himself out rightly denied the claims.
Similar to many classical sculptures of young men leaning on a staff, The Age of Bronze has a sense of movement which was unprecedented in sculpture of the time. The raised arm to the head gives a sense of heroism to the piece.
Rodin captures a great deal of emotion in the face of the model and he depicts a type of spiritual and emotional ecstasy.
The original title for this piece, The Vanquished, reveals some of the motives behind its creation. Rodin was drafted into the French army at the start of the FrancoPrussian War and although he was dismissed shortly after, the experience and the well-publicized loss of many French soldiers in the conflict had a profound effect on him. The Vanquished was later changed to The Age of Bronze which Rodin hoped would distance the piece from the criticism it received upon its first exhibition.
By removing the original staff in the right hand of the figure Rodin created a movement which is central to the piece. The bend in the right knee also adds to this feeling and gives the figure an energy which other artist's may not have thought of.
Rodin used models for all his works and in this instance the artist chose a Belgian Soldier named Auguste Neyt. Instead of using professional models, Rodin noted that he liked to choose people by their character and chose models that struck him as embodying a particular feeling or characteristic.
BURGHERS OF CALAIS In 1885, Rodin was commissioned by the French city of Calais to create a sculpture that commemorated the heroism of Eustache de Saint-Pierre, a prominent citizen of Calais, during the dreadful Hundred Years’ War between England and France (begun in 1337). The Burgers of Calais, bronze, is probably the best and certainly the most successful of Rodin's public monuments. Rodin closely followed the account of the French chronicler Jean Froissart (1333–after 1400) stating that six of the principal citizens of Calais were ordered to come out of their besieged city with head and feet bare, ropes around their necks, and the keys of the town and the caste in their hands. They were brought before the English king Edward III (1312– 1377), who ordered their beheading. Rodin has portrayed them at the moment of departure from their city led by Eustache de Saint-Pierre, the bearded man in the middle of the group. At his side, Jean d'Aire carries a giant-sized key. Their oversized feet are bare, many have ropes around their necks, and all are in various states of despair, expecting imminent death and unaware that their lives will be saved by the English queen Philippa. The arrangement of the group, with its unorthodox massing and subtle internal rhythms, was not easily settled, and the completed monument, cast in bronze by the Le Blanc-Barbedienne foundry, was not unveiled in Calais until 1895.
Rodin does not to use the hierarchical arrangement typical of his time, e.g. a pyramidal grouping with a prominent central figure. For the viewer, there is no clear distinction as to which figure might be the leader of the group. All the men are literally and figuratively on equal footing.
“I did not want a pedestal for these figures. I wanted them to be placed on, even affixed to, the paving stones of the square in front of the Hôtel de Ville in Calais so that it looked as if they were leaving in order to go to the enemy camp. In this way they would have been, as it were, mixed with the daily life of the town: passers-by would have elbowed them, but the commissioning body understood nothing of the desires I expressed. They thought I was mad. . . Statues without a pedestal! Where had that ever been seen before? There must be a pedestal; there was no way of getting around it.” - Rodin The monument was innovative in that it presented the burghers at the same level as the viewers, rather than on a traditional pedestal, although until 1924 the city council of Calais, against Rodin's wishes, displayed the statue on an elevated base.
In the sculpture there are six men only covered in simple layers of tattered sackcloth, their bodies appearing thin and malnourished with their bones and joints clearly visible. Each of the men have their own stance and identifiable features whilst they stand together with a sense of familiarity, yet none of them making eye contact with the men besides themselves. Some of the figures have their heads bowed or their faces covered by raised hands, whilst others try to stand tall with eyes gazing into the distance. The Burghers are joined together not through physical or verbal contact, but by their slumped shoulders, bare feet and expressions of utter anguish. Typically, academic sculpture presents a single point of reference; this sculpture has a clear front and back. This sculpture has many focal points. No obvious statements of bravery through gesture. Traditionally bravery is shown through the uplifted chin and common facial expressions of determination. Rodin made the decision to capture these men not when they were finally released, but in the moment that they gathered to leave the city to go to their deaths. Rodin stretched his composition into a circle causing no man to be the focal point which allows the sculpture to be viewed in the round from multiple perspectives with no clear leader. The fabrics that the men are wearing appear to me fused to the groundconveying the conflict between the men’s desire to live and the need to save their city. Rodin included raided portions of the floor under the men’s feet which would have made some men higher than others yet they are sculpted to all the same height. The burghers were not meant to be viewed in the form of a hierarchal pyramid like a typical multi figure statue.
The six burghers face in different directions. Randomly grouped/ individual response to the situation
MONUMENT TO BALZAC Rodin received a commission for a monument to Balzac in 1891 from the Société des Gens de Lettres. After seven years' preparation by reading the author's works, by studying his biography (attempting to understand the personality and psychology of this literary genius), and by executing about 50 studies, Having conducted his research into Balzac’s body and head simultaneously, Rodin ended up with an assemblage in which these two elements conveyed their own values. While the head had evolved from a portrait resembling the writer into a concentration of expressive features, the body had moved in the opposite direction, veering towards a dilution of form in a symphony of nuances materialized in the fluid surface of the dressing gown. What Rodin finally produced in 1897, after six years of labour, was a revolutionary monument. Stripped of the writer’s usual attributes (armchair, pen, book), his Balzac was not so much a portrait but a powerful evocation of the visionary genius whose gaze dominated the world, of the inspired creator draped in the monk’s habit he used to wear when writing. This overly innovative monument caused such an outrage when it was unveiled in 1898 that the commission was cancelled. Rodin never saw his monument cast in bronze. Not only did the Société reject the work, but it received extraordinary controversy in the press. Criticism centred on the fact that Rodin's treatment of a famous person did not follow the formula for aggrandizing the subject and on the lack of a finished surface, so important in academic sculptural style.
According to Rodin, the sculpture aims to portray the writer’s persona rather than a physical likeness.
‘Monument to Balzac’, 1891-8 larger than life size, bronze A plaster soaked shroud representing the artist’s dressing gown
"I think of his intense labour, of the difficulty of his life, of his incessant battles, and of his great courage. I would express all that," - Rodin The Figure is wrapped in a large robe. This disguises his body and limbs, also gives hanging folds. The Body is left generalised but the Form of left hand evident under the cloak Emphasis on leonine head-more detail. Sombre serious expression with his Head thrown back and the deep set eyes staring in the distance.
Made many studies, over 70, early versions show Balzac nude
THE KISS The Kiss originally represented Paolo and Francesca, two characters borrowed, once again, from Dante’s Divine Comedy: slain by Francesca’s husband who surprised them as they exchanged their first kiss, the two lovers were condemned to wander eternally through Hell. This group, designed in the early stages of the elaboration of The Gates, was given a prominent position on the lower left door, opposite Ugolino, until 1886, when Rodin decided that this depiction of happiness and sensuality was incongruous with the theme of his vast project. He therefore transformed the group into an independent work and exhibited it in 1887. The fluid, smooth modelling, the very dynamic composition and the charming theme made this group an instant success. Since no anecdotal detail identified the lovers, the public called it The Kiss, an abstract title that expressed its universal character very well. The French state commissioned an enlarged version in marble, which Rodin took nearly ten years to deliver. Not until 1898 did he agree to exhibit what he called his “huge knick-knack” as a companion piece to his audacious Balzac, as if The Kiss would make it easier for the public to accept his portrait of the writer. The Kiss is designed to be viewed from every angle and Rodin wanted the piece to be believable and real. The artist certainly creates this and by making a sculpture which is visually stimulating from 360 degrees the dedication and skill of Rodin is successfully demonstrated. The contrast between the smooth skin of the lovers and the rough marble of the rock they are sitting on adds further sensual elements to this piece. Rodin chose to construct the lovers in the nude as he believed adding details such as clothing distracted the viewer from the raw emotion which they should feel when looking upon a sculpture. "... a theme frequently treated in the academic tradition, a subject complete in itself and artificially isolated from the world surrounding it; it is a big ornament sculpted according to the usual formula and which focuses attention on the two personages instead of opening up wide horizons to daydreams." -Rodin
The way in which Rodin has entwined the lovers gives this composition movement and energy.
Rodin meticulously governed the creation of his sculptures, drawing on the experience he gained in commercial workshops during his youth. Rodin relied on Jean Turcan, who was in charge of carving marble in his workshop. Unfortunately Turcan left the workshop before The Kiss was completed and the original copy of this piece is rough and unfinished.
The passion of The Kiss is undeniable, the figures are so involved with each other that their faces can’t be seen easily. Rodin draws on themes which all audiences can appreciate which is both romantic and sensual. Although both figures are nude, Rodin's skill made sure that the way the figures were rendered was in a classical way.
THE THINKER The style which Rodin developed throughout his professional life can be attributed to his lack of artist education. When Rodin was rejected from the prestigious École des Beaux-Arts he missed out on the neoclassical training which was still very much part of the curriculum at the school during this period. Without this strict training the artist was able to develop a much freer and more emotional style that would essentially be the making of his work.
Â
The Thinker is certainly a product of this unusual artistic development. Rodin's The Thinker was originally part of The Gates of Hell which was completed on commission in 1882. What became known as The Thinker was originally intended to represent the poet Dante as he contemplated writing The Divine Comedy, which The Gates of Hell was based on. The work shows a nude male figure of over life-size sitting on a rock with his chin resting on one hand as though deep in thought, and is often used as an image to represent philosophy. There are about 28 full size castings, in which the figure is about 186cm high, though not all were made during Rodin's lifetime and under his supervision, as well as various other versions, several in plaster, studies, and posthumous castings, in a range of sizes. Date of creation: 1881 Medium: metal Art movement: impressionism
Originally supposed to represent Dante, the poet, once this piece was enlarged and created as a sculpture within its own right the meaning behind it became more ambiguous. Commonly thought to represent knowledge or the attainment of knowledge, Rodin himself always referred to this piece as The Poet.
The position which the contemplative figure finds himself in is one of deep thought and concentration. The arched back and curled hand resting under the chin are signs of study that would have been hard to capture were this figure standing up. This also allows for the figure's muscular back and broad shoulders to be fully defined, the powerful physique of the sitter reflecting the high esteem in which Rodin held poets like Dante.
The mood of this piece is one of calm. Rodin captures the very human emotion of The Thinker which may go some way as to explain how this piece became one of the artist's most famous works.
Rodin created The Thinker in a way that mirrors the heroes of Michelangelo. The nude figure is muscular, taunt, and valiant. This demonstrates to the viewer the high regard with which Rodin held Dante and creative thinkers in general. Often completing preliminary sketches and models, Rodin would then leave the carving of the full size marble to one of his assistants. Finally, the artist would take control of the work to add finishing touches and make sure that the piece fitted his exacting standards. This process is how The Thinker would have been developed.
Many of the bronze copies, as well as the original plasters for this piece have been displayed in a central position so that visitors can see it from every conceivable angle.
NELSON’S COLUMN
HISTORY OF ADMIRAL NELSON Nelson was born at Burnham Thorpe in Norfolk. He was the sixth child of the Revd Edmund Nelson and his wife. He was born on Friday 29 September 1758. Nelson entered the Navy as a Midshipman at the age of 12. His first ship was HMS Raisonable which was commanded by his uncle, Maurice Suckling. He lost the sight in his right eye at the siege of Calvi on 10 July 1794. This did not deter him in any way. Nelson first became a national hero at the battle of Cape St Vincent on 14 February 1797 against a combined French and Spanish fleet. He was Captain of HMS Captain. The Commander in Chief was John Jervis. The British fleet were in a single line of battle to engage the enemy when some Spanish ships looked as though they might escape north when they were astern of the British column. Nelson spotted this and took his ship out of the line across the passage of the Spanish ships, forcing them to change course, and allowed the leading British ships to catch them up. Nelson also led a boarding party and captured two Spanish ships, San Josef and San Nicholas. However, Nelson unfortunely lost his right arm at Santa Cruz in Tenerife, on 24th July 1797. The other major battles that Nelson is known for the battle of the Nile (also known as the Aboukir Bay) on the 1st of August 1798, the battle of Copenhagen on the 2nd of April 1801 and the battle of Trafalgar on the 21st of October 1805. All of these are commemorated on Nelson’s column.
Nelson’s Column, 18401843, designed by William Railton, statue by E.H.
THE BATTLE OF TRAFALGAR October 21st in 1805 was the year of the battle of Trafalgar. Nelson’s last and greatest victory was against the French, was the battle of Trafalgar. This began after Nelson caught sight of a Napoleon led French-Spanish force of thirty-three ships at Cape Trafalgar – off the coast of Spain. Nelson only had twenty-seven ships, six less than Napoleon’s force. Knowing that he was short of ships, Nelson divided his ships into tow forces and gave the famous message from the ship “Victory”: “England expects that every man will do his duty”. In five hours of fighting, the British defeated the enemy’s fleet of ships by destroying nineteen of them. Unfortunately, a French sniper shot Nelson in the shoulder and chest from out of nowhere. He was taken below in the ship and died roughly about thirty minutes before the end of the battle. His last words were recorded as “Now I am satisfied. Thank God I have done my duty.” This victory lead by Nelson assured that Napoleon would never attempt to invade Britain again. Because of this battle a column was erected in his memory in the newly named Trafalgar Square.
The Corinthian capital is made from bronze elements, cast from cannon salvaged from the wreck of HMS Royal George. This column is based on the Temple of Mars in Rome, modelled by C.H. Smith
NELSON’S COLUMN CONSTRUCTION
Battle of Copenhagen by John Ternouth
The column was built between 1840 and 1843 to commemorate Admiral Horatio Nelson's death at the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805. The 5.5 m (18 ft) statue of Nelson stands on top of a 46 m (151 ft) Foggintor granite column. The statue faces south looking towards the Admiralty, with the Mall on his right flank, where Nelson's ships are represented on the top of each flagpole. The top of the Corinthian column (based on one from the Temple of Mars Ultor in Rome) is decorated with bronze acanthus leaves cast from British cannon. The square pedestal is decorated with four bronze panels, cast from captured French guns, depicting Nelson's four great victories.
DESIGN The monument was designed by architect William Railton in 1838. Railton's original 1:22-scale stone model is exhibited at the National Maritime Museum in Greenwich, London. The sandstone statue at the top was sculpted by E.H. Baily, a member of the Royal Academy; a small bronze plaque crediting him is at the base of the statue. The entire monument was built at a cost of 47,500 pounds, or 4 million pounds today. In 1925 a Scottish confidence trickster, Arthur Furguson, "sold" the landmark to an unknowing American claiming it was for sale to pay off Britain's war loan to the United States. The Death of Nelson at Trafalgar, John Edward Carew
Battle of Cape St Vincent, Musgrave
The pedestal of the column is decorated with four bronze relief panels, each 18 feet square, cast from captured French guns and cannons. They depict the battle of Cape St Vincent which is sculpted by Musgrave Watson, the Battle of the Nile by William F. Woodington, the Battle of Copenhagen by John Ternouth and finally, the Death of Nelson at Trafalgar by John Edward Carew. The four lions, by Sir Edwin Landseer, at the column's base were added after a lengthy delay in 1867. At the time when they were made, they were the subject of much ridicule on account of their lateness. The commission for the four huge lions went to the sculptor Lough, but subsequently he was dropped in favour of Edwin Landseer, known as a famous animal painter. This was a popular decision, and the Art Journal enthused that 'The public will see four such statues of the animal as the world has not yet seen'. Unfortunately, the lions were not forthcoming for some years, despite constant promises by Landseer that they would soon emerge from his studio, and became the subject of many jokes in the press. Finally, in the year 1868, the lions were set up. Even then there was a chorus of disapproval. Writing in 1886, W. J. Nettleship, a distinguished painter of lions, was still criticising Landseer's lions: "The Trafalgar Square lions must be quietly damned, because, pretending to be done from nature, they absolutely miss the true sculptural quality which distinguishes the leonine pose, and because a lion couched like that has not a concave back like a greyhound, but a convex back, greatly ennobled in line from the line of a cat's back in the same position."
Nile by William F. Battle of the Woodington,
30TH JULY 2012
THE TATE TIMES
HAT’S AMAZING! If you live in London and have to pass through Trafalgar Square, or various other sites around the capital - you may have noticed something a tiny bit different about a few of the statues this Monday morning! After a year of planning, the day of the big reveal is finally here! And the biggest challenge of all the hats-onstatues; Lord Admiral Nelson atop his 52m column requiring one of only two cranes in the whole country tall enough to reach it - is up! His hat was created by Lock & Co Hatters, a British millinery brand who have been making hats since the time of Nelson himself, impressive don't you agree? Other hats in the capital include creations by Stephen Jones, and Phillip Treacy, the curators of the HATWALK itself. Both of these can be found in Trafalgar Square alongside a magnificent creation by Sophie Beale, winner of Grazia’s Hat Factor millinery competition and many others around London from avant-garde hatter and wig-maker, Charlie Le Mindu for Isambard Kingdom Brunel and Scottish Milliner William Chambers for his country’s national poet, Robert Burns. After Friday's stunning opening ceremony and an exciting weekend of sport, even the most hard-hearted can't help but catch Olympics fever. And with statutes around London now sporting decorative headwear in honour of the Games, it seems even being made of stone is no excuse not to celebrate. By Monday morning, two were missing: the baseball hat from Shakespeare in Leicester Square was thought stolen while Beau Brummell in Jermyn Street had his multicoloured turban removed by Westminster city council cleaners. The setbacks hardly dimmed the enthusiasm for an event described by the deputy mayor for education and culture, Munira Mirza, as one of many "bonkers, mad, wacky" things happening in London as part of a project called Surprises.
King George IV (pictured left) have joined Lord Nelson (pictured right) in having a makeover
The surprise in this case was seeing a fetching Philip Treacy number on Sir Henry Havelock in Trafalgar Square, a Spam-themed hat on Franklin D Roosevelt in New Bond Street, and a giant orange fedora on Francis, Duke of Bedford, in Russell Square. Some might say it is disrespectful to put on General Sir Charles Napier a hat which would not look out of place during Ladies' Day at Ascot. "Yes, that is something we were absolutely conscious of and one has to be very careful," said Jones. But he said the Olympic opening ceremony, with the parachuting Queen, had shown this country's talent for both showing respect and not taking things too seriously. Jones admitted his first reaction on hearing of the project was: "Oh Lordy!" He added: "But then I thought what a fantastic idea. It is a bit like the arrogance of youth – what you don't know can't kill you." "In retrospect, we had no idea of the complexity and the problems we were going to face," said Jones, who created a Brighton Pavilion-themed hat for George IV. Chairman Nigel Lock Macdonald said: "Locks are very proud of their history and making another hat for Nelson over 200 years after we made the original has been an unexpected honour."
THE MONUMENT
The Monument stands at the junction of Monument Street and Fish Street Hill in London. It was built between 1671 and 1677 to commemorate the Great Fire of London and to celebrate the rebuilding which is presented on one of the panels of the column by a relief sculpture. As part of the rebuilding of London, it was decided to create and erect a permanent memorial of the Great Fire and it would need to be near the place where it began. Sir Christopher Wren, Surveyor General to King Charles II and the famously known as the architect of St. Paul’s Cathedral, and his friend/colleague, Dr Robert Hooke who provided a design for a colossal Doric column in the antique tradition and theme. Wren and Hooke drew up plans for a column containing a cantilevered stone staircase with 311 steps leading to a viewing platform. This was surmounted by a drum and a copper urn from which flames emerged, symbolizing the Great Fire. The Monument, as it came to be called, is 61 metres high (202 feet) – the exact distance between it and the site in Pudding Lane where the fire began. The column was completed in 1677, which was in accordance with Wren’s original intention, was at first used as a place for certain experiments of the Royal Society, but vibrations caused by ceaseless traffic proved too great for the success of these experiments and they were discontinued. Thereafter the Monument became a place of historic interest, unique of its kind, providing visitors with an opportunity to look across London in all directions from a height of roughly 160 feet. The Monument was built as a zenith telescope – one that looks straight up. By looking at a fixed star, Hooke hoped to gain evidence that the Earth moved round the Sun.
The Monument built 16711677 by Christopher Wren and Robert Hooke
DESIGN Sir Christopher Wren prepared several designs for the Monument and the selection and approval of his final design was made after careful consideration of the several alternative plans which he submitted. Wren at first proposed a pillar with sculptured flames of gilt bronze issuing from loopholes in the shaft, and a phoenix on the summit rising from her ashes, also of gilt bronze. This, on further consideration, he found unsuitable, and then designed a statue of Charles II, 15 feet high. The statue was, however, found to be impracticable on the ground of expense, and the present vase or urn of flames was therefore substituted. In my opinion the column designs appear to have been influenced by Trajan’s column as Wren visited this when he went to Rome. Trajan’s column depicts the tow battles the Roman Emperor Trajan had with the Dacians, they were a tribe from now modern day Romaina. It celebrates the Emperor’s status. 2639 figures are included and Trajan appears 59 times with 155 scenes spiraling 200 metres. The Monument is made out of Portland stone, a lot of British monuments such as Buckingham Palace and St Paul’s Cathedral and columns are also made from this material and it is quarried on the Isle of Portland, Dorset. The stone is a limestone which is from the Tithonian stage of the Jurassic period.
The design for the Charles II statue
This stone is often exported to many countries such as the United Nations Headquarters building in New York City. Portland stone is formed in a marine environment on the floor of a shallow, warm sub-tropic sea, thought to be near land.
CONSTRUCTION
It consists of a pedestal roughly 21 feet square and 40 feet high, with a plinth 28 feet square, and a fluted shaft 120 feet high and 15 feet in diameter. There is a balcony encompassing a moulded cylinder, which supports a flaming urn or vase of gilt bronze, symbolizing the Fire. Defoe quaintly describes the Monument as “built in the form of a candle”. The work of construction occupied six years, from 1671 to 1677, due to the difficulty of getting a sufficient quantity of Portland stone of the required dimensions. This caused the king to issue a proclamation, dated 4th May 1669, forbidding any person to transport stone from the Isle of Portland without leave from Wren himself. Caius Gabriel Cibber executed the sculpture on the west panel, and the four dragons at the base were the work of Edward Pierce Junior, a sculptor and architect who was frequently employed by Wren. A model, scale one-eighth of an inch to a foot, of the scaffolding used in building the Monument was preserved; it formerly belonged to Sir William Chambers. In a manuscript preserved in the Guildhall Library (MS. 184, fol.41), which contains particulars of expenses incurred by the Corporation in re-erecting public buildings after the Fire, the total cost of the construction of the Monument is given as £13,450. The quantity of Portland stone contained in the column, as estimated by the architect, is 28,196 cubic feet and is the tallest isolated stone column in the world.
THE HISTORY OF THE GREAT FIRE OF LONDON The Great Fire of London, September 1666, was one of the most famous incidents of Stuart England. It was the second tragedy to hit the city in the space of 12 months; just as the city was recovering from the Great Plague, the inhabitants had to flee the city once again – this time not as a result of a disease, but the result of as human accident. The Great Fire of London, arguably, left a far greater mark on the city when compared to the plague. The fire started in Pudding Lane. The fire started in a baker’s shop owned by Thomas Farriner – who was the king’s baker. His maid failed to put out the ovens at the end of the night. The heat created by the ovens caused sparks to ignite the wooden home of Farriner. In her panic, the maid tried to climb out of the building but failed. Once it started, the fire spread quickly. The city was mostly made out of wood and with September following on from the summer, the city was very dry. By the time the fire had burned out which was the 5th September around 13,000 buildings had been destroyed, including the original St Paul’s Cathedral. Between 65,000- 80,000 people lost their homes. Wren was a favourite of King Charles II and alongside six men he was given the task to manage surveys of ruined properties and consider the form and scale of new buildings, and any alternations to the streets. From this, roads were widened to reduce the risk of more spreading fires.
THE PANELS The north panel includes an inscription which says the following: “In the year of Christ 1666, on the 2nd September, at a distance eastward from this place of 202 feet, which is the height of this column, a fire broke out in the dead of night, which, the wind blowing devoured even distant buildings, and rushed devastating through every quarter with astonishing swiftness and noise. It consumed 89 churches, gates, the Guildhall, public edifices, hospitals, schools, libraries, a great number of blocks of buildings, 13,200 houses, 400 streets…”
On the south panel, it too includes an inscription which says the following: “Charles the Second, son of Charles the Martyr, King of Great Britain, France and Ireland, defender of the faith, a most gracious prince, commiserating the deplorable state of things, whilst the ruins were yet smoking provided for the comfort of his citizens, and the ornament of his city; remitted their taxes, and referred the petitions of the magistrates and inhabitants of London to the Parliament…..and more…”
The east panel also has a final inscription: “This pillar was begun, Sir Richard Ford, knt., being Lord Mayor of London, in the year 1671; carried higher in the Mayoralties of Sir George Waterman, knt., Sir Robert Hanson, knt., Sir William Hooker, knt., Sir Robert Viner, knt., and Sir Joseph Sheldon, knt.; and finished in the Mayoralty of Sir Thomas Davies, in the year of the Lord 1677.”
"About two a clock this morning a sudden and lamentable fire brake out in the city, beginning not far from Thames Street, near London Bridge, which continues still with great violence and hath already burnt down to the ground many houses thereabouts; which sad accident affected His Majesty with that tenderness and compassion, that he was pleased to go himself in person, with his Royal Highness, to give order that all possible means should be used for quenching the fire, or stopping its further spreading. In which case, the Right Honourable the Earl of Craven was sent by His Majesty, to be more particularly assisting to the Lord Mayor and magistrates; and several companies of his guards sent into the City to be helpful by what ways they could in so great calamity." - The London Gazette, Sunday, September 2, 1666.
Caius Gabriel Cibber executed the sculpture on the west panel, and the four dragons at the base were the work of Junior Edward Pierce
Basso-relievo, or bass relief by Caius Gabriel Cibber, the sculptor, which represents the King affording protection to the desolate and burned London City and freedom to its rebuilders and inhabitants.
The first represents Science, with a winged head and a circle of nude boys dancing on it, and in her hand is a figure of nature ready to give assistance
The second is Architecture holding in the right hand a plan, and in the left compasses and a square. The third figure is Liberty waving a cap in the air.
Over her head are shown houses burning and flames breaking out through the windows
Behind the King stands his brother, the Duke of York, holding in one hand a garland to crown the rising city The two figures behind are justice with a coronet, and Fortitude with a reined lion
Behind Time is a group of citizens raising their hands to encourage At her feet is a beehive, denoting Industry, by which the greatest difficulties can be surmounted The design is allegorical and displays a female figure, representing the City of London, sitting on ruins in a languishing condition, her head hanging down, her hair dishevelled and her left hand lying carelessly upon her sword; behind is Time with his wings and bald head, gradually raising her up.
Another female figure by her side gently touches her with one hand and, with a winged sceptre in the other, points upwards to two goddesses sitting in the clouds, one with a cornucopia, denoting Plenty, the other having a palm branch in her left hand, signifying Peace.
Beneath the figure of London, in the midst of the ruins, is a dragon supporting a shield bearing the arms of the city
The pavement of stone raised with steps, stands King Charles II in a Roman style costume, with a baton in his right hand and a laurel wreath on his head, looking towards the city
Underneath the stone pavement on which the King stands, is a figure of Envy gnawing a heart and emitting contagious fumes from her mouth
GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY WAR MEMORIAL
THE MEMORIAL The Great Western Railway War Memorial is a monument in London, to the employees of the Great Western Railway who died during the First World War, and it is situated halfway along platform 1 at London Paddington station. The stonework was designed by the architect Thomas S. Tait and the bronze figure by the sculptor Charles Sargeant Jagger, and the memorial unveiled on Armistice Day in 1922 by Viscount Churchill. Its dominant feature is a large bronze statue of a British First World War soldier dressed in battle gear, wearing a helmet, woollen scarf, and a greatcoat draped over his shoulders. The soldier is looking down, reading a letter from home. On the stone surround are two stylised reliefs of the emblems of the Royal Navy (rope and anchor) and the Royal Air Force (eagle in flight). Inside the plinth was placed a sealed casket, which was made at the GWR's Swindon Works, containing a vellum roll upon which was inscribed the names of the 2,524 men who gave their lives. The Inscriptions on the plinth read: “IN HONOUR OF THOSE WHO SERVED IN THE WORLD WARS 1914 † 1918 1939 † 1945 3312 MEN AND WOMEN OF THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY GAVE THEIR LIVES FOR KING AND COUNTRY. THE NAMES OF THOSE WHO GAVE THEIR LIVES ARE INSCRIBED ON A ROLL OF HONOUR DEPOSITED BENEATH THE BRONZE FIGURE.”
CHARLES JAGGER Charles Jagger, born 17th December 1885 in Kilnhurst, and died 16th November 1934, was a British sculptor who, following active service in the First World War, sculpted many works on the theme of war. He is best known for his war memorials, especially the Royal Artillery Memorial and the Great Western Railway War Memorial, both of which are in London, and he also designed several other monuments around Britain and other parts of the world. Jagger was the son of a colliery manager, and was educated at Sheffield Royal Grammar School. At age 14 he became an apprentice metal engraver with the Sheffield firm Mappin and Webb. He studied at the Sheffield School of Art before moving to London to study sculpture at the Royal College of Art (1908–11). His early works dealt with classical and literary themes and were influenced by the New Sculpture movement in the focus on medievalism and on surface qualities. His student work won him a travelling scholarship that made it possible for him to spend severaL months in Rome and Venice. In 1914 he won the British Prix de Rome. When war broke out in 1914, Jagger gave up his Rome scholarship to join the army. At first, Jagger joined the Artists' Rifles, and in 1915 he was commissioned in the Worcestershire Regiment. Jagger served in Gallipoli and on the Western Front, and was wounded three times. He was awarded the Military Cross for gallantry.
1922, Bronze
A British First World War soldier dressed in battle gear, wearing a helmet, woolen scarf, and a greatcoat draped over his shoulders.
Inside the plinth was placed a sealed casket, which was made at the GWR's Swindon Works, containing a vellum roll upon which was inscribed the names of the 2,524 men who gave their lives.
The soldier is looking down, reading a letter from home
A vellum is a finegrained unsplit lambskin, kidskin, or calfskin prepared especially for writing on or for binding books
The stonework was designed by the architect Thomas S. Tait and the bronze figure by the sculptor Charles Sargeant Jagger, and the memorial unveiled on Armistice Day in 1922 by Viscount Churchill.
Made from bronze, larger than life size.
A monument in London, to the employees of the Great Western Railway who died during the First World War, and it is situated halfway along platform 1 at London Paddington station.
THE TATE TIMES
11th November 2014
Poppies cause uproar! The poppy has long been a symbol of Armistice Day and of Remembrance, and this year a commemoration called “Blood swept lands and Seas of red” has been installed by a ceramic artist Paul cummins with setting by stage designer Tom Piper. 888,246 ceramic poppies have filled London Tower’s famous moat. An expected five million people visited the moat by 11th November. This creation has caused uproar in many citizens of london as it is seen as a poor commemortation of the war and missing the horrors of war in its resemblance. Each of the 888,246 ceramic poppies represent a British fatality in the First World War. “But that’s probably an overinterpretation, because the spectacle of all these red poppies is emptier than that. In spite of the mention of blood in its title, this is a deeply aestheticised, prettified and toothless war memorial. It is all dignity and grace. There is a fake nobility to it, and this seems to be what the crowds have come for – to be raised up into a shared reverence for those heroes turned frozen flowers.” And “The Tower of London poppies are fake, trite and inward-looking – a Ukip-style memorial” – Johnathon Jones On Jones’ blog on the poppies caused an uproar, especially Kris Saunders who left the comment of “You are SO wrong Jonathan. More people than ever are recalling their loved ones and ancestors who were lost in the carnage. The poppy display is a moving, thoughtful experience for EVERYONE, and particularly children who are amazed by the fact that a poppy represents a death. It's a visual experience, and makes one reflect” on the blog. Saunders was backed up by many other people on the blog who felt that the poppies did commemorate the war in depth and it was a modern way of showing the younger generations the mass amounts of people who passed away because of these wars.
The former head of the British Army said: "The great thing about it is that people are engaged with this. I think they have taken ownership of it and the reason why I think they have done that is that specific number, 888,246 - not a random number - that is the number of British and Colonial soldiers who lost their lives in the First World War.” He said 17,500 volunteers had planted poppies while a team of about 8,000 volunteers would start dismantling the installation on Wednesday. The weeping window and wave segments of the installation will be the final sections to be removed and will be on show until the end of this month Thousands of the poppies will then go on tour before being permanently based at the Imperial War Museums in London and Manchester. The prime minister said the display had "in a very short space of time become a much-loved and respected monument". The poppies have been sold for £25 each with all net proceeds plus 10% of every sale being shared between six service charities, including Help for Heroes and the Royal British Legion. The people who have bought the poppies will then receive them sent to their homes after they have removed from the moat.
THE MACHINE GUN CORPS MEMORIAL b
HISTORY OF MACHINE GUN CORPS At the outbreak of war in August 1914 the tactical use of machine guns was unappreciated by the British Military. The Army went to war with its infantry battalions and cavalry regiments each having a machine gun section of only two guns each. This was added to, in November, by the forming of the Motor Machine Gun Service - administered by the Royal Artillery. A year of warfare on the Western Front proved that to be fully effective, machine guns must be used in larger units and used by specially trained men. To solve this, the formation of the Machine Gun Corps was authorized in October 1915. The Infantry Branch was by far the largest and initially formed by the battalion machine gun sections transferring to the Machine Gun Corps, and grouping into Brigade Machine Gun Companies. In its short history the Machine Gun Corps gained an enviable record as a front line fighting force, seeing action in all the main theatres of war. Some 170,500 officers and men served in the Machine Gun Corps with 62,049 becoming casualties including 12,498 being killed. The Boy David Memorial (the Machine Gun Corps memorial) commemorates more men than serve in the current British Army.
The Machinegun Corps Memorial by Francis Derwent Wood, R.A. Bronze. 1925.
FRANCIS DERWENT WOOD Perhaps the most striking thing in the career of Mr. Derwent Wood (born in Keswick in 1872) is the unusual rapidity with which he had made for himself; a place of particular prominence among our younger sculptors. Within the short space of ten years he had advanced from the position of a brilliant and successful student in the Royal Academy schools to the rank of an even more brilliant and successful producing artist, whose works are in general request and whose capacities are widely recognised. When he was too old (at 41) to enlist in the Army at the onset of World War I, Wood volunteered in the hospital wards and his exposure to the gruesome injuries inflicted by the new war's weapons eventually led him to open a special clinic: the Masks for Facial Disfigurement Department, located in the Third London General Hospital, Wandsworth. Instead of the rubber masks used conventionally, Wood constructed masks of thin metal, sculpted to match the portraits of the men in their pre-war normality.
"No military pomp attended its birth or decease. It was not a famous regiment with glamour and whatnot, but a great fighting corps, born for war only and not for parades. From the moment of its formation it was kicking. It was with much sadness that I recall its disbandment in 1922; like old soldiers it simply faded away". So said former machine gunner George Coppard, in his autobiography
“ERECTED TO COMMEMORATE THE GLORIOUS HEROES OF THE MACHINE GUN CORPS WHO FELL IN THE GREAT WAR Saul has slain his thousands; But David his tens of thousands”
Rear Inscription
“The Machine Gun Corps of which His Majesty King George V was colonel-in-chief was formed Royal warrant dated the 14th day of October by 1915. The corps served in France, Flanders, Russia, Italy, Egypt, Palestine, Mesopotamia, Salonica, India, Afghanistan Africa. and East The last unit of the Corps to be disbanded was depot at Shorncliffe on the 15th day of July the 1922. The total number who served in the Corps was some 11,500 Officers and 159000 other ranks of whom 1120 officers and 12971 other ranks were killed and 2881 Officers and 45377 other ranks were wounded missing or prisoners of war.” The memorial was originally erected in 1925 next to Grosvenor Place, near Hyde Park Corner. It was dismantled shortly afterward due to roadwork, and was not reconstructed for several decades. Use of bronze Nude Statue of David for the statue holding Goliaths sword in a classical stance. The story of Real guns David is where a covered in laurel young boy defeat the wreaths. Giant Goliath against Symbolising all odds. This statue peace silencing is allegorical as it the guns shows the MGC The years of the defeating the enemy First World War against all odds. The Machine The Boy David is on Gun Corps was the north side of Hyde a part of the Park Corner, in the British Army sunniest, quietest (October 1915). spot on this very In response to noisy traffic junction. the need more The commemoration on the panel reads: 'Saul has slain his machine guns thousands; But David his tens of thousands'. This inscription on the Western caused controversy at the time of its unveiling, with questions Front in WW1. raised in the House. It was deemed to be an attempt to glorify The MGC was war, which is how many interpret this today. Whether it does or disbanded in does not, the inscription is now a matter of history and we would 1922. never attempt to have it changed.
Michelangelo’s version of David Donatello’s first version of David
THE CENOTAPH
The Cenotaph is a war memorial situated on Whitehall in London. It began as a temporary structure erected for a peace parade following the end of the First World War but following an outpouring of national sentiment it was replaced in 1920 by a permanent structure and designated the United Kingdom's primary national war memorial. Designed by Edwin Lutyens, the permanent structure was built from Portland stone between 1919 and 1920 by Holland, Hannen & Cubitts, replacing Lutyens' earlier wood-andplaster cenotaph in the same location. An annual National Service of Remembrance is held at the site on Remembrance Sunday, the closest Sunday to 11 November (Armistice Day) each year. Lutyens' cenotaph design has been reproduced elsewhere in the UK and other countries including Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Bermuda and Hong Kong,
ORIGINS The Cenotaph was originally a wood-and-plaster structure designed by Sir Edwin Lutyens and erected in 1919. It was one of a number of temporary structures erected for the London Victory Parade (also called the Peace Day Parade) on 19 July 1919 that marked the formal end of the First World War that had taken place with the signing of the Treaty of Versailles on 28 June 1919 As one of a series of temporary wooden monuments constructed along the route of the parade, it was not proposed until just two weeks prior to the event. Following deliberations of the Peace Celebrations Committee, Lutyens was invited to Downing Street. There, the British Prime Minister, David Lloyd George, proposed that the monument should be a catafalque, like the one intended for the Arc de Triomphe in Paris for the corresponding Victory Parade in France, but Lutyens proposed instead that the design be based on a cenotaph.
DESIGN The temporary wood-and-plaster structure had the same shape as the later permanent stone structure, and consisted of a pylon that rose in a series of set-backs to the empty tomb (cenotaph) on its summit. The wreaths at each end and on top were made from laurel rather than the later carved stone sculptures. The location chosen along the parade route along Whitehall was between the Foreign Office and Richmond House. The unveiling (described in The Times as 'quiet' and 'unofficial') took place the day before the Victory Parade. During the parade itself, those saluting the temporary Cenotaph included the Allied commanders John Pershing, Ferdinand Foch, Douglas Haig and David Beatty. For some time after the parade, the base of the memorial was covered with flowers and wreaths by members of the public. Pressure mounted to retain it, and the British War Cabinet decided on 30 July 1919 that a permanent memorial should replace the wooden version and be designated Britain's official national war memorial. The announcement was made on 23 October 1919 that the Portland stone version would be a "replica exact in every detail in permanent material of present temporary structure".
EDWIN LUTYENS He was born in London and grew up in Thursley, Surrey. He was named after a friend of his father, the painter and sculptor Edwin Henry Landseer. For many years he worked from offices at 29 Bloomsbury Square, London. Lutyens studied architecture at South Kensington School of Art, London from 1885 to 1887. He began his own practice in 1888, his first commission being a private house at Crooksbury, Farnham, Surrey. During this work, he met the garden designer and horticulturalist Gertrude Jekyll. In 1896 he began work on a house for Jekyll at Munstead Wood near Godalming, Surrey. It was the beginning of a professional partnership that would define the look of many Lutyens country houses. Before the end of World War I, he was appointed one of three principal architects for the Imperial War Graves Commission (now Commonwealth War Graves Commission) and was involved with the creation of many monuments to commemorate the dead. Larger cemeteries have a Stone of Remembrance, designed by himself.[7] The best known of these monuments are the Cenotaph in Whitehall, Westminster, and the Memorial to the Missing of the Somme, Thiepval. The Cenotaph was originally commissioned by David Lloyd George as a temporary structure to be the centrepiece of the Allied Victory Parade in 1919. Lloyd George proposed a catafalque, a low empty platform, but it was Lutyens' idea for the taller monument. The design took less than six hours to complete. Many local war memorials (such as the one at All Saints', Northampton), Montréal, Toronto, Hamilton (Ontario), Victoria (British Columbia), and Vancouver are Lutyens designs, based on the Cenotaph. So is the war memorial in Hyde Park, Sydney. He also designed the War Memorial Gardens in Dublin, which were restored in the 1990s. Other works include the Tower Hill memorial, and (similar to his later India Gate design) a memorial in Victoria Park in Leicester.
MARTYRS’ MEMORIAL HISTORY OF THE MEMORIAL The memorial is dedicated to three martyrs, who were Thomas Cranmer (Archbishop of Canterbury), Nicholas Ridley (Archbishop of London) and Hugh Latimer (Bishop of Worcester). The martyrs were burnt at the stake just outside the city walls to the north this was because they were found guilty of heresy as they were unable to admit to a belief in transubstantiation (the bread and the wine). Ridley and Latimer were the first to be burnt at the stake on the 16th October 1555 and the Archbishop Cranmer, who had been given longer to appeal, was forced to watch them be burnt and was to recant his original statement. He was later taken to the same place Ridley and Latimer were burnt at the stake at st and on 21 march 1556 was also burnt to death.
CONTEXT
In England, the Church of England was undergoing a revival of Anglo-Catholic ideology in the form of the “Oxford movement” and it became desirable to build a large number of new churches to cater for the growing population of England, and more cemeteries for their hygienic burials. Because of this movement it found ready exponents in the universities where the ecclesiological movement was forming – this now refers to the theological study of the Christian church. Its advocates believed that the style of Gothic was the only style that was appropriate for a Parish church. The most favoured particular era of the Gothic architecture was the decorated.
SCULPTOR The sculpture of the memorial was Henry Weekes who was an English sculptor born in Canterbury, 1807-1877, who was among the most successful British sculptors if the mid-Victorian period. He spent most of his career in London where he worked for Sir Francis Chantrey and took over his studio and finished off some incomplete statues when he had passed away in 1841. One of the works that Weekes took over was the Wellington Equestrian statue by the Royal Exchange in London, unveiled in 1844. Francis Chantrey was one of the most important establishment sculptors in the early nineteenth century. He had a profound influence because of his Bequest – he gave £105,000 which allowed the purchase of art made in Britain for the national collection which is now the Tate Britain.
Cuthbert Bede wrote about the setting of the Martyrs' Memorial thus in 1853: “He who enters the city, as Mr Green did, from the Woodstock Road, and rolls down the shady avenue of St Giles', between St John's College and the Taylor Buildings, and past the graceful Martyrs' Memorial, will receive impressions such as probably no other city in the world could convey.” It is considered a landmark of the 19th century Oxford movement propagated by John Keble and John Henry Newman and others. John Keble wanted donations for this to be built as he opposed the movement towards Catholic Church. Made from stone and positioned at the intersection of St Giles’ Magdalen Street and Beaumont Street. It has been likened to the steeple of a cathedral.
The monument was completed in 1843 after two years work.
The memorial was designed by Sir George Gilbert Scott. On the memorial is statues of the three martyrs: Cranmer, Ridley and Latimer. This is a gothic style memorial which is seen as a native style for England – John Carter, Ancient Architecture of England “gothic, our national architecture”.
INSCRIPTION ON THE BASE “To the Glory of God, and in grateful commemoration of His servants, Thomas Cranmer, Nicholas Ridley, Hugh Latimer, Prelates of the Church of England, who near this spot yielded their bodies to be burned, bearing witness to the sacred truths which they had affirmed and maintained against the errors of the Church of Rome, and rejoicing that to them it was given not only to believe in Christ, but also to suffer for His sake; this monument was erected by public subscription in the year of our Lord God, MDCCCXLI.”
WAS THIS EFFECTIVE? The use of the Oxford’s Martyr’s Memorial is ineffective as when looking at the memorial the architectural style executed is the style of the Gothic Revival – which is almost ironic, you can tell this from the decorative panels, hood moulding and the finial (an element marking the top of the memorial – in this gothic style architecture it is a decorative device carved in stone to emphasize the tower). More importantly the Gothic Revival is often associated to the Anglo-Catholic ideology which was what these martyrs were strongly against. The Gothic Revival was a movement in the nineteenth century where artists, writers and sculptors looked back at the middle ages where gothic architecture started, they also concentrated on the process of how the buildings and the arts were produced. They felt that the hand carved and less industrial methods of producing these works meant that society and the community were more connected with one another and it promoted a more moral community. A great contributor to the Gothic Revival was Augustus Welby Northmore Pugin (1812-1852) who was a catholic convert and passionate medievalist. In one of Pugin’s works, Contrasts 1836, he expressed his admirations not only for medical art but the whole medieval ethos, claiming that Gothic architecture was the product of a purer society. Also, in The True Principles of Pointed or Christian Architecture (1841), he suggested that modern craftsmen seeking to emulate the style of medieval workmanship should also reproduce its methods. “The great test of Architectural beauty is the fitness of the design for purpose for which it is intended [In Pointed of Christian Architecture] we find the faith of Christianity embodied, and its practices illustrated.” Benefited from the generosity of the Earl of Shrewsbury, John Talbot, at whose expense it was built, and was in sympathy with Pugin’s aim to make it a model parish church in the decorated style. It was built by local men and local materials. The stone is called polychromy Each column has a different patterning and there are colourful tiles throughout. For Pugin the Gothic symbolised Christian concern for the Inside every surface is painted and there is some fantastic stained The church faces east. Pugin attached great personal pride to the building calling it 'Cheadle perfect Cheadle, my consolation in all my afflictions'. St. Giles, Cheadle, Staffordshire designed by Pugin, 1846.
ELEANOR’S CROSS
The Eleanor crosses were 12 lavishly decorated stone monuments, of which three survive intact, in a line down part of the east of England. King Edward I had the crosses erected between 1291 and 1294 in memory of his wife Eleanor of Castile, marking the nightly resting-places along the route taken by her body as it was taken to London. A similar event had taken place in France for the body of King Louis IX in 1271, although his memorial crosses, unlike Eleanor's, were erected in part as a manifesto for canonisation; Edward had probably seen similar memorial crosses in France and elsewhere in Europe during his travels. They were at least in part intended as cenotaphs to provoke prayers for her soul from passers-by and pilgrims.
The Northampton Cross
There are only three crosses still around and standing. These are at Geddington, Hardingstone (just outside of Northampton) and Waltham Cross. The Geddington is the best surviving out of all three, it unique among the others as it has a triangular plan and a taller profile. The Northhampton cross was begun in1291 by John of Battle who worked with William of Ireland to carve the statues. The cross is octagonal in its shape and set upon steps. The Charing cross, which is outside of Charing Cross station was an original cross, but the picture on the right is of the one re-created in 1865 and was based on G.G Scott’s designs for his Martyrs’ Memorial in Oxford.
The Geddington Cross
Charing Cross 1865
GEORGE GILBERT SCOTT
Scott (1811-1878) was an English Gothic revival architect – he was well known and associated with the design, building and renovation of churches and cathedrals. Although, he originally started his career as a designer of workhouses. In Great Britain over 800 buildings have been designed or altered by him – he is one of the most prolific architects from Great Britain. He was born in Gawcott, Buckingham, Buckinghamshire and studied architecture as a pupil of James Edmeston and worked as an assistant to Henry Roberts. He was influenced to work in designing work houses after working as an assistant to a friend Sampson Kempthorne.
CHRIST CHURCH Another design of G.G Scott’s was Christ Church in Swindon which is a Gothic revival church with a 150 foot high spire, it is clear to see that the characteristics of this church illustrate the Gothic revival in the nineteenth century. Scott gained a lot of his knowledge for designing churches by actually restoring many of them. By the 1840’s he was restoring the medieval parish churches of Stafford. that correct Decorated Gothic was perfectly adaptable to modern Scott argued uses and could incorporate, where appropriate, such modern improvement as plate-glass windows and iron construction. He also argued that then Gothic was the closest style to nature in its decorative detail. The Decorated style of Gothic favoured the Oxford movement which believed that interiors should be axially arranged to give focus on the altar rather than the pulpit with three steps, symbolising the Trinity up to the rood screen. The also believed that congregations should be seated on benches that faced eastwards. The Tower has three stages, with west gable porch and corner buttresses. Broach spire and tower were based on 13th Century church of Buckworth, near Huntingdon. The Clock of 1843 on the west side of the tower was transferred from Holy Rood Church together with six bells. The present peal of ten bells is immortalised in a poem by Sir John Betjeman.
ALBERT MEMORIAL One of Scott’s greatest designs is the Albert Memorial in Hyde Park near to the Royal Opera House. The memorial was built in response to the death of Prince Albert in 1861. “A colossal statue of the prince, placed beneath a vast and magnificent shrine or tabernacle and surrounded by works of sculpture illustrating those Arts and Sciences which he fostered commemorative Gothic with rich decoration and allegorical sculptural figures and groups.” – G.G Scott The statue was completed in 1875 and the memorial is 176 (54m) tall and is described as “Albertropolis”. The whole structure adds to Albert’s role as protector of arts and reveals aspects of his character and intellect. This monument is a Christian monument that emphasised Albert’s role as a Christian Prince. . It is highly significant that Scott’s design was chosen as it was the only Gothic entry received, although the overall design and much of the detail of the superstructure is gothic, and contributed to public acceptance of and enthusiasm for the Gothic movement. The focus moves upwards, from representations of human history and society, through creative and intellectual activity, to moral attributes, and terminates in the realm of virtue, religious aspirations and heaven.
References to Albert’s support of the Great exhibition of 1851 in the Industrial Arts. There are allegorical figures representing manufacture, commerce, agriculture and engineering, in the coiner pedestal of the podium.
My idea in designing the Memorial was to erect a kind of ciborium to protect a statue of the Prince; and its special characteristic was that the ciborium was designed in some degree on the principles of the ancient shrines. These shrines were models of imaginary buildings, such as had never in reality been erected; and my idea was to realise imaginary structures with its precious one of these materials, its inlaying, its enamels, etc. etc. ... this was an idea so new as to provoke much opposition. -G.G Scott
Commerce, Thomas Thornycroft
Agriculture William Calder - Marshall
The Frieze is a continuous relief of the great figuresPoets, Musicians, Painters, Sculptors and Architects There are 187 figures in the frieze.
Engineering, John Lawlor
Manufactures, Henry Weekes
The four “corners” of the world at the base. All these figures are made from marble representing Europe, Asia, Africa and America. All these nations contributed to the exhibition.
On the frieze it includes the likes of Donatello and Michelangelo. Surprisingly the sculpture of Donatello is holding a miniature sculpture which turns out to be one he made that is in Florence.
Africa by William Theed
Asia by John Henry Foley
Europe by Patrick MacDowell
America by John Bell
COMISSIONING AND DESIGN Albert died on 14 December 1861, at the age of 42, the When Prince thoughts of those in government and public life turned to the form and shape of a suitable memorial, with several possibilities, such as establishing a university or international scholarships, being mentioned. Queen Victoria, however, soon made it clear that she desired a memorial "in the common word". The initiative was taken by the Lord Mayor of London, sense of the William Cubitt, who, at a meeting on 14 January 1862, appointed a committee to raise funds for a design to be approved by the Queen. The control and future course of the project, though, moved away from Mansion House, and ended up being controlled by people close to the Queen, rather than the Mayor. Those who determined the overall direction from that point on were the Queen's secretary, General Charles Grey, and the keeper of the privy purse, Sir Charles Phipps. Later, following the deaths of Grey and Phipps, their roles were taken on by Sir Henry Ponsonby and Sir Thomas Biddulph. Eventually, a four-man steering committee was established, led by Sir Charles Lock Eastlake. Eastlake had overall control for the project until his death in 1865. An initial proposal for an obelisk memorial failed, and this was followed in May 1862 by the appointment of a seven-strong committee of architects. A range of designs were submitted and examined. Two of the designs (those by Philip Charles Hardwick and George Gilbert Scott) were passed to the Queen in February 1863 for a final decision to be made. Two months later, after lengthy deliberations and negotiations with the government over the costs of the memorial, Scott's design was formally approved in April 1863.
ARCHITECTURAL INFLUENCES The popularity of the Prince Consort led to the creation of several "Albert Memorials" around the United Kingdom. The Kensington memorial was not the earliest; the first to be erected was Thomas Worthington's Albert Memorial in Albert Square, Manchester, unveiled in 1865. Both memorials present the figure of Prince Albert enclosed within a Gothic ciborium, and the similarities of design have been remarked on. There is some controversy as to whether the memorial in Manchester was influenced by the publication of Scott's design, or whether Scott was himself inspired by Worthington's design, or whether both architects decided on their canopy designs independently. Worthington's design was published in The Builder on 27 September 1862, before Scott's final design was unveiled. However, writing in his Recollections, Gilbert Scott suggested his own design was original The Albert Memorial was not the first revivalist design for a canopied statue in a Gothic style – the Scott Monument in Edinburgh had been designed by George Meikle Kemp over twenty years earlier, and may itself have influenced Worthington's designs for Manchester.
ORIGINS OF THE MUSEUM
“A picture gallery appears to be thought of as a fair, whereas what it should be is a temple, where in silent unspeaking humility and inspiring solitude, one may admire artists as the highest among mortals” – Wilhelm Heinrich Wackenroder 1797 (1773-1798) Wilhelm Heinrich Wackenroder was a writer on art who mainly focused on early German art and assisted in the development of German Romanticism with Ludwig Tieck. Wackenroder thought galleries and museums had moved away from being places to contemplate the wonders of the arts to being less reverential to the individual artist. Today, many museums and Art galleries could be described as “fairs” as they use entertainment and spectacles to encourage visitors such as the Tate Modern using videos/films being shown and sitting on the floor. Art galleries and museums now play a greater part in education, as they often include specific departments which focus on this, and they are also still places of entertainment and leisure. Originally, there would be a distinct barrier between a cultural elite and the general public and visiting a museum would be daunting to those who weren’t elites. In modern day, this barrier has been broken down and it is less intimidating thanks to the building themselves and to the displays and presentations. The exact definition of what a museum is under examination, as technology advances the way we receive information becomes more complex and interactive – the oxford dictionary defines a museum as: “A building in which objects of historical, scientific, artistic, or cultural interest are stored and exhibited” In times of diminishing funds, shops, cafes and restaurants have been opened in order to offer an additional income to support the upkeep of the museum. In recent years, visiting an art gallery or museum has become overwhelmingly popular and almost a branch of the entertainment industry. The museum was one of the earliest buildings specifically designed for the public displays of works of art, arranged according to the paintings medium, period and place of origin, with the purpose of demonstrating art’s civilising effects on the nation. A museum that Wackenroder would have appreciated would be the Altes Museum (1823 1830), German for “Old Museum”, and it is one of the renowned museums on Museum Island in Berlin. It was built between 1823 and 1830 by the architect Karl; Friedrich Schinkel in the neoclassical style, it housed the Prussian royal family’s art collection. Until called the königliches Museum (Royal Museum). Greek classicism is 1945, it was adopted which can be seen at the main front, on the Lustgarten is a colonnade of 18 sandstone Ionic columns in antis, 83.7m in length and 19.4m from the ground to the top of the cornice. In the entrance, the visitors are approached by a broad staircase, flanked by sculptures -the staircase leads to a monumental portico/columnar hall. Wackenroder would have seen the classical style to present the museum as a “temple of culture” and it is linked to the development from the time of Winckelmann, a writer/philosopher of the German enlightenment who followed on from Wackenroder, of an almost religious appreciation of artistic masterpieces. The interior of the museum is spacious and open with no interaction or entertainment spectacles so the viewers can solely appreciate the artworks – “one may admire artists as the highest among mortals”. Paintings displayed in the first floor north gallery and other departments to the east and the west of the rotunda and staircase. It was built on a tight budget meaning that the expensive Saxon stone was reserved for the façade and some of the classical detail, with the remainder executed I the local vernacular brick. Schinkel presents the museum as a tool for promoting social unity, perhaps a political tool
Before the Altes museum, there were “Wunderkammern”, German for WonderRoom, or Kunstkammer – an art room, which was first demonstrated in the Renaissance and were rooms or cabinets of curiosity which displayed objects whose categories boundaries were not known, they were random ones. The Kunstkammer symbolically conveyed the owner’s control of the world through its indoor, microscopic reproduction, these collections were precursors to museums and art galleries. The lower classes didn’t have at rooms in their homes but rather than just a cabinet full of curiosities/objects from exploration to new parts of the world. The use of cabinets emphasised the exceptional, the rare, and attempted to show the results both of God’s creation, nature, and of man’s craftsmanship and art. Although they were the precursor to museums the term cabinet signified a space for private contemplation. Initially, the were mostly found in North Europe and the earliest were those in Vienna – such as Ruldolph II 1553. Ruldolph II, 1552-1612, was a Holy Roman Emperor reigning from 1576 to 1612 and he loved the occult and curiosities who had a collection which assisted in the beginning of the age of reason in Europe and ultimately the Enlightenment.
ASHMOLEAN MUSEUM IN OXFORD
Ruldolph painted as VertumnusGod of Seasons and plant growth by Archimboldo (1591).
The best known “cabinet of curiosity” in England is the Ashmolean museum which was established by John Tradescant the Elder and John Tradescant the Younger, his son. Their cabinet was one of natural and artificial objects. In 1656 John Tradescant the Younger and Elias Ashmole compiled a printed catalogue of the Tradescant rarities, the first catalogue of its kind. In 1662, Tradescant the Younger left Ashmole his Cabinet of Curiosities and it officially opened as a museum on 21st may 1683. The Ashmolean museum, named after Elias Ashmole - a collector of antiquities who studied at the University of Oxford while posted to the military, was first housed in the old Ashmolean building, design by Thomas wood (1665-1695). The building included a fireproof chemical laboratory in the basement, a lecture theatre at ground level and a room for the rarities on the first floor. The Ashmolean museum was one of the first private collections permanently made public. Ashmole’s collection consisted of an extraordinary variety of artefacts including: Native American Indian Clothes; Buddhas: rare shells and stuffed birds; ivories; manuscripts; pictures of the Tradescants and their circle; a hawking glove of Henry VIII and antique medallions. At first, it resembled a large-scale 16th century Cabinet of Curiosity, all things displayed in a single room. Although, precious things were amongst its earliest holdings, works of art were not a collecting priority. In the mid-19th century the University decided to establish a new natural science museum, today known as the Oxford University Museum of Natural History, all the natural history specimens from the Ashmolean were transferred, and much of its original content was lost. Recently the museum went under a £61 million rebuild, designed by Rick Mather. The new arrangement will make cross-cultural connections easier and the Asian collections will be on the ground floor along with the classical collections. The new Ashmolean is a complex architectural design, combining double and single-height gallery spaces connected by a series of walkways and staircases, and strategically placed light wells to naturally light the gallery. All cabling was completely hidden through a variety of complex cabling routes as the aesthetics are paramount to the buildings integrity and overall experience for the visitor.