The Bay State Monthly — Volume 2, No. 3, December, 1884Various
History
The Bay State Monthly — Volume 2, No. 3, December, 1884
Various
Massachusetts -- Periodicals; New England -- Periodicals
Coming now to the main question, which it is the design of this paper to
discuss, the inquiry arises: What of the colossal statue of Liberty as a
work of art? For, no matter how noble the motive may be, or how generous
the givers, it must after all be subjected to this test. If it is not a
work of art, the larger it is, the more offensive it must be. There are
not wanting critics who maintain that colossal figures cannot be works
of art; they claim that such representations of the human form are
unnatural and monstrous, and it is true that they are able to point out
some "terrible examples" of modern failures, such, for instance, as the
"Bavaria" statue at Munich. But these writers appear to forget that the
"Minerva" of the Parthenon and the Olympian Jupiter were the works of
the greatest sculptor of ancient times, and that no less a man than
Michael Angelo was the author of the "David" and "Moses." It is
therefore apparent that those who deny the legitimacy of colossal
sculptures _in toto_ go too far; but it is quite true that colossal
works have their own laws and are subject to peculiar conditions. Mr.
Lesbazeilles[A] says that "colossal statuary is in its proper place when
it expresses power, majesty, the qualities that inspire respect and
fear; but it would be out of place if it sought to please us by the
expression of grace.... Its function is to set forth the sublime and the
grandiose." The colossi found among the ruins of Egyptian Temples and
Palaces cannot be seen without emotion, for if many of them are
admirable only because of their great size, still no observer can avoid
a feeling of astonishment on account of the vast energy, courage and
industry of the men of old who could vanquish such gigantic
difficulties. At the same time it will not do to assume that the
Egyptian stone cutters were not artists. The great Sphinx of Giseh, huge
as it is, is far from being a primitive and vulgar creation. "The
portions of the head which have been preserved," says Mr. Charles Blanc,
"the brow, the eyebrows, the corners of the eyes, the passage from the
temples to the cheek-bones, and from the cheek-bones to the cheek, the
remains of the mouth and chin,--all this testifies to an extraordinary
fineness of chiselling. The entire face has a solemn serenity and a
sovereign goodness." Leaving aside all consideration of the artistic
merits of other Egyptian colossi,--those at Memphis, Thebes, Karnac and
Luxor, with the twin marvels of Amenophis-Memnon--we turn to the most
famous colossus of antiquity, that at Rhodes, only to find that we have
even less evidence on which to base an opinion as to its quality than is
available in the case of the numerous primitive works of Egypt and of
India. We know its approximate dimensions, the material of which it was
made, and that it was overthrown by an earthquake, but there seems to be
reason to doubt its traditional attitude, and nothing is known as to
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account