Posted on 11/13/2002 2:02:19 PM PST by Rodney King
By SAM HAYES
MELOS, Greece — The missing arms of the Venus de Milo were discovered last week in a cellar in Southern Croatia — and it turns out she’s got hideous man-hands!
“We rushed the arms to the Louvre in Paris and matched them up to the statue. They were a perfect fit,” says art historian Ovidio Bartoli.
“Then we did some carbon-dating and we confirmed that these are the real deal.”
Word of the discovery has created an uproar in the art world.
“It’s hard to believe someone so talented in anatomy would have such trouble keeping the fingers in proportion,” notes Campbell Hauser, the archaeologist who discovered the statue’s freakish limbs. “Instead of looking like the hands of a goddess, they look like those of a plumber!”
Art critics and historians are up in arms over this shocking find. Debate rages over whether or not the missing limbs should be restored. Leading the argument against restoration is art historian Ovidio Bartoli of the Ludvian Museum of National Art.
“The misshapen appendages are an abomination,” declares Bartoli. “I’m certain the artist removed the arms himself after he saw how they came out. He knew he would have a beautiful sculpture, if not for those awful ham- hands.”
On the other side of the debate is art critic Guisseppi Vesper, who says, “These arms are a historical find, one that should be fully restored.”
Bartoli disagrees. “Restoring this work of art to its original form would be a travesty. It would be like filling in the crack in the Liberty Bell.”
No one knows who sculpted the Venus de Milo, or exactly when it was carved. It was found by a peasant on an Aegean island in a basement.
Over the years, art advisors have proposed adding arms holding apples, lamps and clothes and even arms that pointed in different directions.
But France’s King Louis VIII decided that the Venus de Milo was perfect just the way she was.
An executive board at the Louvre will decide their fate next week.
Vesper calls it an insult to the memory of the artist to not reattach the arms to the statue. “I am confident this is what he would’ve wanted,” the art critic says.
He adds, “When it comes time to fight this battle in court, I will have a team of lawyers by my side. I will not face this challenge un-armed . . . and neither should the Venus de Milo.”
Yes, I understand. Same here.
Actually, Joe6pack is right. The David was made to go into one of the niches above the entrance to the Duomo. Check it out this summer. However, they were smart enough to realize the David was a masterpiece right away and put it in front of the Palazzo Vecchio. Actually, Michelangelo wanted a less political spot, such as in the middle of the arcade in the Piazza Signoria.
Actually, Robert Greenberg, on those music cds from the Teaching Company once joked about how conferences are always held in glamorous spots. Even back to the Council of Trent, which lasted for about 20 years. Naturally, I forget where that was held, but it wasn't in the cold stix.
I guess today is my day to learn something new. I will check it out, that is if I can take time away from the meeting ;-)
Weekly World News is a step below DEBKA.
How 've you been RP? Inasmuch as we've set sail to set the record straight, I think it ought be mentioned that in a strictly technical sense David is no masterpiece, as during the era in question a "masterpiece," was the work executed by a guild apprentice which would be critiqued by senior members of the guild to determine if the apprentice was worthy of having his apprentice status upgraded to that of, "master." As such Pieta is Michelangelo's one and only masterpiece...
Michelangelo's unfinished Slaves there are also great, but the rest is rather disappointing. Jalisco, do you agree? There was a REALLY unattractive postmodern interpretation of Michelangelo's Last Judgement there in Dec. 2004, showing a huge nude self-portrait of the artist. I thought it was hideous.
Good to "hear" from you again, Joe 6-pack.
The conservative and originalist in me insist on rigid interpretations. I was a grumpy old man as a five year-old. I typically view the terms, "modern," "latest," "innovative," etc. as negatives. My soul got stuck somewhere around 1936, and even though I'm still suspicious of horseless carriages, the wireless, and automatic pistols, I suppose that this time, I'll accept your liberal twisting of the language in the interests of comity....;-)
I agree. The rest of the works there were kind of a hodgepodge of fairly uninteresting pieces. I don't remember seeing the nude self-portrait although I may have repressed it. The Slaves were very good, though. The story behind them was fascinating as well.
The problem with Florence is that there are so many jaw-droppingly great works of art that the merely good works don't have a chance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.