H. de Roos - The critique of the toronto exhibition |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
THE ROLE OF ACCIDENTS AND DAMAGE IN RODIN´S WORK (2) Romain on the Musée Rodin Website and in her interview with the Guardian suggests Rodin preferred fresh, clean plasters and would have discarded any damaged ones: Some plasters are damaged, and the claim is that Rodin
would have made sure they were destroyed. Moore counters that these are
interesting in themselves, for insights they provide into how Rodin
worked, and that the exhibition will provide technical analysis of the
casting process. We know that Rodin himself wilfully damaged plasters as a method of editing them: Lami records, Rodin would "mutilate" or
violently edit enlargements in their plaster form because he was not
satisfied with the translation of the modeling our proportions of a given
part. (The mold was still available to make other plasters so that Rodin
did not risk losing the entire work). The Musée Rodin itself owns a Thinker plaster with the
right leg and the left arm missing:
Evidently, this Thinker plaster is imperfect. But is this a plaster Rodin would have discarded? And even if Rodin himself would have done that, would the Musée Rodin do the same?
|
||||||||||||||||||||
