sign in sign up
<<
Home , Athena Tacha, Auguste Rodin, Crouching Woman, Monument to Balzac, The Shade (sculpture), The Three Shades

has been understood by Unlike much earlier , one needed many to have inaugurated modern sculp- no story or explanation to understand the DAVID J. GETSY ture, liberating it from its conventions and electricity of touching a body or being traditions. While the singularity of this rep- touched. Rodin’s contribution to modern utation could be contested, his work has sculpture was to bring attention to the often overshadowed his competitors and material object as the product of the sculp- alternatives among the divergent routes tor’s hands, and he amplified that attention into and out of across by sculpting naked bodies that seemed to The Materiality and Europe. Across the twentieth century, his convulse in space as the result of those originating status was often assumed, and hands. With Rodin’s work, the sculptor’s Mythology of Rodin’s Touch he became the sculptor against whom oth- touch in the clay was often taken for the ers were gauged in the modern sculpture’s lover’s touching of the — despite the early development. That reputation has missing limbs, contortions, or imprints of persisted, and he remains one of the most fingers and hands on Rodin’s sculptural recognizable of modern artists globally bodies. Under his hand, sculpture was because of his way of making sculpture. seen to have become more sensual, and Then and now, his works have appeared the evidence of his manipulations of mat- direct and expressive, with dramatic ter reinforced the frankness that viewers gouges, marks, and finger impressions perceived in the unclothed bodies writhing littering his surfaces. Previously, European in passion, shame, heartbreak, or ecstasy. sculpture had privileged the carefully The popularity of Rodin’s work rested on detailed surface, often smooth and unbro- this elision of the sexual and the material.2 ken. It was only in sketch models that one His contribution to modern sculpture was might find such abbreviated articulations, to make it more physical, more palpable, traces of the plasticity of clay, or seemingly and a closer record of the frenzied scene unfinished surfaces that have become char- of creation — or at least that is what his acteristic of Rodin’s hand. supporters would have us believe. Rodin not only retained such evidence In what follows, I will discuss the tactics of sculptural process; he elevated it as used by Rodin to draw attention to his proof of his own acts of making. Viewers of touch. He invented few new techniques; Rodin’s sculpture were led to visually recon- rather, he reorganized existing practices struct those acts, following the thumbprints, of nineteenth-century sculpture in order marks, and other remnants of his touch. to foreground his own acts of making. He deemphasized narrative, and his nude Whereas earlier sculptors had focused on bodies were often freed from any identify- a finished and refined product, for Rodin ing story (or were only tenuously related it was sculptural process that was the to a recognizable character from mytholo- main focus. He emphasized facture — the gy).1 This practice left viewers with only the evidence of the materials and physical contortions of the unclothed body to eval- processes that the artist uses to make an uate, and they could imagine how Rodin’s artwork. I will discuss two main areas in hands had brought that body — touch by which Rodin performed sculptural facture: touch — into existence. For these reasons, first, his use of the multi-stage process the viewing experience of a Rodin sculp- of casting and, second, his foreground- ture seemed more direct and unmediated. ing of the reproducible and temporary

42 43 . These sculptural practices sculptural image and its material constitu- were normally kept out of sight, but Rodin tion. Customarily, a sculptor would model celebrated and showcased them. The the figure in clay. Because clay is a fugitive secret to Rodin’s success lies in the ways material, it needed to be kept damp in in which he brought to light his own pro- order to keep it from cracking and crum- cess, prompting viewers to believe they bling. Once the sculptor had completed the were vicariously touching these sculptural work, it would then be cast in plaster bodies. Such material traces and perfor- in order to freeze the form in a more perma- mances of incompleteness became his nent, but still inexpensive, material. In this signature style, and he became renowned process, the initial clay figure would most for “inventing” modern sculpture that often be destroyed. This resulting plaster, seemed so alive and direct in contrast to however, could then be exhibited in hopes the seamless and glabrous surfaces of of convincing a patron to pay for it to be previous nineteenth-century . He cast in bronze or carved in marble. From did this by redirecting sculptural processes the first plaster cast, numerous additional to manufacture evidence of his touch. plaster casts, marble statues, or bronze casts could be produced. The “final” Auguste Rodin (1840–1917), Léonce Bénédite, mould maker we see, however, was often executed by a (1859–1925) and Paul Cruet, RODIN’S PERFORMATIVE highly-skilled team of practitioners such as moulder (1880–1966) bronze casters, mould makers, and stone Cast of Auguste Rodin’s hand MARK-MAKING: CLAY’S PASSAGE holding a female torso TO BRONZE carvers who used a variety of technolo- 1917 Plaster, assemblage cast directly gies and devices to ensure that the image from Rodin’s hand The mid-nineteenth century discourses of that had been initially sculpted in clay Musée Rodin sculpture in which Rodin emerged had a was faithfully translated a second time to highly vexed attitude toward the issue of its new material. Nineteenth-century pro- sculpture’s materiality.3 The term “mate- cedures of sculpture relied upon this divi- riality” refers to the constitution of the sion of labor between the conception of sculptural object by and as actual mat- sculptural images and the manipulation of ter — stone, metal, wax, plaster, ivory, wood, sculptural matter.5 The actual practice of and so on. A statue’s image (for example, sculpture was not, however, categorically the human form) is created in and through different from techniques used since the the manipulation of the material, and the Renaissance.6 By the nineteenth century, sculptor must negotiate to some degree the industry of sculptural production had the integration of or interference between become elaborate, with many specialist sculpture as image and thing when creating technicians and artisans employed to turn a representational sculpture. Nineteenth- sculptors’ initial models into finished objects century practices often preferred to obscure in bronze or marble. The nineteenth-century sculpture’s materiality.4 Viewers were not sculptor’s artistic labor was located primar- meant to look at a hunk of marble or a ily in the conception and initial modeling piece of bronze but rather were meant to of the clay form, not in the creation of the see such images as mythological heroes, sculptural object.7 great statesmen, or beautiful nudes. Rodin, however, came to be seen as

The practice of nineteenth-century sculp- more than a creator of form, and his Auguste Rodin ture itself ensured a division between the reputation became that of the virtuoso Modelled 1880 (cast 1904) Bronze 44 maker of clay objects. He did not develop more physical, more material, and a closer of Rodin is as physically present, touching surfaces. Such strategies were not unique a comparable expertise in bronze cast- record of the scene of creation. each object in a way that is visible and in the history of sculpture. , ing, patination, or marble carving.8 As These marks, however, are by no means recoverable on the surface of the sculp- for one, had been a catalyst for Rodin’s his contemporary biographer Frederick direct or unmediated. We need to recall ture.14 The French art critic Roger Marx, development of his own version of the Lawton made sure to state (perhaps that most basic of conditions for the inter- for instance, spoke of Rodin’s caress of non-finito.20 However, for Rodin it was overly so), Rodin was always a modeler pretation of nineteenth-century sculpture: the modeling clay even though he and his not just that his works appeared to be and never a practitioner, “[A]lthough the initial object created (the clay sculp- readers would only ever see bronze, mar- stopped midway in the process of being occupied for many years in the studios or ture) is lost. We never see the material ble, or plaster: “Under [Rodin’s] fingers made. The performances of incompleteness for the studios of sculptors as an assistant, (the clay) that Rodin touched. This con- the clay quivers with feverish throbs, and and unfinish were tactical stylistic choices he was never, as has been erroneously dition is largely opaque to many viewers, trembles with every spasm of suffering and repeated across the various modes and stated, a praticien, i.e. a rough or a fine and it is frequently forgotten or overlooked anguish.”15 This focus on Rodin’s hands and materials of his sculpture. In addition, he hewer of stone or marble. Indeed this is (even in many art-historical discussions of evidence of touching was made central by exaggerated the occasional use of approx- the one branch of the statuary art which nineteenth-century art) that the the Bohemian-Austrian poet (and, for a imated details and sketchy surfaces that he has never practically learnt.”9 While are the products of translation from an time, Rodin’s secretary) , other nineteenth-century sculptors would no doubt Rodin did, in fact, have at least already secondary object, the so-called who began his Rodin-Book by discussing sometimes use. For Rodin’s immediate some hand in the early marbles, over the “original plaster,” to subsequent bronze them: “Instinctively one looks for the two predecessors and peers, however, these course of his mature career he came to casts outsourced to the foundry or marble hands from which this world has come tactics were largely limited to works that invest primarily in the arena in which he sculptures carved by a team of specialized forth.”16 Decades later, the British art critic were either self-consciously preparatory performed best — the manipulation of clay. stoneworkers. This is the process that many John Berger remarked in his perceptive sketches or modellos or (as in the case This facility became central to his rep- earlier nineteenth-century sculptors strug- essay on the artist that, in all Rodin’s fig- of Honoré Daumier) as an equivalent to utation. One commentator called him a gled to obscure, characterizing the final ures, “One feels that the figure is still the the hyperbolic drawing style used in cari- “veritable wizard of clay, marvelous giant, marble or bronze as springing fully-realized malleable creature, unemancipated, of the cature. Rodin drew upon such precedents noble creator.”10 Emphasizing modeling into existence.12 Rodin did not overturn sculptor’s moulding hand. This hand fas- but pushed their tactics further. He incor- and clay, Rodin began attempting to find this process — far from it. He did rely upon cinated Rodin.”17 What interests me here porated them into finished works intended ways to register his own act of making in teams of specialists to enlarge his compo- is the lack of equivalence between this to be cast or carved, and he realized that the object itself, bridging the alienation of sitions (such as the monumental Thinker perception of Rodin’s hands metaphorically the sketchy and abbreviated details could conception from execution. Not only did (p. 45), originally only 70 cm in height), to hovering near the works — that is, his simu- be read as more active and less fixed he begin to make his figures larger and handle the technical difficulties of casting lated presence — and the material param- than seamless verisimilitude. He built into smaller than real bodies, he also wanted metal, and to carve the works into marble. eters of the medium of nineteenth-century his process and exhibition practices the his works to bear the evidence of hav- In her overview of Rodin’s technique, the sculpture.18 appearance of unfinish, of spontaneity, ing been hand-made. Even though Rodin American art historian Patricia Sanders “Expressiveness and not finish is of his touch, as a means of bringing his did attempt to redirect sculptural subject noted that “Although Rodin’s studio prac- [Rodin’s] ideal,” wrote the American painter works the vitality that he saw lacking in the matter to new and ever-more-provocative tices undoubtedly varied over the years, Louis Weinberg in a remarkably percep- academic style. Increasingly, most of his content, it is this display of facture that he seems from the first to have relied on tive essay written just after the sculptor’s mature sculptures by the late 1880s began has often been seen as the most visible specialists to execute his clay models in death.19 Indeed, Rodin’s handling and to look as if they are somehow in process sign of and most generative influence on bronze or marble. If Rodin’s workshop sculptural style were intended to produce and as if they bear the evidence of his modern sculpture. And, for Rodin, this grew with his reputation, by the turn of the a set of specific effects. Instead of the physical acts of artmaking. display of facture was predicated on the century his studios must have teemed with often glassy, even surfaces of much previ- Again, this was not a casual or careless manipulation of clay. The American art assistants.”13 ous nineteenth-century sculpture, Rodin left move on Rodin’s part; it was strategic. historian Rosalind Krauss put it well when Despite what appears to be evidence of the rough with the smooth, leaving areas He staged these traces of his touch as she remarked, “Rodin’s figures are also personal handling by Rodin, the objects we seemingly unfinished, with the marks of the more emphatic and more deliberate so branded with marks that tell of their rites call his are — like most nineteenth-century chisel or the thumb still in them. He allowed that they survived the translation from of passage during the modeling stage.”11 sculptures — rarely the direct product of unworked areas of clay to remain on the clay to other materials. It is common for Under Rodin’s hand, sculpture became his hands, even though the enduring image works, having them stand in for bodily many viewers and critics to think of the

46 47 Maurice Alexandre Bauche (1878–1956) View of a Room in the Exhibition at the Pavillon de l’Alma in 1900 Ca. 24 February 1901 Musée Rodin be the target: any object on which the an equivalent mode of production to the image of a target is drawn becomes, itself, heightened facture that had become an a target. increasingly attractive option in painting at Rodin’s marks are, I would argue, subtler the end of the nineteenth century, but did but no less transformative visual performa- so within a medium that relied so strongly tives. His activated surface traces relied upon lost “originals” and their multiple upon the deployment and propagation reproductions. In short, his effective trans- of replicable and transmissible signs that, muting of the sculptural object produced by once recognized as such, transform the other hands is different from the facture we condition of the sculptural figure to fore- associate with Rodin’s painter-contempo- ground both its objectness and Rodin’s raries’ staging of directness in their unique share in the formation of that object. hand-made art objects.23 When the viewer’s experience of the statue The literature on Rodin, from the late becomes interrupted by these marks that nineteenth century onwards, has largely Louis Morin (1855–1938) are recognized as not having to do with The Modern Sculpture accepted as an open secret the factitious 24 1900 the sculptural image — be it a representa- status of Rodin’s performative marks. His tion of a woman, a man, a couple, a friends and later advocates and historians thinker — they shift emphasis to the sculp- all wrote with the awareness of this issue. tural thing itself as the product and regis- The goal of the above paragraphs is not tration of Rodin. to expose the open secret but rather to All sculptures operate between image argue that the uncritical acceptance of it marks of process on these works as if they function for these marks — as performative, and object, between representation and obscures the more fundamental art-theo- were self-evidently indexical of Rodin’s rather than just constative or descriptive, materiality, but Rodin’s intervention into the retical move made by Rodin’s performative presence. As French art critic Gustave of Rodin’s presence. discourse of nineteenth-century sculptural marks and transmuting effects. The signif- Geffroy put it, “The sculptor’s intentions In making this claim, I am contending praxis was to sacrifice verisimilitude, rep- icance of these marks is not that they are are moreover visible in each of his cre- that Rodin’s over-dramatic facture was more resentational consistency, and the coher- mediated. Rather, their importance comes ations, in his passionate and yet gentle than just a performance of bravura handling ence of the figure itself in order to let his from the ways that they capitalize on their modelling and the caressing tenderness in defiance of naturalism — it was akin to acts of making overtake the object even own mediation. These marks overtake that he mixes with his virile assertions.”21 a performative utterance that declared after the form had undergone material depiction and subject matter, becoming — I Despite the fact that these marks appear Rodin’s appearance as the primary mean- transcriptions and been the product of other would argue — of equal or more importance to be traces of Rodin’s actual, physical ing of the work. Performative utterances hands. Rodin deployed signs of his pres- to the statue’s narrative, story, or identifi- manipulation of the material, they simulate change the condition of the object to which ence that would survive the translations of able subject matter. Rodin foregrounded the directness and unmediation of Rodin’s they are applied.22 The classic example is a sculpture across materials but that always technique and facture as a means to point touch in defiance of the actual material the wedding ceremony in which two individ- pointed back to the fact that the object was back to his (mythical) acts of making the history of the sculptural object as the uals are pronounced married, thus changing made by him and that this scene of creation objects that bear these traces. product of teams of makers and multiple their legal and social status in the commu- was the primary source of significance for Ultimately, what I am arguing is that materials. This is an obvious point that is nity. When using this concept to think about the object before a viewer. Whereas paint- Rodin’s contribution to modern sculpture nevertheless often forgotten or overlooked the function of Rodin’s facture, I rely on ings, for instance, might exhibit facture or was not only the seeds of abstraction, when viewers and critics encounter a the extended usage of it beyond linguistic display materiality, sculpture under Rodin’s which is how his fragmentation of the body sculpture like Rodin’s. But by recognizing manifestations to encompass acts and other hands mobilized facture so that it would and fractured surfaces have often been their anxious relation to the multi-staged visual signs. Following this usage, performa- subvert the multi-staged material vicissi- interpreted. Subsequent sculptors did inter- practice of sculpture, it becomes clear tivity can be productively identified in visual tudes of the sculptural form, allowing each pret this as a stylistic attitude toward ver- that Rodin’s practice as a whole relies arts and communication. For instance, a (and every) sculpture to appear to have isimilitude, but Rodin’s strategy was more upon a different, and more infectious, clear example of visual performative would arisen directly from his touch. He developed complex. It involved redirecting the viewer’s

50 51 attention from image to object as the site at object and from subject matter to his role which his hand would be most visible. The as the artist. This was his exploitation point is not that the marks are mediated of the replicatory possibilities of plaster or “fake” but, rather, that their emphatic casting and his willingness to break his overlay on the sculptural object — across its sculptural bodies into fragments only to material transcriptions — effects a shift in recombine them into new forms. Rodin’s what we look for in the sculptures. This is innovation in working in this way was the basis of Rodin’s “liberation” of sculpture to tackle the material aspect of sculp- and what has been called the demise of the tural practice that most others kept tradition of the statue.25 Simply put, after obscured — plaster casting. The stages of Rodin, we increasingly have sculptures, sculptural making I discussed earlier were not statues — that is, objects, not images. most often obscured or hidden by artists, Rodin’s performative marks strategically who would have us forget about all of the masquerade as direct traces in order to mediating stages between clay and bronze convince the viewer that this untouched or marble. Rodin, instead, allowed viewers object had been touched by him. The false to see clearly that the reproductive pro- immediacy of these marks does not mitigate cess of plaster casting was no less a place the fascination they inspire in viewers. This where Rodin’s hand could be felt. is because they effect the more insidious Like many other sculptors, Rodin had multiple plaster casts made of his clay Auguste Rodin result of keeping the artist near, and Rodin’s Young Girl Confiding presence becomes semantically fused with models. Unlike traditional practice, how- Her Secret to Isis 1895–1900 these objects because of the ways in which ever, he would then consider these plaster Plaster they short-circuit the distinction between figures themselves the raw material for Musée Rodin sculptural representation and material- sculpture, breaking them apart, recom- ity — between object and image — that nine- bining them, and further multiplying them. teenth-century sculpture had relied upon. The American sculptor This shift from sculptural image to sculptural recorded seeing these on the day she first object is, on the one hand, a fundamental gained entry in Rodin’s studio: “This is a contribution to twentieth-century discourses day long waited for, and now it is better of and, on the other, the pre- than I had hoped for. I examine all the condition for Rodin making his own acts of marvellous fragments of small figures, arms, making the denominator of meaning. The feet heads hands joints and fingers — lying performative mark not only says that “Rodin in trays of sawdust — plaster casts of such was here” but also declares that the sculp- delicacy & strength. These amaze one tural object is important primarily because […].”26 These component parts became for of that claim. Rodin a different sculptural medium than modeling and clay, opening new ways of conceiving of making. The French poet and RODIN’S RECOMBINATORY critic Camille Mauclair provided a contem- PRACTICES: PLASTER AND porary description of Rodin’s practice: REPRODUCTION “He will be forever improvising some little figure, shaping the notation of some

There is a second arena in which Rodin feeling, idea, or form, and this he plants Auguste Rodin effected his redirection from image to in his door, studies it against the other I Am Beautiful 1882 Plaster 52 Musée Rodin Auguste Rodin Torso of the Falling Man from Auguste Rodin , Also Known as , Torso of Louis XIV Also Known as Lust 1904 Ca. 1881–1882 Plaster Terracotta Musée Rodin Musée Rodin figures, then takes it out again, and if need work, The Gates of Hell (p. 56), reveals be, breaks it up and uses the fragments for that the same figures are repeated across other attempts.27 the surface, in different orientations and That is, with his replication of casts and combinations. For instance, the torso his willingness to break and reuse them, of the Falling Man clearly re-appears Rodin invested in the plaster cast itself as not once but twice across the Gates, as the medium of sculpture. He would add do other figures such as theCrouching elements to his , duplicate them, Woman and The Prodigal Son (p. 59). As pair them, stick them together, recombine Krauss remarked of this figure, “The dou- them repeatedly, and generally used the ble appearance is extremely conspicuous, fragmentary statuettes as individual build- and the very persistence of that doubling ing blocks with which he experimented cannot be read as accidental.”30 There are with sculptural form. The practice of cast- many such instances of the blatant repeti- ing allowed for the multiple re-creation tion of the same figure or fragment, in dif- of sculptures, and each new combination ferent orientations and combinations.31 This could subsequently be re-cast as a new is most obvious in , before object. In short, he made sculpture from his 1886, that top the Gates. They are clearly own sculptures.28 For example, he would the exact same figure repeated three times, sometimes fuse figures from two pre-exist- without variation.32 ing studies, such as with the group I am The plaster cast — rather than just being beautiful (p. 53), into which the torso of the mechanical reproduction of a “real” the Falling Man (p. 54) and the Crouching sculpture — became instead for Rodin a Woman (p. 55) have been combined. As means to generate and to conceptualize the American art historian Leo Steinberg new work. He reminded viewers that the remarked, “No Rodin sculpture is known individual figures were replicable objects. until it is known in its adaptability.”29 If His repeated figures were not just images of anything, this was Rodin’s major innovation bodies, they were physical units that could in the practice of nineteenth-century sculp- be reproduced, repositioned, and recom- ture. Whereas the staging of materiality bined both in the surface and in the scores and facture can be seen, admittedly in of related works. That is, Rodin denied the less emphatic degrees, in earlier sculptural individual uniqueness of these figures, claim- modes back through the Renaissance, ing them instead as objects that gained Rodin’s deployment of the replicable plas- their potency through the particular context ter cast was largely unprecedented. and orientation he gave to them.33 He sup- Rodin expanded upon the reproducibility plemented a similar mythic role of the sculp- that was fundamental to the practice of tor by demonstrating his ability to give new nineteenth-century sculpture but that most meanings to his statuettes merely through sculptors kept obscured. For a medium the way he placed, combined, and recycled built upon the replication of form across them (as with his nearly four-decade-long different materials — from clay to plaster process of revision of the surface of the to bronze or marble — Rodin instead chose Gates of Hell). He exploited the reproduc- to showcase that potential for replication ibility of the plaster statuette, repackaging Auguste Rodin The Gates of Hell in the figures that populate his Inferno. its potential for mass production as the site Modelled 1880–1890 Even a cursory look at Rodin’s compendium of creativity and variability. (cast 1926–1928) Bronze Musée Rodin 57 As Rilke noted, “We see men and see those sculptural bodies as things (as women, and again men and women. And Rilke said) and not just as three-dimen- the longer one looks, the more does even sional images. His mythical acts of making this content become simplified, and one all pointed to his making of the sculp- sees: Things.”34 Rodin accomplished this by tural object, and his works ask viewers to supplanting narrative and sculptural depic- imagine touching the sculptural bodies that tion with an assertion of his own acts of Rodin formed out of clay. Viewers rarely creation. These units became an additional saw the clay, just Rodin’s objects (made way of pointing back to Rodin’s hands by other hands). These objects prompted and handling. As with the emphatic and viewers to imagine these sculptures’ scenes performative marks in the lost clay models, of making. Rather than any recognizable the use of replication and recombination subject matter or narrative, this mythology of his figures makes their individual depic- propagated by Rodin’s sculptures centered tions subordinate to the awareness of them on his material touch. as objects made and manipulated by him. Rodin’s hand metaphorically hovered near not just the clay but the plaster as well. Rodin’s most influential contribution came not from his liberated and tortured subject matter nor from the way his style seemed to reiterate that purported free- dom and expressivity. Rather, Rodin’s fundamental impact was rooted in his reorientation of sculptural practice. By shifting focus from sculptural image to sculptural object and placing his own per- formed presence as the mediator, Rodin raised the question of the object-nature of sculpture and its relation to its makers and viewers. This move from depicted image to made object (and the concomi- tant activation of the sculptor’s persona) emerged as a central question for sub- sequent sculptors — regardless of their embrace or disdain for Rodin’s subject matter or embellished style. Such modern- ist ideals as truth to materials and direct carving are in many ways answers to the questions that Rodin raised with his version of modern sculpture. That is, one should understand Rodin’s contribution to modern sculpture as an incipient performance of sculpture’s Auguste Rodin Auguste Rodin objecthood. While his sculptures The Prodigal Son still depicted bodies, he asked viewers to Modelled 1880 Modelled 1884 (cast 1903–1904) (carved latest 1899) Plaster Limestone 58 Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek NOTES University Press, 1993). See also Michael Elsen, “Rodin’s ‘Perfect Collaborator’,” of the Avant-Garde: A Postmodernist Sculptures Were White: Rodin’s Work in emphasis. For a helpful analysis of Rilke’s Wayne Cole, Cellini and the Principles of p. 248; Albert Elsen, “On the Question of Repetition,” October 18 (Autumn 1981): Plaster,” in Rodin Rediscovered, ed. Albert discussions of “things” in relation to This essay has been excerpted and adapted by Sculpture (New York: Cambridge University Originality: A Letter,” October 20 (Spring p. 52. For Krauss, the contradiction alone Elsen (Washington, D.C.: National Gallery Rodin, see Potts, Sculptural Imagination, the author from chapter 2 of David J. Getsy, Press, 2002); Peta Motture, ed., Large 1982): pp. 107–9; Rosalind Krauss, was the answer, refuting the simple and of Art, 1981), pp. 127–50. Elsewhere, pp. 77–98. Rodin: Sex and the Making of Modern Sculpture bronzes in the Renaissance (New Haven: “Sincerely Yours: A Reply,” October 20 mythologizing claims made about Rodin. Elsen has called Rodin’s activities “Serious (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, Yale University Press, 2003); Debra (Spring 1982): p. 116. Lawton made sure 19 Louis Weinberg, The Art of Rodin (New Play of Sculptural Matchmaking,” an apt 2010). Pincus, ed., Small bronzes in the Renaissance to provide a full explanation of this process York: Boni & Liveright, 1918), p. 31. metaphor for Rodin’s paratelic process (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001); in his 1907 book because he was aware 20 I discuss Rodin’s fraught emulation of (Albert Elsen, The Gates of Hell (Stanford: 1 While he often tended to render arbitrary and Frits Scholten, et al., Adriaen de Vries, of many of his readers’ unfamiliarity with it: Michelangelo in more detail in “1876: Press, 1985), p. 82). or to mitigate subject matter and narrative exh. cat. (Zwolle: Waanders, 1998). Lawton, Life and Work, pp. 28–30. Michelangelo and Rodin’s Desires,” chapter Play is a crucial procedure for Rodin and contexts, Rodin sometimes had deep and 7 Rodin himself relied on many practitioners 13 Patricia Sanders, “Notes on Rodin’s 1 of Getsy, Rodin. relates to the more widespread experimental complex engagements with sources that and studio assistants in the production of Technique,” in Rodin’s Sculpture: A Critical 21 “Les intentions du sculpteur sont d’ailleurs possibilities offered by relief sculpture’s inspired his attention to bodies and their his works. As Rodin became more commer- Study of the Spreckels Collection, ed. visibles dans chaque manifestation de son intermedial conditions. See Steinberg, contortions. For instance, see Natasha cially successful in the twentieth century, Jacques de Caso and Patricia Sanders art. La passion et la douceur qu’il exprime “Rodin,” pp. 322–403; Krauss, “Originality,” Ruiz-Gómez, “A Hysterical Reading of this practice grew. In particular, his marble (San Francisco: The Fine Arts Museums of par son modelé, l’attendrissement de pp. 47–66; Elsen, “On the Question of Rodin’s Gates of Hell,” Art History 36, sculptures have been highly criticized San Francisco, 1977), p. 29. caresse qu’il mêle à ses viriles affirma- Originality: A Letter,” pp. 107–9; Krauss, no. 5 (November 2013): pp. 994–1017; as being the products of such a system. 14 It did, however, become cliché in the early tions.” Gustave Geffroy, “Auguste Rodin,” “Sincerely Yours,” pp. 110–30. Natasha Ruiz-Gómez, “Genius and Nevertheless, Rodin evidenced a great twentieth century to recognize that the in . A. Rodin (: Galerie 29 Steinberg, “Rodin,” p. 377. Degeneracy: Auguste Rodin and the deal of interest in displaying the marks of marbles churned out for collectors (usually , 1889), p. 73. 30 Krauss, Passages, p. 17. ,” in Sophie Leroy, process and the objecthood of his sculp- American) contained passages in which 22 Here, I am leaning on the technical 31 This was also the crux of Rosalind Krauss’s ed., Medicine and Malady: Representing tures. See Leo Steinberg, “Rodin [1963],” rough, in-process chisel marks were clearly definition of “performative” from Speech argument about the Gates and their denial Affliction in Nineteenth-Century in Other Criteria: Confrontations with simulated for effect. Rodin’s declining Act Theory, most famously articulated in of narrative that had conventionally been (Leiden: Brill, 2018), pp. 217–50; and Twentieth-Century Art (New York: Oxford reputation in the mid-twentieth century was J.L. Austin, How to Do Things With Words associated in and visualized by friezes. Juliet Bellow, “Hand : Auguste University Press, 1972), pp. 322–403; and a result of these works, as Leo Steinberg (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard In the Gates, “The double appearance is Rodin’s Drawings of the Cambodian Royal for a dissenting view, Daniel Rosenfeld, has discussed in “Rodin” [1963], in Other University Press, 1962). extremely conspicuous, and the very per- Ballet,” Art Bulletin 101, no. 3 (July 2019): “Rodin’s Carved Sculpture,” in Rodin Criteria: Confrontations with Twentieth- 23 For instance, see the discussion of the sistence of that doubling cannot be read pp. 37–65. Rediscovered, ed. Albert Elsen (Washington: Century Art (New York: Oxford University “technique of originality” with reference to as accidental. Rather, it seems to spell the 2 This case is made more extensively in the , 1981), Press, 1972), pp. 322–403. Paul Cézanne and in Richard breakdown of the principle of spatio-tem- full chapter of which the present essay is pp. 80–102. 15 Roger Marx, preface to Muriel Ciolkowska, Shiff, “Representation, Copying, and the poral uniqueness that is a prerequisite of an excerpt. 8 For instance, Antoinette Normand-Romain Rodin (Chicago: A.C. McClurg & Co., Technique of Originality,” New Literary logical narration, for doubling tends to 3 See, for instance, Jeanne Wasserman, wrote with regard to Rodin’s reliance on 1914), vi. History 15, no. 2 (1984): pp. 333–63. destroy the very possibility of a logical Metamorphoses in Nineteenth-Century his patineur Jean Limet for the approval 16 “man sieht sich unwillkürlich nach den 24 See discussion in Krauss, “Sincerely Yours,” narrative sequence.” Ibid. Sculpture (Cambridge: Fogg Art Museum and patination of his bronzes after 1900, zwei Händen um, aus denen diese Welt 110–30; Jean Chatelain, “An Original in 32 Aida Audeh has argued that the bodily and Harvard University Press, 1976); “Very often, however, Rodin did not see the erwachsen ist.” Rainer Maria Rilke, Auguste Sculpture,” in Rodin Rediscovered, ed. A. replication of the Three Shades was Charles Millard, “Sculpture and Theory bronzes: Limet was therefore responsi- Rodin [1903] (Leipzig: Insel-Verlag, 1920). Elsen (Washington: National Gallery of informed by Rodin’s engagement with in Nineteenth Century France,” Journal ble for assessing the quality of the cast Translation from Rainer Maria Rilke, “The Art, 1981), pp. 275–82. his source text, Dante’s , of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 34, no. 1 and amending any flaws.” Antoinette Rodin-Book: First Part” [1902–3], in Where 25 See, for instance, Penelope Curtis, “After specifically Canto 16 of the Inferno and (Fall 1975): pp. 15–20; Anthony Hughes Le Normand-Romain, The Bronzes of Silence Reigns: Selected Prose, trans. G. Rodin: The Problem of the Statue in the sodomites referred to as the Three and Erich Ranfft, eds., Sculpture and Its Rodin: Catalogue of Works in the Musée Craig Houston (New York: New Directions Twentieth-Century Sculpture,” in Rodin: Florentines. Following Audeh’s analysis, the Reproductions (London: Reaktion, 1997). Rodin, 2 vols. (Paris: Éditions de la Réunion Books, 1978), p. 89. The Zola of Sculpture, ed. Claudine triplication of the figure can be read as a 4 Alex Potts has convincingly argued that des Musées Nationaux, 2007), 1:31. 17 John Berger, “Rodin and Sexual Domination Mitchell (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004), registration of same-sex desire. See Aida there is a degree of engagement with See further the discussion in Antoinette [1967],” in About Looking (New York: 237–44. A registration of the rapid Audeh, “Rodin’s Gates of Hell and Dante’s materiality and objecthood in the work Le Normand-Romain, “Rodin und seine Pantheon Books, 1980), p. 179. transformations over the course of the first Divine Comedy: An Iconographic Study” of Antonio Canova. See Alex Potts, Mitarbeiter,” in Auguste Rodin: Eros und 18 This contradiction has been discussed half of the twentieth century can be seen (University of Iowa, 2002), pp. 146–72. The Sculptural Imagination: Figurative, Leidenschaft, ed. Wilfried Seipel (Vienna: before, most notably by Leo Steinberg and in Dan Rhodes Johnson, “From ‘Statuary’ to 33 Rodin himself placed a great deal Modernist, Minimalist (New Haven: Yale Kunsthistorisches Museum, 1996), by Rosalind Krauss. Krauss, in particular, Sculpture — A Long Haul in a Short Time,” of emphasis on his own exhibition University Press, 2000), pp. 38–59. pp. 127–38. focused on the conflict between “the myth Art Digest 26, no. 1 (1951): pp. 23–25. practices, often staging relations Contemporary with Rodin, there are further 9 Frederick Lawton, The Life and Work of Rodin as the prodigious form giver” and 26 Malvina Hoffman, 1910 travel diary, entry between figures in the same room. See examples of sculptors who foreground of Auguste Rodin (New York: Charles our awareness of reproducibility in Rodin’s 8 June 1910. Malvina Hoffman Papers, Musée national du Luxembourg, Rodin materiality, for instance in the work of Scribner’s Sons, 1907), p. 28. A defense techniques and, as I will discuss below, his Getty Research Institute, Series VII, Box en 1900: l’exposition de l’Alma (Paris: Hamo Thornycroft and Alfred Gilbert. See of Rodin’s relationship to marble can multiple uses of casts of the same figure. In 132, Folder 3. Réunion des musées nationaux, 2001); David J. Getsy, Body Doubles: Sculpture be found in Spear, Rodin her important essay, “The Originality of the 27 “Il improvisait à chaque instant une petite Claudine Mitchell, “The Gift to the in Britain, 1877–1905 (New Haven and Sculpture in the Avant-Garde: A Postmodernist Repetition,” figure, exprimant la notation rapide d’une British Nation: Rodin at the V&A,” in London: Yale University Press, 2004), (Cleveland: Cleveland Museum of Art, Krauss stressed the ways in which the sensation, d’une idée ou d’une forme, et Rodin: The Zola of Sculpture, ed. Claudine chapters 2 and 3. 1967), pp. 67–78. See further Rosenfeld, material circumstances of Rodin’s practice l’insérait dans la porte auprès des autres Mitchell (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004), 5 See Albert Elsen, “Rodin’s ‘Perfect “Rodin’s Carved Sculpture,” pp. 80–102. seemed at odds with the originality and figures, puis la déplaçait et au besoin la pp. 183–200. Collaborator,’ Henri Lebossé,” in Rodin 10 “véritable enchanteur de la glaise, géant authenticity for which Rodin seemed exem- brisait pour en utiliser les fragments à d’au- 34 “Man sieht Männer und Frauen, Männer Rediscovered, ed. A. Elsen (Washington: merveilleux, créateur magnanime.” Marie- plary. She asked, “What are we to make of tres recherches.” Camille Mauclair, Rodin: und Frauen, immer wieder Männer und National Gallery of Art, 1981), Reine Aghion, “En parlant de Rodin dans le this little chapter of the comédie humaine, L’Homme et L’Oeuvre [1905] (Paris: La Frauen. Und je länger man hinsieht, desto pp. 248–59. studio de Judith Cladel,” Le trésor du siècle, in which the artist of the last century most Renaissance du Livre, 1918), pp. 22–23. mehr vereinfacht sich auch dieser Inhalt, 6 For a useful and concise discussion August 1937. driven to the celebration of his own origi- Translation by Camille Mauclair, Auguste und man sieht: Dinge.” Rilke, Auguste Rodin of earlier practices of casting, see 11 Rosalind Krauss, Passages in Modern nality and of the autographic character of Rodin: The Man — His Ideas — His Works, [1903], p. 108, and translation from Rainer Institute, Bronze: The Power Sculpture (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1977), his own kneading of matter into formal life, trans. Clementina Black (New York: E.P. Maria Rilke, “The Rodin-Book: Second Part of Life and Death (Leeds: Henry Moore p. 29. that artist, should have given his own work Dutton & Co., 1905), p. 24. [1907],” in Where Silence Reigns: Selected Institute, 2005) and Nicholas Penny, The 12 It has been a source of debate about how over to an afterlife of mechanical repro- 28 For a discussion of Rodin’s experimentation Prose, trans. G. Craig Houston (New York: Materials of Sculpture (New Haven: Yale public this knowledge is. See, for instance, duction?” Rosalind Krauss, “The Originality with plaster, see Albert Elsen, “When the New Directions Books, 1978), p. 136. My

60 61 BIBLIOGRAPHY Krauss, Rosalind. Passages in Modern Sculpture. Sanders, Patricia. “Notes on Rodin’s Technique.” Cambridge: MIT Press, 1977. In Rodin’s Sculpture: A Critical Study of the Aghion, Marie-Reine. “En parlant de Rodin dans Krauss, Rosalind. “The Originality of the Avant- Spreckels Collection, edited by Jacques de le studio de Judith Cladel.” Le trésor du siècle, Garde: A Postmodernist Repetition.” October Caso and Patricia Sanders, pp. 29–35. San August 1937. 18 (1981): pp. 47–66. Francisco: The Fine Arts Museums of San Audeh, Aida. “Rodin’s Gates of Hell and Krauss, Rosalind. “Sincerely Yours: A Reply.” Francisco, 1977. Dante’s Divine Comedy: An Iconographic October 20 (1982): pp. 110–30. Scholten, Frits, et al. Adriaen de Vries. Zwolle: Study.” University of Iowa, 2002. Lawton, Frederick. The Life and Work of Auguste Waanders, 1998. Austin, J. L. How To Do Things With Words. Rodin. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, Shiff, Richard. “Representation, Copying, and Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard 1907. the Technique of Originality.” New Literary University Press, 1962. Le Normand-Romain, Antoinette. “Rodin und History 15, no. 2 (1984): pp. 333–63. Bellow, Juliet. “Hand Dance: Auguste Rodin’s seine Mitarbeiter.” In Auguste Rodin: Eros und Steinberg, Leo. “Rodin [1963].” In Other Drawings of the Cambodian Royal Ballet,” Leidenschaft, edited by Wilfried Seipel, pp. Criteria: Confrontations with Twentieth- Art Bulletin 101, no. 3 (July 2019): 127–38. Vienna: Kunsthistorisches Museum, Century Art, pp. 322–403. New York: pp. 37–65. 1996. , 1972. Berger, John. “Rodin and Sexual Domination Le Normand-Romain, Antoinette. The Bronzes Tacha Spear, Athena. Rodin Sculpture in [1967],” in About Looking. New York: of Rodin: Catalogue of Works in the Musée the Cleveland Museum of Art. Cleveland: Pantheon Books, 1980. Rodin. 2 vols. Paris: Éditions de la Réunion Cleveland Museum of Art, 1967. Butler, Ruth, ed. Rodin in Perspective. des Musées Nationaux, 2007. Wasserman, Jeanne. Metamorphoses in Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Mauclair, Camille. Auguste Rodin: The Nineteenth-Century Sculpture. Cambridge: 1980. Man — His Ideas — His Works, trans. Fogg Art Museum and Harvard University Chatelain, Jean. “An Original in Sculpture.” Clementina Black. New York: E.P. Dutton & Press, 1976. In Rodin Rediscovered, edited by A. Elsen, Co., 1905. Weinberg, Louis. The Art of Rodin. New York: 275–82. Washington: National Gallery of Mauclair, Camille, Rodin: L’Homme et L’Oeuvre Boni & Liveright, 1918. Art, 1981. [1905]. Paris: La Renaissance du Livre, 1918. Ciolkowska, Muriel. Rodin. Chicago: A.C. Millard, Charles. “Sculpture and Theory in McClurg & Co., 1914. Nineteenth Century France.” Journal of Cole, Michael Wayne. Cellini and the Principles Aesthetics and Art Criticism 34, no. 1 (1975): of Sculpture. New York: Cambridge University pp. 15–20. Press, 2002. Mitchell, Claudine. “The Gift to the British Curtis, Penelope. “After Rodin: The Problem of Nation: Rodin at the V&A.” In Rodin: The the Statue in Twentieth-Century Sculpture.” Zola of Sculpture, edited by Claudine In Rodin: The Zola of Sculpture, edited by Mitchell, pp. 183–200. Aldershot: Ashgate, Claudine Mitchell, pp. 237–44. Aldershot: 2004. Ashgate, 2004. Motture, Peta, ed. Large Bronzes in the Elsen, Albert. “Rodin’s ‘Perfect Collaborator,’ Renaissance. New Haven: Yale University Henri Lebossé.” In Rodin Rediscovered, edited Press, 2003. by A. Elsen, pp. 248–59. Washington: Musée national du Luxembourg. Rodin en 1900: National Gallery of Art, 1981. l’exposition de l’Alma. Paris: Réunion des Elsen, Albert. “When the Sculptures Were musées nationaux, 2001. White: Rodin’s Work in Plaster.” In Rodin Penny, Nicholas. The Materials of Sculpture. Rediscovered, edited by Albert Elsen, pp. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993. 127–50. Washington, D.C.: National Gallery Pincus, Debra, ed. Small Bronzes in the of Art, 1981. Renaissance. New Haven: Yale University Elsen, Albert. “On the Question of Originality: Press, 2001. A Letter.” October 20 (1982): pp. 107–9. Potts, Alex. The Sculptural Imagination: Elsen, Albert. The Gates of Hell. Stanford: Figurative, Modernist, Minimalist. New Stanford University Press, 1985. Haven: Yale University Press, 2000. Geffroy, Gustave. “Auguste Rodin.” In Claude Rilke, Rainer Maria. August Rodin [1903]. Monet. A. Rodin, pp. 46–84. Paris: Galerie Leipzig: Insel-Verlag, 1920. Georges Petit, 1889. Rilke, Rainer Maria. Where Silence Reigns: Getsy, David J. Body Doubles: Sculpture in Selected Prose, trans. G. Craig Houston. New Britain, 1877–1905. New Haven and London: York: New Directions Books, 1978. Yale University Press, 2004. Rosenfeld, Daniel. “Rodin’s Carved Sculpture.” Getsy, David J. Rodin: Sex and the Making of In Rodin Rediscovered, edited by Albert Elsen, Modern Sculpture. New Haven and London: pp. 80–102. Washington: National Gallery Yale University Press, 2010. of Art, 1981. Henry Moore Institute. Bronze: The Power of Ruiz-Gómez, Natasha. “A Hysterical Reading of Life and Death. Leeds: Henry Moore Institute, Rodin’s Gates of Hell,” Art History 36, no. 5 2005. (November 2013): pp. 994–1017. Hughes, Anthony, and Erich Ranfft, eds. Ruiz-Gómez, Natasha. “Genius and Sculpture and Its Reproductions. London: Degeneracy: Auguste Rodin and the Reaktion, 1997. Monument to Balzac.” In Medicine and Johnson, Dan Rhodes. “From ‘Statuary’ to Malady: Representing Affliction in Nineteenth- Sculpture — A Long Haul in a Short Time.” Century France, edited by Sophie Leroy, pp. Art Digest 26, no. 1 (1951): pp. 23–25. 217–50. Leiden: Brill, 2018.

62 We would like to express our gratitude to the Augustinus Foundation, Aage og Johanne Louis-Hansens Fond and the New Carlsberg Foundation for their generous support of the research-based exhibition project Auguste Rodin – Displacements. Auguste Rodin

Displacements Foreword 16 RODIN’S METHOD Gertrud Hvidberg-Hansen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek The Materiality and Mythology of Rodin’s Touch 42 Foreword 20 David J. Getsy Catherine Chevillot, Musée Rodin Displacing Objects – Rodin’s Collection 64 Auguste Rodin – Displacements 28 as a Space for Experimentation Christine Horwitz Tommerup Christine Horwitz Tommerup

Rodin’s Collection 97 – Selected Works in the Exhibition

ARTIST PERSPECTIVES

The Chios 110 Auguste Rodin The Lesson of Antiquity 114 Auguste Rodin Glimpses of a Continuous Movement 118 – An Essay on Auguste Rodin Christian Vind Archaic Torso of Apollo 142 Rainer Maria Rilke

Fragments and Stagings 145 – Selected Works in the Exhibition

ARCHEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES

Rodin – The Collector and his Circle 158 Bénédicte Garnier Collecting with Passion – Towards Carl Jacobsen’s 178 Museum in the late Julie Lejsgaard Christensen and Rune Frederiksen

Transformations 197 – Selected Works in the Exhibition

Works in the Exhibition 210 Published to accompany the exhibition EXHIBITION NY CARLSBERG GLYPTOTEK

Auguste Rodin – Displacements EXHIBITION DESIGN: Exhibition concept: Christine Horwitz Tommerup The Glyptotek Vang Stensgaard – Mia Stensgaard and In partnership with Bénédicte Garnier, Musée March 25th – August 15th, 2021 Anja Vang Kragh Rodin Curator: Christine Horwitz Tommerup GRAPHIC DESIGN: RESEARCH AND EXHIBITION TEAM: Editors: Christine Horwitz Tommerup and Studio Atlant – Stefan Thorsteinsson, Kathrine Andersen, Simone Bredholt, Rasmus Anna Manly Cecilie Nellemann and Rasmus Schønning Enke, Jennie Jones Gunnarsen, Bjørn Hansen, Rebecca Hast, Lars Haugan, Gitte Lunde TRANSLATION: PROOFREADING: Jørgensen, Anna Manly, Karen Marie Heise Danish to English: Jane Rowley Martin Butler Nielsen, Rasmus Offersen, Kasper Riisholt, French to English: Pamela Hargreaves Christine Horwitz Tommerup and Simon Thurston The exhibition has been supported by: German to English: Edward Snow The Augustinus Foundation and ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXPERTS: Aage og Johanne Louis-Hansens Fond. Tine Bagh, Cecilie Brøns, Julie Lejsgaard Christensen, Rune Frederiksen The New Carlsberg Foundation has generously supported the research behind the exhibition with a grant for a PhD in collaboration with MUSÉE RODIN The catalogue contributions by Christine Aarhus University. Horwitz Tommerup and Julie Lejsgaard RESEARCH AND EXHIBITION TEAM: Christensen & Rune Frederiksen have been Chloé Ariot, Hélène Bluzat, Sandra Boujot, peer reviewed. Laure Chavanne, Aude Chevalier, Sophie Biass- Fabiani, Sonia Christon, Mariolina Cilurzo, PROOFREADING: Fabienne Dall’Ava, Diana Da Silva, Béatrice Rolf Mertz and Mia Gaudern Dubarry-Jallet, Cyrielle Durox, Bénédicte Garnier, Sandrine Gaymay, Laurence Goux, GRAPHIC DESIGN: Audrey d’Hendecourt, Pauline Hisbacq, Studio Atlant – Stefan Thorsteinsson, Patrick Jallet, Christine Lancestremère, Claude Cecilie Nellemann and Rasmus Schønning Laroque, Anne Liégey, Jérome Manoukian, Véronique Mattiussi, Marcel Molac, Laurence Typefaces: Drescher Grotesk, Ehrhardt Pouradier, Pascale Roumégoux, Diane Tytgat, Paper: Munken Polar Rough, Galerie Art Gloss Alice Wallon-Tariel Image processing: Narayana Press, Denmark Print: Narayana Press, Denmark ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXPERTS: Print run: 400 Adeline Bats, Axelle Brémont, Tiphaine Fignon, © Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek and the authors Izold Guégan, Karen Henderson, Nathalie ISBN: 978-87-7452-375-8 Kayser-Lienhard, Renaud Pietri, Maryline Sellier (Centre de recherche égyptologique de la PUBLISHED BY: Sorbonne), Liliana Marinescu-Nicolajsen Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 7 Dantes Plads 1556 , Denmark www.glyptoteket.dk