LONG TORSO
PHOTO SOURCE: Hirsh Library Research Guide
ARTIST: Unknown Roman
CULTURE / NATIONALITY: Roman
TITLES: Torso of Aphrodite
DATE: 100 BC–100 AD
MEDIUM: Marble
DIMENSIONS: 47x23x12 in., 500lb. (119.4x58.4x30.5 cm, 226.8kg)
Base: 34x21x21 in., 100lb. (86.4x53.3x53.3 cm, 45.4kg)
CREDIT LINE: Museum purchase funded by the Caroline Wiess Law Foundation with additional funds provided by “One Great Night in November 2004”
OBJECT NUMBER: 2004.1614
CURRENT LOCATION: The Audrey Jones Beck Building 104 Cullen Foundation Atrium
At the Museum of Fine Arts Houston (MFAH), there is a wide variety of ancient art ranging from Greek and Roman time periods. The largest museum east of California, west of New York, and south of Chicago displays a monumental selection of classical art to the citizens of Houston. Viewers are able to see sculptures, mosaics, jewelry, and materials from the era of antiquity. The MFAH’s mission is to give the public instant access to history. The museum has most of the classic works of art at the front of the museum. Walking into the Beck Building at the Museum of Fine Arts Houston, you’d immediately notice the variety of Greek and Roman sculptures at the main entrance. The museum provides an introduction to the styles of our ancient world (MFAH). Placed in the front aisle of the opening gallery is the Torso of Aphrodite. She brings light to this selection of works and displays the idealism of classical art. It immediately catches the viewer’s gaze. I think the museum takes advantage of her beauty. She takes the viewer’s attention and composes the famous vision of the sculpting age, idealism. The Torso of Aphrodite is an excellent example of the museum’s Roman antiquity collection and portrayal of the Hellenistic “ideal” because of its respected medium, subject matter, and history.
While observing this work, one immediately recognizes the absence of the head and both of the arms. Like other representations of Aphrodite, the Torso of Aphrodite truly breaks through many of the barriers that were set in the antiquity era. Barriers that were placed based on conservationism rather than literally a human body. Instantaneously it is clear that she is not wearing any clothing and that she is completely nude. This representation was a fresh idea. Typically one would depict Aphrodite in any type of clothing. Before the Hellenistic age, it’s commonly understood that Praxiteles’ Aphrodite of Knidos was the first fully nude woman (Fig. 5-45 Stockstad & Cothren 144). Similar to Aphrodite of Knidos, the Torso of Aphrodite is portrayed bathing. Her figure is made in white marble, giving it a glistening touch (Wall Text, Museum of Fine Arts Houston). The marble makes the Hellenistic style. By missing the head and the arms, her torso exposes not only her frame but also her composition. On her left arm, there is a visible piece of jewelry. A clear example of cool taste. She has distinctive features that set her up as a treasure in the museum’s classic collection. The sculpture’s lighting, positioning, and charisma are uniquely different than the other pieces. Viewers can see the slight contrapposto, the feminine S-curve, and her shifted legs. She is technically in action, she is preparing for a bath and doesn’t possess the static posture as the earlier Greek sculptures had. This is the norm for Hellenistic sculpture — to appear to be in the middle of an activity. The viewers look up to her because she is a goddess. We are part of the narrative as if we are walking in on the moment of her bathing, which is something that the sculptor is clearly thinking about. Now it feels invasive? I know she’s a sculpture but this is still Aphrodite.
Viewers can recognize the natural lines by carefully observing the realistic detail and her curves. The shading and definition of her feature distinguish her from the other sculptures in the opening gallery of the museum. Under strict reflection, it is easily identified as a goddess. It is so recognizable because of the construction. The Romans were still depicting goddesses as opposed to everyday women. This sculpture looks ideal, not general. Despite missing her limbs, the current condition of the sculpture is fantastic. By being carved in marble, its durability and strength are principal. Weighing at 500 pounds and standing about 4 feet tall, the sculpture has an elevated and large presence on a podium (Wall Text, MFAH). Her positioning is deliberate. The Torso of Aphrodite directs our vision and attention to HER.
Is the condition of the Torso of Aphrodite still considered ideal to Greek standards as compared to the Roman? Hellenistic Greek standards can be finite. The Greeks praised the anatomy of humans. Being as naturalistic as possible, they still retained the standards of perfection in every way. In Italy, there is evidence that the Romans wanted this out of their art. They took direct influence from the Greeks and there is no drastic difference. All of the inaugurate traditions the Greeks had would continue to flourish far into the Roman period because they marveled at them (Stewart 268). But they did have a different mentality in what they wanted out of their art. As opposed to the Greeks, who just had one straight vision of humanistic art, the Romans had three different approaches to sculpture. The first is their idealization, which would include the representation of the Roman divinities, mythological figures, and heroic features. Many Romans sculptures are replicas of Greek masterpieces. It is interesting that the title of this piece is the Torso of Aphrodite but it is Roman. Wouldn’t that declare it to be Greek, the Roman goddess of love and beauty is Venus? The second and third could be described as portraits and small ornamented subjects (Kleiner 9). It is known that Roman art was not meant for creative capabilities. The Roman replicas of famous Greek originals valued more with patron’s interest because they had the Hellenic taste that was so demanded (Kleiner 6). With the Torso of Aphrodite, the wall text prompts us to have the interpretation that it is Roman but to debate chronology, and the exceptions with context and style, the main difficulty lies in deciding what is Hellenistic and what is Roman (Stewart 269). It could be an original Hellenistic or what is just simply a Roman copy.
The transition from Hellenistic to Roman empires certainly had geographical achievement. It started in Etruria, the land of the Tuscan region in Italy, which for a brief period of time was under the Greeks. Rome was thriving and with the conquering of Etruria, they pursued to take the few traces of classical styles. The art then blended into Roman art (Bieber 168). It was a mix of two cultures, one that had been diminished by conquest and the other on the rise of an empire. Copies of masterpieces had to be exact as possible. Although, it’s known that some could have been altered. Divinity and worship could have been seen differently by the Romans (Bieber 179). It is clear that the Romans had a greater interest in the Hellenistic classical types of sculpture, displaying their deities more than the contemporary subjects of their time (Bieber 180). That could explain why the Museum of Fine Arts Houston labeled the Torso of Aphrodite “Roman.” It was popular to produce these copies.
Interesting that the museum displayed this ambiguity. At first blush, it is hard to individualize the Torso of Aphrodite because her elements are so similarly Hellenistic and Roman. The depiction of the female goddess is obvious but by taking a constructive formal analysis one would question where it came from. It can be debated that the Roman’s insane demand for Hellenistic replications in sculpture saved the Greeks from being non-existent (Bieber 191). We are able to see these copies and compare them to what we know of the originals. The Museum of Fine Arts Houston leads by example. By first recognizing the marble, seeing the representation of a female goddess, and reading the wall text, the formal analysis would rest solely on interpretation and knowledge of the piece.
Work Cited:
Bieber, Margaret. The Sculpture of the Hellenistic Age.: Revised Edition. N.p.: Hacker, 1981. Print.
Kleiner, Diana E. E. Roman Sculpture. New Haven: Yale UP, 1992. Print.
"MFAH | Curatorial Departments | Antiquities." MFAH | Curatorial Departments | Antiquities. MFAH, 2012. Web. 05 Nov. 2012. http://www.mfah.org/art/departments/antiquities/.
Stewart, Andrew. "Hellenistic Freestanding Sculpture from the Athenian Agora, Part 1: Aphrodite." Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens 81.2 (2012): 267-342. Print.
Stockstad, Marilyn, and Michael W. Cothren. Art History: Ancient Art. 4th ed. Upper Saddle City, New Jersey: Pearson Education, 2011. Print. Book One.
Wall Text, Beck Building Collection, Museum of Fine Arts Houston, Houston, Texas