Unlike most iconic artists of the 20th century, Rodin aimed to please the general public , not just a cultural elite - and he triumphed with both - giving him a reputation that no artist has had ever since.
Lorado Taft attributed the subsequent adulation to the decline of his powers.
Lorado Taft, Fountain of the Great Lakes
Taft notes that Rodin was often praised as a force of nature. But we should also note that the American high culture of his time wanted art to be a civilized alternative to nature’s brutal anarchy - and Taft as sculptor served that more genteel taste.
Rodin, John the Baptist Preaching
According to Rodin,
he saw the model before he saw St. John.
Taft compares his first great piece, St. John the Baptist, to a contemporary version by Delaplanche (1831-1892). Regretfully, no male nude at all by him can be found online. He appears to have specialized in the female figure.
Giovanni Rustici, 1506
A great version from Renaissance Italy,
obviously intended to meet viewers in a church.
Rodin’s preaching Baptist confronts them outdoors.
Houdin, , 1767
Boizot (1743-1809)
These three earlier examples sure feel tame compared to Rodin’s.
Eugene Delaplanche, George Washington , Terra cotta
Here is a Delaplanche bust of the great American statesman. He was quite a sculptor - and did a great job with expressing calm rationality in a noble character - something quite foreign to Rodin.
Both sculptors did Eve, however, and that makes for an interesting comparison.
Rodin, Eve
Delaplanche, Eve
A more naughty, sexy, and defiant Eve.
Taft’s comparison of the two St. Johns as follows:
In 1880 the revolutionary "St. John the Baptist" ywas exhibited and at once awakened a storm of protest. We have become familiar with it, and, further, we do not take such things so "hard" as do the French; it is therefore difficult to comprehend the violence of emotions aroused forty years ago in the artistic capital of the world by so unprecedented a work as this. Perhaps the feeling of antagonism may be better understood if one recalls the traditional treatment of the subject, the kind of image which was welcome in the French church. "John the Baptist" by the once famous Eugène Delaplanche will illustrate.
Observe the perfect decorum, the easy attitude of the seated figure, the graceful gesture—it might be a languid request for a fan!-the sleek body and well-combed hair. Contrast with this the wild man of Rodin's vision! Our sculptor has read his Bible to a purpose; he knows that the prophet was haggard and unkempt, was burdened by his tragic mission. He must save a perishing world. His feet are calloused by the burning sands of the desert; his garment is a shaggy hide; his food but the precarious yield of the wilderness.
"And preaching as one does battle, he makes a violent gesture which seems to scatter anathemas. His face is illumined with a mystic light, his mouth vomits imprecations.
Probably you or I never thought of John the Baptist in just this fashion, but then we are not Rodins. He has made of him a fanatic in a noble cause and has interpreted his very soul as it had not been done since the days of Donatello. He shocked the critics of Paris as John shocked those of Galilee and Judea, but Rodin had made himself famous and found influential friends.
In 1881 his "Eve"was offered to the public
—another great sculptural thought. A truly potential mother of the race, she stands "bent beneath her shame, apparently in horror of herself, fierce in attitude, sullen of expression."
As might be expected, "Eve" was speedily followed by "Adam" a conception of great power, reminiscent of certain favorite poses of Michelangelo.
In this massive work we have the first appearance of Rodin's mania for exaggeration. Little hint is here, however, of the deformities which are to come.
Rodin, Ugolino
The
: "Ugolino" , which appeared in 1882, is one of Rodin's very few groups of more than a couple of figures. Its failure as a composition, its naive absence of all beauty of line, may perhaps explain in a measure why the experiment was not repeated. Beside Carpeaux' masterly achievement this group seems almost childish.
I’m not sure that “beauty of line” is really appropriate for this subject matter - which, actually, I’d rather not see at all. But if a sculpture must represent it - I’d rather it feel tragically broken rather than as the triumph of horror.
But if the "Uglino" failed to create the expected sensation already become so dear to the sculptor, certain smaller works had a success of much greater value. It was in this same year, 1882, that he began that series of extraordinary busts which were destined to put his fame upon a secure foundation and to extort the praise of all who recognize masterly craftsmanship. There was no gainsaying their likeness, and the vividness and charm of handling were equally obvious.
In not one of this early group of busts do we find lacking these two precious qualities: the incisive char-acterization, that intensity of life which unmasks the very soul, and almost equally important in a great work of art—a masterly subordination of nonessentials, which Rodin understood better than any of his contemporaries. There is no "frittering away of the general effect in useless details." With him cravats and buttonholes are of small importance compared with the face.
Rodin, bust of Lauren’s
The first was an
astonishing head of Jean Paul
Laurens the eminent painter. M. Laurens was never a professional beauty and had no illusions on the subject; it is said that he did protest, however, that he was not in the habit of keeping his mouth open. The artist compromised by leaving it open, with the result here shown.
A compromise indeed - I like Taft’s dry sense of humor. Much more about Rodin’s heroic masculinity than the sitter himself.
This one feels more like a personality - which probably varies from cast to cast.
The bust of Victor Hugo was executed under most unfavorable circumstances. The Olympian poet was old and irascible and had been bored for years by painters and sculptors. He absolutely refused to pose, but allowed Rodin to work on the outside of a circle of visitors. The portrait is a marvelous characterization of one of France's greatest sons.
Rodin, bust of Dalou
More like a satyr than a gentleman
The ascetic head of Dalou is another which gives joy to every sculptor. No, there was one exception;
Dalou himself did not appreciate it, and relations thereafter were never cordial. As well might a man with his mirror!
Rodin, portrait of Mme Vicunha
The feeling of structure in this cranium has not been surpassed in modern times.
Everyone knows the bust of the South American lady, Mme Morla Vicunha , which has so long been the gem of the Luxembourg Gallery. This head shows some of the most delicate, mellow modeling ever seen, the perfection of marble-cutting; the neck and bosom, likewise, are nothing else than soft, white flesh.
Art can go no farther. Then the master considered his work done. With a sort of noble petulance he has scratched the suggestion of drapery into shape. For a moment he has played with the clay and pressed the loose scraps into semblance of flowers. And he has been very careful that the marble-cutter should not develop them any farther. On all this subordinate portion of the bust the tooth-marks of the tool remain; everything is blurred in order that the face may have entire attention.
The result is one of the greatest works of sculpture of our time. Even today you will seldom find it without its circle of admiring artists, gathered like buzzing bees around a blossom, all endeavoring to penetrate its secret.
The photo leaves me less enthusiastic. It seems only pleasant - like something to accompany tropical foliage in an indoor garden. Taft would likely appreciate that more than I.
It was in 1882 that Rodin exhibited his bust of Rochefort, the communist editor, and that of Puvis de Chavannes , the great decorator. Perhaps the latter is the most impressive of the series. There is an almost Egyptian serenity and aloofness in the pose. No modern has wrought more admirably. One is surprised to learn that here, as with most of these heads, the original was far from pleased. Like Sargent's portraits they were "too true"! Of them an eminent authority—not a subject—has said: "Life, thought, strength, and character are here carried as far as it is possible."
But that life and character may belong more to the sculptor than the subject
In 1889 Rodin produced the first of his portrait / statues with which we are familiar, the "Bastien-Lepage" for the painter's native village of Damvillers.
Already the sculptor had begun to feel the pressure of that admiring group who required from him something novel and startling upon every occasion. Despite its heroic stride, this figure seems disjointed and weak in pose. It is said that it gave little satisfaction to the people of the neighborhood who had known the painter.
They pronounce the statue a caricature.
Bastien- Lepage, October, 1878
Rodin’s portrait of the painter also appears disjointed and weak to me - but I don’t think Rodin was just aiming at novelty. It kind if resembles the painter’s own work. It seems appropriate to honor an artist by echoing his sensibility. It’s just that I insufficiently appreciate that sensibility as well as the monument to it.
Not less strange but far more pleasing is the well-known work called "Thought" This great mass of rough rock supporting a delicate head seems like an affectation of originality, but there is probably a symbolism intended - of the soul's flowering above inert matter. At any rate the head is exquisite a portrait of one of Rodin's most brilliant young pupils of the time, Mille Camille Claudel.
Might also symbolize a disconnect between mind and body. For me, it’s a nightmare vision - especially when you know what happened to Camille Claudel.
A truly delightful product of those busy years is the so-called "Caryatide" Although unimportant in theme and, like much of Rodin's later work, a mere fragment, it is so happily compacted and so subtly modeled in the parts which are emphasized that it is to be counted among the master's most pleasing works.
It is a strange theme, isn’t it.? The half nude young woman supports a rough hewn rock rather than an architectural element.
Taft does not specify which variant he is applauding, but it makes a difference.
Even better known is the exquisite "Danaïde" The perfection of the modeling of back and shoulders is brought out in vivid contrast with the summary, sketchy treatment of other parts. The artist has
illuminated, as it were, the portion that interests him; the rest is neglected—thrown out of focus. Thus Rodin
"increases the gamut of his effects," as Brownell has so well put it. It is one of his great discoveries and a salient characteristic of much of his work.
Where he discovered this new means of emphasis is suggested by Kenyon Cox in one of his admirable essays:
"It is impossible to suppose that Michelangelo was himself insensible to that strange charm which is so visible to all of us in his unfinished work that it has recently become the fashion to seek for it deliberately and to plan for it in the clay. He was continually striving to infuse into sculpture meanings which it was not meant to express and could not hold. His deep poetic spirit tried to express itself through the medium of the most simple, classical, and formal of the arts, and he was unaided by the delicate technical methods of the earlier sculptors of the Renaissance, which he never understood.
What more natural than that he should have found the sentiment evaporating as the work advanced and should have, half despairingly, left to the unfinish of the sketch the suggestion of things which the cold completeness of the finished marble could never convey? He 'could not content himself,' and his statues remain more impressive. in their incompletion than the finished work of any modern."
Kenyon Cox was one bold fellow. In a previous quote he trashed Rodin - and here he tells us Michelangelo did not understand the expressive capacity of the earlier Renaissance sculpture. I’d love to read him expanding on that idea - but a free download of his monograph is not currently available.
Now, however, we are to have another glimpse of the limitations of our hero. It was in 1892 that he made public his monument to the great painter Claude Gellée, whom we call Claude Lorrain .
This spirited and unconventional work does not reveal an appreciation of the needs of a composition to be viewed from a distance.
Its silhouette is strangely confused and inelegant.
Hard to judge from photos. The side view does seem more elegant. It may have been intended to be seen in the wild rather than in a well mannered garden.
You will remember that it was said of Claude Lorrain that he "put the sun in the heavens." The sculptor has seized this famous characterization of Claude's luminous art and symbolizes the sun by the presence of Phoebus Apollo and his fiery chariot.
I’m guessing that the idea is that plein air painters are always chasing the sun- shadows are constantly changing. And so the statuary has a flickering, uncertain quality.
Except that ——— Claude’s paintings are not like that. They have a warm, steady, eternal, mythical glow.
But even his dazzling discovery will hardly explain the startled attitude of the painter. Rodin often assured us that his great quest was " to find the latent heroic in every natural movement"; here, however, he has certainly failed to express himself in nobility of line.
The monument must have been a strong dose for his disciples, but they rallied to the defense and in joyful strains like the following proclaimed the beauty and profundity of the master's conception: "Down to his very toes Claude seems to be preoccupied by his one idea to seize the passing effect in his mind's eye, to find its equivalent on the palette, and to render it on the canvas. He is fully absorbed in the task of the moment. You feel distinctly that in a minute the impression will have vanished and that it must be caught at once. You realize the importance this instant assumes to the painter, the strain on whose mind is reflected in the slight contortion of the body, huddled up for fear, as it were, lest the effect should slip from his hold."
' Of this group one of Rodin's greatest eulogists, Camille Mauclair, has said: "The horses and the Apollo are the most living, palpitating, and lyrical things that Rodin has produced."
I agree that the lines quoted above strain credulity.
We have not time to tell the story, but you will recall how the six hostages were brought before the English king in their shirts, with halters about their necks, bearing the keys of their unfortunate city. It matters little today that the piteous queen interceded and their lives were spared. The important thing is that they offered themselves to save their city and that centuries later the greatest of modern sculptors immortalized them in these weird figures. That melancholy procession marching to its fate is what Rodin has chosen to represent in such extraordinary fashion, with an art so vital, so uncouth, and yet so irresistible. Strange as shadowy, twilighted tree-trunks, gnarled and riven, are these heroes of old. They might be the stalagmites with which Nature adorns the floors of caverns.
Without precedent in the history of sculpture, they are, in the opinion of many, Rodin's highest achievement.
I would say that some of Rodin's highest achievements are among the studies and variants for this commission . But some of his lurid monstrosities are there too.
.
H
Lorado’s memory failed him here. The burgher holding the enormous key - a cast of which is in the Art Institute of Chicago - is Jean D’Aire, not Eustache d’ Saint Pierre.
"The Burghers" are not a group at all; some would even deny them the dignity of being a composition, claiming that they are merely six independent figures set side by side.
But,
however classified, they are a triumph of originality.
A "triumph of originality" ? ... That's not something one would say if a more important kind of triumph had been recognized.
Rodin, monument to Victor Hugo
This is the only good view I’ve seen, and it feels silly and overblown.
The Pantheon required a monument to Victor Hugo.
It was proposed that Rodin make it. As usual, his conception was a novel one; a nude figure with outstretched arm, seated apparently on the seashore; two female forms with elfish
1 faces behind the poet—muses, the
sculptor called them (Fig. 22). The meaning of the gesture of the left arm no one has ever interpreted. Is the great writer playing King Canute and ordering back the waves?
Another disappointment awaited our sculptor. After years of work and delay the group was adjudged unsuited to its place, and finally the old poet, stripped of even his muses, was set out stark and pitiful in the garden of the Palais Royal. However, the fire of his spirit remains unquenched, and his proud gesture is more enigmatic than ever.
Such experiments in simplification as the "Burghers of Calais" could result in only one thing. The enthusiast must, for once at least, push even farther his investigation of possibilities.
HRodin, Balzac, photo by Steichen
As you will read below, Taft had empathy for Rodin’s Balzac, so I have selected one of the best photos of it. A tree looks good regardless of view or lighting - and sculpture can be designed to do so as well. Bernini is an example. But if the sculptor wants more subtle, profound effects, bad lighting can make it look like a monstrosity.
The above shows Balzac\ as a defiant, sensitive genius.
In some photos of this piece, however, Balzac is more like a fool groping himself.
He did so, and the "Balzac," first shown in 1898, was the result. Although appearances are against it , this strange creation is not to be treated with disrespect.
It is not a joke nor a piece of
effrontery. Its author had a serious intention. He was trying to eliminate all nonessentials —to present, reduced to lowest terms, the most vividly personal aspect of the extraordinary, misshapen genius whom men call Balzac.
Mallarmé, following Lamartine, has described him: "He had the face of an element, with a big head, the hair hanging about his coat-collar and cheeks like a mane which had never seen a pair of scissors .... a flaming eye, a colossal body. He was fat, thick, square at the shoulders and feet, with much of Mirabeau's ampleness but no heaviness; there was so much soul that it could bear the weight of the body easily, and it seemed to add to rather than to subtract from his strength. His short arms gesticulated with ease." It was his wont to wander at night through his house draped in a long dressing-gown.
It has been Rodin's aim perhaps to re-create the impression of this passing figure as seen in the flickering candle-light. The effigy of Balzac comes as near to being an abstraction as seems possible in the art of sculpture.
Some denied that it was a statue at all: it was called a
"menhir," "a pagan dedicatory stone," "an upright sarcophagus."
an upright sarcophagus ? Nice description.
I asked google AI to name the best sculptural monuments to literary figures and Rodin's Balzac came in fifth. I think it’s kind of a joke - but it’s the most sculptural of the lot. Predictably, none of the others rise above literary illustration.
Of all the battles in Rodin's tempestuous life, never was there such a one as raged about this strange form.
Rodenbach, the Belgian poet, was inspired to say things like this about it: "The head emerges .... frightened to see all it sees, frightened, especially, to come in contact with life for so short a time the face of genius rising out of matter to return to matter—the lump of anguish sticks in the throat—itself an ephemeral mask summing up all the masks of the Human Comedy. Do not here seek a likeness but a dramatic evocation. .... Men of genius are less men than monsters. That is what Rodin has understood and rendered so magnificently."
Arthur Symons proclaimed it "the proudest thing that has been made out of clay." Besnard, the painter, wrote: "He surges forth out of his pedestal like one ready to thrust himself into life. Rodin has expressed the intense, palpitating, suffering genius of a powerful psychologist, for to no other belongs that particular
"The 'Balzac'," declares another eulogist, "has the synthetical, enormous character of a great shadow, borrowing from life's forms, as do shadows, to create another form, rather than a docile mould of life. .... The
'Bourgeois'
are merely heroes of life; Balzac is its con-
quering hero. And that is why, having accomplished a superhuman task, he here assumes an almost superhuman aspect, an aspect where the masculine beauty of character rises superior to the feminine beauty of form."
The statue was declined by the Société des Gens de Lettres which had ordered it, and a figure more to their taste was handily produced by Falguière.
Falgueire, Balzac
I like this contemplative version - but it belongs in a cemetery.
Rodin's Balzac calls for a more lively setting.
There’s something cinematic about this piece.
Sentiment and craft
to appeal to a wide audience.
Power and presence are partially sacrificed.
At the Exposition of 1900 Rodin was represented in the Art Palace by the exquisite marble group called "Le Baiser "—"The Kiss". It was shown among a collection of the great works of recent years contributed by many of the leaders of modern sculpture, and it must be confessed that its atmospheric handling made its companions look very hard and arid. Indeed, a late group by Frémiet, alongside, seemed like the work of a steamfitter—you could have believed that those arms and legs had been screwed into place with pincers and tongs! With just as great a truth of drawing Rodin had known how to modify discordant black shadows—
to "amplify his surfaces," as he called it-until the result seemed perfectly luminous.
The admirably
modeled limbs became part of the whole, insistent details melting together into a delightful unity. The fluent surfaces echoed the charm of the composition, and the group from every view gave joy to the eye. The artist had not only "kept his work white," but had made it positively radiant.
Rodin's monument to Sarmiento, one time president of Argentina and an educator of great influence, was most unfavorably received at its destination. The portrait was bitterly criticized, but artists generally concede that the symbolic group in the pedestal, " Apollo Victorious over the Hydra" , is one of the master's very successful achievements, a powerful conception most adequately translated into stone.
Wonder what the objections were. Does he look too much like a hyper critical school master? That’s what I like about it. The mythological base seems vapid, though its idealism is a nice contrast to the portrait.
There remained other worlds to conquer, and I have now to tell you of an undertaking which was in a sense the leit-motif of Rodin's life. Away back in the early eighties M. Turquet, minister of the Fine Arts, had listened to the sculptor's description of some bronze doors which he wished to model. Carried away by his elo-quence, the minister commissioned him to execute them for a mythical palace of the Fine Arts. These doors, which were never made, for a building which will never be erected, were the greatest thing in the life of Rodin.
He called them "The Gates of Hell," and his grandiose idea was to picture thereupon the whole story of Dante's Inferno, while above them in the tympanum of the portal should sit the brooding figure of the poet whose dreams
are thus shown forth. This figure has been triumphantly realized in gigantic proportions in the well-known
"Thinker" of the Paris Pantheon
In contemplating its unintellectual countenance one's first thought is that the artist must have deviated from his original intention; at any rate he has given us another of his primitive men, not so much a thinker as one who is trying to think-and finding it a painful operation.
The pose, however, is admirable, and the solidity of the composition makes it one of the most sculptural of
modern thoughts.
The irregular panels of the door were to contain countless groups, and herein it is that the work became not the promised "Gates of Hell" but, to Rodin at least, a portal to fame and fortune. For those groups never stayed in their place! One after another they were cut out and enlarged into independent compositions. It was truly a miracle-working door of incredible fecundity, a talisman, the mere touch of which produced wonders.
And through it the sculptor entered into his kingdom.
No man, however great his facility, could execute all the subjects suggested by those swarming panels. At last the old man acknowledged that he would never finish his task. "Too many new sins have been invented," he said genially; "I cannot keep up with them." They have served their purpose; though they remain but dream doors, they are the most wonderful portals in the world.
Rodin, Child’s Dream
The image that Taft’s book provided is the only one I could find. It does look miserable.
In the "Child's Dream" Rodin has repeated, in a fashion, the idea of the Gates, translating it into the language of youth. Above is the dreamer; below are the fantastic visions. Was ever anything more naively incoherent ! The silhouette is broken, tormented, and the purpose quite obscured in the tangle. This is true of many of his subsequent works, which seem to have been done hastily for commercial purposes. While his wonderful modeling saved them from utter failure, and now and then an exceptionally beautiful one shines forth like a light in a naughty world, the great mass of his later output was sadly disappointing. In his anxiety to avoid academic balance and traditional composition he gave much of his work the look of "accidents"-not a few of them lamentable ones.
He seldom united more than two figures, never attempting sustained design, as in a frieze or a pediment.
The "organic fabric" of design is lacking. His only. large group which one recalls is the "Burghers of Calais," which is absolutely without union of line. But even in the smaller compositions Rodin is often revolutionary in an illegible way. Is it a parti pris? Is it the result of carelessness, or is it a constitutional defect? Probably all of these influences entered into a conspiracy against him, while perhaps supremely powerful was the circumstance that for years he was surrounded and impeded by that unreasoning chorus of praise, a clamor so resolute and insistent that it would confuse any human being.
Is it to be wondered then that the master's later works are very uneven in value and often unworthy of his fame?
As examples of childish, or senile, fancies utterly undeserving of perpetuation we may cite "A Night in May" , La Source, and Sappho.
Rodin, A Night in May
Rodin, "La Source"
"Sappho"
“Sappho” is the only one I could find on the internet- and tragically it disappeared after being plundered by the Nazis. Or maybe not so tragically- it does feel like a pastiche that was handed to a stone cutter prematurely. All three exemplify what Steinberg called “modern”
Was ever a work of art more hopelessly obscure than the snow-covered bodies in Figure 49?
Rodin, Centauress, modeled 1887
My especial abomination, however, is "The Centauress" a violent variant of the traditional Greek theme, which, we are told, represents (under the alternative title of "The Soul and the Body") the conflict of two forms of life, one higher, one lower. The exceptional length and slender proportions of the human figure, as it emerges from the body of the horse, have been taken to symbolize the long straining of the soul to free itself from earthly conditions. In the presence of this monstrosity one is tempted to quote Rodin himself: "It would be better not to study the antique than to study it wrong."
Though I share Taft’s dismay on several pieces, this one connects to me more than any other sculpted centaur, stallion or mare. Has body/spirit conflict ever been so effectively presented? It grabs space and concept with equal force. Might disappoint up close, but would definitely command my attention across a room.
Barye, Theseus Fighting the Centaur, modeled c. 1849 or 1855
This might be the earliest version, cast in plaster.
Larger version I’ve seen many times at the Met.
Impressive, but can’t relate to it.
Though by contrast, everything Taft made feels like illustration in a national magazine. Fun, competent, normalizing, nothing more. Social norms are very important to a public sculptor. Rodin flaunted them - so many of his commissions were controversial and even rejected.
Rodin, variations on a two person pose
Taft likes this straight ahead glorification of youthful heterosexuality. It has gone under three titles and multiple variations in size and design - often adding in foliage to support the marble or simplify the casting process.
It’s a variation of an 18th c. theme like the below:
Clodion, Cupid and Psyche
Clodion, Zephyrus and Flora.
These pieces are better than all the Rodin couples above, except for the earliest and most original.
One turns with relief from such claptrap to the harmonious composition and fluent surfaces of "Spring-time" and "Brother and Sister"
the tragic impression of Dusé and the exquisite bust of Miss Eve Fairfax .
In more ways than one that striking little group,
"The Eternal Idol" , epitomizes the art of Rodin and symbolizes his creed. It is a wonderful bit of modeling and more it reveals the final shrine of his worship. Cortissoz sums it up: "His is a profoundly sensuous art, sensuous to the core, and while he has been attacking high erected themes, these have not, on his own confession, really mattered to him; it has been enough for him to caress in his marble or bronze a living form."
Eternal Idol, conceived 1888
This is the first time I’ve noticed the word “conceived” in place of “first modeled”, and it does seem more fitting since idea gets more attention than form throughout the many editions - many of which, for me, are awkward from many, if not all views.
Woman : “ here is my body, open to you”
Man: “respectfully, on my knees, I worship it”
The romantic ideal of the working class?
Quite different from the nymphs and fawns of the previous century.
Clodion
Wanton hedonism so different from the sincere devotion and surrender of Rodin’s married couple on their wedding night who are not looking into each others eyes. More like they’re each in their own worlds, behaving as young adults should in a Roman Catholic world.
Rodin, Romeo and Juliet
Possibly Taft objected to the premature nudity of these young lovers on the balcony. But I have no problem with Romeo jumping the gun.
His indifference to the subject is amusingly illustrated in the two nude bodies which he calls "Romeo and Juliet"
Rodin,
while that other group which is labeled "Prometheus and Sea Nymph" would have gone forth under the blasphemous title of "Christ and Magdalene”except for the protest of friends. As a rule an artist's private life is irrelevant, but it is notorious that Rodin was a genial satyr, and the fact is significant as
explaining much of his later work. You will recall that he was anterior to morality and sin," and naturally enough his feelings were hurt when the Parisian journals went into particulars!
Today, the museum owning this piece has returned to the earlier blasphemous title. Might have been interesting before it was put into marble.
In atonement let us conclude with a benediction from
Camille Mauclair:
"He is the supreme painter of man bowed by intense, melancholic, feverish, constricting thought; .... he is the caressing creator of women in love, the poet of youth embracing and radiant. Only a genius can have the diversity of mind that produces the "Burghers of Calais," ascetic and medieval, the spasmodic "Hell," the almost abstract "Balzac," the bronze busts worthy of Donatello, and the images of women carved in the radiant and golden marble of Attica by a sensuous and subtle enthusiast who has rediscovered the soul of Hellenic beauty. This union, of technical skill, evolved according to the secrets of the antique, with a power of expressing all human sentiments from gentleness to lewdness,
from the mystic to the
pathetic, from nervous disorganization to carnal frankness, this union of contraries and this universality are not to be found in any of our forerunners. Not Puget, nor Rude, nor any of our masters has had such intellectual ubiquity, such strength of condensation; in these points it is allowable, even in our own day, to acknowledge Rodin as supreme in the rich French school and thus to anticipate the judgment of the future, in whose eyes he will loom yet larger. No, that is just a bit too strong.
So far, the judgment of the future has been identifying him as the father of modern sculpture. But that may eventually become less flattering. I see Rodin’s range of expression as limited by his background and education.
Suppose we let
Mr. Cortissoz have the last word—a gentle one:
"He has been the 'new' man, the one type that was
"different,' and, in their longing for reaction against the rules of the Ecole des Beaux-Arts and the Salon, crowds of his contemporaries have hailed him as a kind of Moses, destined to lead them into the promised land. Poor Rodin! He never dreamed of doing anything of the sort.
Sometimes, in the quietude of reflection among his beloved antiques, he must think with a sort of mild astonishment of all the bother that has been made about his art."
Gentle? More like condescending. Royal Cortissoz, an art journalist for the New York Herald Tribune, gave Rodin a chapter in his book “Art and Common Sense” (1913 - the year of the Armory Show).
The entire text can be read online. Regarding painting, Cortissez admired the innovations of Manet and Monet, but had little use for “egoists” like Cezanne , Van Gogh, Matisse, and Picasso: “ This is not a principle, a movement, It is unadulterated cheek”.
In my view, judgement follows the experience of looking at single pieces. Thoughts about principles and movements are not involved. He may have felt differently if, like us, a hundred years later, he had convenient access to all the best works of the early Modernists.
But he critiques Rodin’s sculptures along different lines - and I happen to mostly agree - even with his condescension. Rodin was nearsighted in more ways than one.
Here are the concluding words of his chapter:
Where we don’t agree regards the inner power of the standing men, made early in Rodin’s career .
They do lead towards a promised land - though not especially a new one. He would probably deny it, but Cortissoz is a typical Modernist critic in that he wants to see progress with new ideas, new principles. I only want to see things that are really really good - and I doubt such goodness is totally accessible to anyone, especially those who have no more than “common sense”.
********
Here are some photos I just took at the Art Institute of Chicago.
I’m in awe whenever I see this piece.
The happy unification of such complexity
seen from any angle.
And it’s not just virtuosic modeling.
It is Man in all his gentle power.
It’s a moral vision of masculinity.
Sensitive, strong, ready.
If not especially intelligent or spiritual.
I hope Rodin will forgive all of the mean things Taft, Cortissez, and I have written.
I
Yikes!
What a foot.
But here we start to have problems.
The marble carver was gifted
but not like Rodin.
The back is painful.
Emile-Antoine Bourdelle began this depiction of Apollo. the Greco-Roman god of the sun, while he was still employed as an assistant to Auguste Rodin. He later described the work as a turning point in his development:
* broke away from the deeply pocketed surfaces, from the accidental, in search of the permanent plane. I looked for what is essential in a structure, giving less importance to transient waves, and I have gone even further and sought the universal rhythm."
For Rodin, the sculpture marked the definitive stylistic rupture between himself and his pupil, and on first seeing it he exclaimed, "Ah Bourdelle, vous me quittez ("Bourdelle. you are leaving me!")
…..gallery signage
Not sure how this differs from what Bourdelle did previously. The ruination echoes Rodin.
No comments:
Post a Comment