Winged Victory of Samothrace

Prompt: In the context of Winged Victory of Samothrace, explain the Dating and the Function, date and style.

The dedication inscription of the Victory Monument has not been found. Archaeologists are reduced to hypothesizing to define the historical context and to determine the naval victory justifying the erection of such an important ex voto. The difficulty lies in the fact that in the 2nd and 3rd centuries BC naval battles to dominate the Aegean Sea were very numerous, first pitting the Antigonids and their Seleucid allies against the Lagids, then the Seleucids to the Rhodians and Pergamon.Austrian archaeologists first considered that the monument of Samothrace is the one represented on the tetradrachma of Demetrios Poliorcetes. They conclude that, like the coin, he celebrated his victory against Ptolemy I at the Battle of Salamis at Cyprus in 306 BC. According to Benndorf, the Victory of Samothrace therefore dates from the last years of the fourth century BC. and may have been sculpted by a student of sculptor Scopas.The construction of the monument was then related to the Battle of Cos (around 262–255 BC), during which the King of Macedonia Antigonus II Gonatas defeated the Lagids, allied with Athens and Sparta during the Chremonidean War. Antigonus Gonatas is also credited with the dedication, at the same time, of his flagship in the Neorium in Delos.The material of the base of the Victory of Samothrace was identified as early as 1905 as marble from the quarries of Lartos in Rhodes. The same is true of the small fragment found in 1891 by Champoiseau within the walls of the monument to Samothrace, bearing the end of an engraved name: [...]Σ ΡΟΔΙΟΣ. In 1931, Hermann Thiersch restored the name of the sculptor "Pythokritos son of Timocharis of Rhodes", active around 210–165 BC. He was convinced that the fragment belongs to the ship-shaped base: he therefore made this sculptor the author of the Victory of Samothrace. According to him, the monument was commissioned by the Rhodians, allies in the kingdom of Pergamos against Antiochus III, after their victory at the naval battles of Side and Myonnesos, on the Ionian coast, in 190 BC. Excavations revealed that the sculpture was positioned alighting on a flagship, that was set in the ground in a way that it looked as it was floating. The definitive victory against the Seleucids came in 189 BC. at the Battle of Sipyla Magnesia. The monument was therefore reportedly erected in Samothrace shortly after that date. Jean Charbonneaux also admits the historical link between the Victory of Samothrace and the battles of Myonnesus and Magnesia, and makes it the dedication of King Eumene II.Based on the same arguments, Nathan Badoud in 2018 favoured the conflict that earlier pitted the Rhodians and the King of Pergamon against King Philip V of Macedonia. The Rhodians were first defeated at the naval Battle of Lade in 201 BC. Then Philip V was defeated at sea by the two allies at the Battle of Chios in 201 BC. Rhodes and Pergamon called on the Roman Republic for reinforcements, and Titus Quinctius Flamininus crushed the Macedonian army in Thessaly with the Battle of Cynoscephalae. The Rhodians reportedly dedicated the Victory Monument after that date, for their victory in Chios.Other researchers have considered later occasions: the victory of the Romans at Pydna in 168 BC. over Perseus, or a consecration of the kingdom of Pergamon at the same time, or the victory of Pergamon and Rhodes against Prusias II of Bithynia in 154 BC.

Image:Victoire de Samothrace parties conservées de la statue.jpg

File:Victoire de Samothrace - Musee du Louvre - 20190812.jpg

General plan of the [[Samothrace temple complex

The ''Nike of Samothrace'' at the Louvre Palace in Paris, at the top of the main staircase.

Image:Victoire de Samothrace - vue de gauche, détail de la proue.JPG

File:F4135 Paris Louvre victoire Samontrace rwk.jpg

Category:Archaeological discoveries in the Aegean Islands

Construction of the assembled monument, (drawing V. Foret).

Image:Schéma de la Victoire de Samothrace.jpg

Model of the ''Victory of Samothrace'' after Benndorf and Hauser, 1880.

The ''Winged Victory of Samothrace'' after the restoration of 2014.

Category:2nd-century BC Greek sculptures

''Nike of Samothrace'': the conserved parts of the statue, after Benndorf, 1880

Category:Ancient Greek and Roman sculptures in the Louvre

Naval monument in the agora of [[Cyrene (Libya)

Image:Tétradrachme en argent représentant Poséidon à droite.jpg


Winged Victory of Samothrace

Prompt: Explain the Dating about the Function, date and style of this artwork, Winged Victory of Samothrace.

The dedication inscription of the Victory Monument has not been found. Archaeologists are reduced to hypothesizing to define the historical context and to determine the naval victory justifying the erection of such an important ex voto. The difficulty lies in the fact that in the 2nd and 3rd centuries BC naval battles to dominate the Aegean Sea were very numerous, first pitting the Antigonids and their Seleucid allies against the Lagids, then the Seleucids to the Rhodians and Pergamon.Austrian archaeologists first considered that the monument of Samothrace is the one represented on the tetradrachma of Demetrios Poliorcetes. They conclude that, like the coin, he celebrated his victory against Ptolemy I at the Battle of Salamis at Cyprus in 306 BC. According to Benndorf, the Victory of Samothrace therefore dates from the last years of the fourth century BC. and may have been sculpted by a student of sculptor Scopas.The construction of the monument was then related to the Battle of Cos (around 262–255 BC), during which the King of Macedonia Antigonus II Gonatas defeated the Lagids, allied with Athens and Sparta during the Chremonidean War. Antigonus Gonatas is also credited with the dedication, at the same time, of his flagship in the Neorium in Delos.The material of the base of the Victory of Samothrace was identified as early as 1905 as marble from the quarries of Lartos in Rhodes. The same is true of the small fragment found in 1891 by Champoiseau within the walls of the monument to Samothrace, bearing the end of an engraved name: [...]Σ ΡΟΔΙΟΣ. In 1931, Hermann Thiersch restored the name of the sculptor "Pythokritos son of Timocharis of Rhodes", active around 210–165 BC. He was convinced that the fragment belongs to the ship-shaped base: he therefore made this sculptor the author of the Victory of Samothrace. According to him, the monument was commissioned by the Rhodians, allies in the kingdom of Pergamos against Antiochus III, after their victory at the naval battles of Side and Myonnesos, on the Ionian coast, in 190 BC. Excavations revealed that the sculpture was positioned alighting on a flagship, that was set in the ground in a way that it looked as it was floating. The definitive victory against the Seleucids came in 189 BC. at the Battle of Sipyla Magnesia. The monument was therefore reportedly erected in Samothrace shortly after that date. Jean Charbonneaux also admits the historical link between the Victory of Samothrace and the battles of Myonnesus and Magnesia, and makes it the dedication of King Eumene II.Based on the same arguments, Nathan Badoud in 2018 favoured the conflict that earlier pitted the Rhodians and the King of Pergamon against King Philip V of Macedonia. The Rhodians were first defeated at the naval Battle of Lade in 201 BC. Then Philip V was defeated at sea by the two allies at the Battle of Chios in 201 BC. Rhodes and Pergamon called on the Roman Republic for reinforcements, and Titus Quinctius Flamininus crushed the Macedonian army in Thessaly with the Battle of Cynoscephalae. The Rhodians reportedly dedicated the Victory Monument after that date, for their victory in Chios.Other researchers have considered later occasions: the victory of the Romans at Pydna in 168 BC. over Perseus, or a consecration of the kingdom of Pergamon at the same time, or the victory of Pergamon and Rhodes against Prusias II of Bithynia in 154 BC.

Image:Victoire de Samothrace parties conservées de la statue.jpg

File:Victoire de Samothrace - Musee du Louvre - 20190812.jpg

General plan of the [[Samothrace temple complex

The ''Nike of Samothrace'' at the Louvre Palace in Paris, at the top of the main staircase.

Image:Victoire de Samothrace - vue de gauche, détail de la proue.JPG

File:F4135 Paris Louvre victoire Samontrace rwk.jpg

Category:Archaeological discoveries in the Aegean Islands

Construction of the assembled monument, (drawing V. Foret).

Image:Schéma de la Victoire de Samothrace.jpg

Model of the ''Victory of Samothrace'' after Benndorf and Hauser, 1880.

The ''Winged Victory of Samothrace'' after the restoration of 2014.

Category:2nd-century BC Greek sculptures

''Nike of Samothrace'': the conserved parts of the statue, after Benndorf, 1880

Category:Ancient Greek and Roman sculptures in the Louvre

Naval monument in the agora of [[Cyrene (Libya)

Image:Tétradrachme en argent représentant Poséidon à droite.jpg


Winged Victory of Samothrace

Prompt: In Winged Victory of Samothrace, how is the Dating of the Function, date and style explained?

The dedication inscription of the Victory Monument has not been found. Archaeologists are reduced to hypothesizing to define the historical context and to determine the naval victory justifying the erection of such an important ex voto. The difficulty lies in the fact that in the 2nd and 3rd centuries BC naval battles to dominate the Aegean Sea were very numerous, first pitting the Antigonids and their Seleucid allies against the Lagids, then the Seleucids to the Rhodians and Pergamon.Austrian archaeologists first considered that the monument of Samothrace is the one represented on the tetradrachma of Demetrios Poliorcetes. They conclude that, like the coin, he celebrated his victory against Ptolemy I at the Battle of Salamis at Cyprus in 306 BC. According to Benndorf, the Victory of Samothrace therefore dates from the last years of the fourth century BC. and may have been sculpted by a student of sculptor Scopas.The construction of the monument was then related to the Battle of Cos (around 262–255 BC), during which the King of Macedonia Antigonus II Gonatas defeated the Lagids, allied with Athens and Sparta during the Chremonidean War. Antigonus Gonatas is also credited with the dedication, at the same time, of his flagship in the Neorium in Delos.The material of the base of the Victory of Samothrace was identified as early as 1905 as marble from the quarries of Lartos in Rhodes. The same is true of the small fragment found in 1891 by Champoiseau within the walls of the monument to Samothrace, bearing the end of an engraved name: [...]Σ ΡΟΔΙΟΣ. In 1931, Hermann Thiersch restored the name of the sculptor "Pythokritos son of Timocharis of Rhodes", active around 210–165 BC. He was convinced that the fragment belongs to the ship-shaped base: he therefore made this sculptor the author of the Victory of Samothrace. According to him, the monument was commissioned by the Rhodians, allies in the kingdom of Pergamos against Antiochus III, after their victory at the naval battles of Side and Myonnesos, on the Ionian coast, in 190 BC. Excavations revealed that the sculpture was positioned alighting on a flagship, that was set in the ground in a way that it looked as it was floating. The definitive victory against the Seleucids came in 189 BC. at the Battle of Sipyla Magnesia. The monument was therefore reportedly erected in Samothrace shortly after that date. Jean Charbonneaux also admits the historical link between the Victory of Samothrace and the battles of Myonnesus and Magnesia, and makes it the dedication of King Eumene II.Based on the same arguments, Nathan Badoud in 2018 favoured the conflict that earlier pitted the Rhodians and the King of Pergamon against King Philip V of Macedonia. The Rhodians were first defeated at the naval Battle of Lade in 201 BC. Then Philip V was defeated at sea by the two allies at the Battle of Chios in 201 BC. Rhodes and Pergamon called on the Roman Republic for reinforcements, and Titus Quinctius Flamininus crushed the Macedonian army in Thessaly with the Battle of Cynoscephalae. The Rhodians reportedly dedicated the Victory Monument after that date, for their victory in Chios.Other researchers have considered later occasions: the victory of the Romans at Pydna in 168 BC. over Perseus, or a consecration of the kingdom of Pergamon at the same time, or the victory of Pergamon and Rhodes against Prusias II of Bithynia in 154 BC.

Image:Victoire de Samothrace parties conservées de la statue.jpg

File:Victoire de Samothrace - Musee du Louvre - 20190812.jpg

General plan of the [[Samothrace temple complex

The ''Nike of Samothrace'' at the Louvre Palace in Paris, at the top of the main staircase.

Image:Victoire de Samothrace - vue de gauche, détail de la proue.JPG

File:F4135 Paris Louvre victoire Samontrace rwk.jpg

Category:Archaeological discoveries in the Aegean Islands

Construction of the assembled monument, (drawing V. Foret).

Image:Schéma de la Victoire de Samothrace.jpg

Model of the ''Victory of Samothrace'' after Benndorf and Hauser, 1880.

The ''Winged Victory of Samothrace'' after the restoration of 2014.

Category:2nd-century BC Greek sculptures

''Nike of Samothrace'': the conserved parts of the statue, after Benndorf, 1880

Category:Ancient Greek and Roman sculptures in the Louvre

Naval monument in the agora of [[Cyrene (Libya)

Image:Tétradrachme en argent représentant Poséidon à droite.jpg


Winged Victory of Samothrace

Prompt: Describe the characteristics of the Dating in Winged Victory of Samothrace's Function, date and style.

The dedication inscription of the Victory Monument has not been found. Archaeologists are reduced to hypothesizing to define the historical context and to determine the naval victory justifying the erection of such an important ex voto. The difficulty lies in the fact that in the 2nd and 3rd centuries BC naval battles to dominate the Aegean Sea were very numerous, first pitting the Antigonids and their Seleucid allies against the Lagids, then the Seleucids to the Rhodians and Pergamon.Austrian archaeologists first considered that the monument of Samothrace is the one represented on the tetradrachma of Demetrios Poliorcetes. They conclude that, like the coin, he celebrated his victory against Ptolemy I at the Battle of Salamis at Cyprus in 306 BC. According to Benndorf, the Victory of Samothrace therefore dates from the last years of the fourth century BC. and may have been sculpted by a student of sculptor Scopas.The construction of the monument was then related to the Battle of Cos (around 262–255 BC), during which the King of Macedonia Antigonus II Gonatas defeated the Lagids, allied with Athens and Sparta during the Chremonidean War. Antigonus Gonatas is also credited with the dedication, at the same time, of his flagship in the Neorium in Delos.The material of the base of the Victory of Samothrace was identified as early as 1905 as marble from the quarries of Lartos in Rhodes. The same is true of the small fragment found in 1891 by Champoiseau within the walls of the monument to Samothrace, bearing the end of an engraved name: [...]Σ ΡΟΔΙΟΣ. In 1931, Hermann Thiersch restored the name of the sculptor "Pythokritos son of Timocharis of Rhodes", active around 210–165 BC. He was convinced that the fragment belongs to the ship-shaped base: he therefore made this sculptor the author of the Victory of Samothrace. According to him, the monument was commissioned by the Rhodians, allies in the kingdom of Pergamos against Antiochus III, after their victory at the naval battles of Side and Myonnesos, on the Ionian coast, in 190 BC. Excavations revealed that the sculpture was positioned alighting on a flagship, that was set in the ground in a way that it looked as it was floating. The definitive victory against the Seleucids came in 189 BC. at the Battle of Sipyla Magnesia. The monument was therefore reportedly erected in Samothrace shortly after that date. Jean Charbonneaux also admits the historical link between the Victory of Samothrace and the battles of Myonnesus and Magnesia, and makes it the dedication of King Eumene II.Based on the same arguments, Nathan Badoud in 2018 favoured the conflict that earlier pitted the Rhodians and the King of Pergamon against King Philip V of Macedonia. The Rhodians were first defeated at the naval Battle of Lade in 201 BC. Then Philip V was defeated at sea by the two allies at the Battle of Chios in 201 BC. Rhodes and Pergamon called on the Roman Republic for reinforcements, and Titus Quinctius Flamininus crushed the Macedonian army in Thessaly with the Battle of Cynoscephalae. The Rhodians reportedly dedicated the Victory Monument after that date, for their victory in Chios.Other researchers have considered later occasions: the victory of the Romans at Pydna in 168 BC. over Perseus, or a consecration of the kingdom of Pergamon at the same time, or the victory of Pergamon and Rhodes against Prusias II of Bithynia in 154 BC.

Image:Victoire de Samothrace parties conservées de la statue.jpg

File:Victoire de Samothrace - Musee du Louvre - 20190812.jpg

General plan of the [[Samothrace temple complex

The ''Nike of Samothrace'' at the Louvre Palace in Paris, at the top of the main staircase.

Image:Victoire de Samothrace - vue de gauche, détail de la proue.JPG

File:F4135 Paris Louvre victoire Samontrace rwk.jpg

Category:Archaeological discoveries in the Aegean Islands

Construction of the assembled monument, (drawing V. Foret).

Image:Schéma de la Victoire de Samothrace.jpg

Model of the ''Victory of Samothrace'' after Benndorf and Hauser, 1880.

The ''Winged Victory of Samothrace'' after the restoration of 2014.

Category:2nd-century BC Greek sculptures

''Nike of Samothrace'': the conserved parts of the statue, after Benndorf, 1880

Category:Ancient Greek and Roman sculptures in the Louvre

Naval monument in the agora of [[Cyrene (Libya)

Image:Tétradrachme en argent représentant Poséidon à droite.jpg


Winged Victory of Samothrace

Prompt: In the context of Winged Victory of Samothrace, explain the Style and workshop and the Function, date and style.

Although the supposed dedication inscription of the name of a Rhodian found at the Victory's base was very quickly contested because of its small size, the entire monument remained attributed to the Rhodian sculpture school. This made it possible to put an end to previous doubts about the style of the statue. In 1955 Margarete Bieber made him a major figure in the "Rhodian school" and the "Hellenic Baroque", next to the frieze of the Gigantomachy of the Great Altar of Pergamon, characterized by the strength of attitudes, the virtuosity of the draperies and the expressiveness of the figures. This style lasted in Rhodes until Roman times in complex and monumental creations such as the Laocoon group or Sperlonga sculptures attributed or signed by Rhodian sculptors.The base blocks and the sculpture of the statue are not by the same hand. The two parts of the monument were designed together, but produced by two different workshops. The marble base of Lartos was certainly made in Rhodes, where there are parallels. Moreover, the Rhodian sculpture in large marble is of high quality, without being exceptional for its time, but there are no parallels for the virtuosity of the Nike, which remains unusual. The sculptor could also come from elsewhere, as was common in the ancient Greek world for great artists. The Victory of Samothrace is a grandiose adaptation of the moving statue of the Athena-Niké of the Cyrene monument: the sculptor added wings, stretched out the front leg to express the flight, and modified the arrangement of the mantle with the floating panel at the back. He thus gave the statue of Samothrace a dynamic that brings it closer to the figures the Gigantomachy of the altar of Pergamon, conceived shortly after in the same spirit.

Image:Victoire de Samothrace parties conservées de la statue.jpg

File:Victoire de Samothrace - Musee du Louvre - 20190812.jpg

General plan of the [[Samothrace temple complex

The ''Nike of Samothrace'' at the Louvre Palace in Paris, at the top of the main staircase.

Image:Victoire de Samothrace - vue de gauche, détail de la proue.JPG

File:F4135 Paris Louvre victoire Samontrace rwk.jpg

Category:Archaeological discoveries in the Aegean Islands

Construction of the assembled monument, (drawing V. Foret).

Image:Schéma de la Victoire de Samothrace.jpg

Model of the ''Victory of Samothrace'' after Benndorf and Hauser, 1880.

The ''Winged Victory of Samothrace'' after the restoration of 2014.

Category:2nd-century BC Greek sculptures

''Nike of Samothrace'': the conserved parts of the statue, after Benndorf, 1880

Category:Ancient Greek and Roman sculptures in the Louvre

Naval monument in the agora of [[Cyrene (Libya)

Image:Tétradrachme en argent représentant Poséidon à droite.jpg


Winged Victory of Samothrace

Prompt: Explain the Style and workshop about the Function, date and style of this artwork, Winged Victory of Samothrace.

Although the supposed dedication inscription of the name of a Rhodian found at the Victory's base was very quickly contested because of its small size, the entire monument remained attributed to the Rhodian sculpture school. This made it possible to put an end to previous doubts about the style of the statue. In 1955 Margarete Bieber made him a major figure in the "Rhodian school" and the "Hellenic Baroque", next to the frieze of the Gigantomachy of the Great Altar of Pergamon, characterized by the strength of attitudes, the virtuosity of the draperies and the expressiveness of the figures. This style lasted in Rhodes until Roman times in complex and monumental creations such as the Laocoon group or Sperlonga sculptures attributed or signed by Rhodian sculptors.The base blocks and the sculpture of the statue are not by the same hand. The two parts of the monument were designed together, but produced by two different workshops. The marble base of Lartos was certainly made in Rhodes, where there are parallels. Moreover, the Rhodian sculpture in large marble is of high quality, without being exceptional for its time, but there are no parallels for the virtuosity of the Nike, which remains unusual. The sculptor could also come from elsewhere, as was common in the ancient Greek world for great artists. The Victory of Samothrace is a grandiose adaptation of the moving statue of the Athena-Niké of the Cyrene monument: the sculptor added wings, stretched out the front leg to express the flight, and modified the arrangement of the mantle with the floating panel at the back. He thus gave the statue of Samothrace a dynamic that brings it closer to the figures the Gigantomachy of the altar of Pergamon, conceived shortly after in the same spirit.

Image:Victoire de Samothrace parties conservées de la statue.jpg

File:Victoire de Samothrace - Musee du Louvre - 20190812.jpg

General plan of the [[Samothrace temple complex

The ''Nike of Samothrace'' at the Louvre Palace in Paris, at the top of the main staircase.

Image:Victoire de Samothrace - vue de gauche, détail de la proue.JPG

File:F4135 Paris Louvre victoire Samontrace rwk.jpg

Category:Archaeological discoveries in the Aegean Islands

Construction of the assembled monument, (drawing V. Foret).

Image:Schéma de la Victoire de Samothrace.jpg

Model of the ''Victory of Samothrace'' after Benndorf and Hauser, 1880.

The ''Winged Victory of Samothrace'' after the restoration of 2014.

Category:2nd-century BC Greek sculptures

''Nike of Samothrace'': the conserved parts of the statue, after Benndorf, 1880

Category:Ancient Greek and Roman sculptures in the Louvre

Naval monument in the agora of [[Cyrene (Libya)

Image:Tétradrachme en argent représentant Poséidon à droite.jpg


Winged Victory of Samothrace

Prompt: In Winged Victory of Samothrace, how is the Style and workshop of the Function, date and style explained?

Although the supposed dedication inscription of the name of a Rhodian found at the Victory's base was very quickly contested because of its small size, the entire monument remained attributed to the Rhodian sculpture school. This made it possible to put an end to previous doubts about the style of the statue. In 1955 Margarete Bieber made him a major figure in the "Rhodian school" and the "Hellenic Baroque", next to the frieze of the Gigantomachy of the Great Altar of Pergamon, characterized by the strength of attitudes, the virtuosity of the draperies and the expressiveness of the figures. This style lasted in Rhodes until Roman times in complex and monumental creations such as the Laocoon group or Sperlonga sculptures attributed or signed by Rhodian sculptors.The base blocks and the sculpture of the statue are not by the same hand. The two parts of the monument were designed together, but produced by two different workshops. The marble base of Lartos was certainly made in Rhodes, where there are parallels. Moreover, the Rhodian sculpture in large marble is of high quality, without being exceptional for its time, but there are no parallels for the virtuosity of the Nike, which remains unusual. The sculptor could also come from elsewhere, as was common in the ancient Greek world for great artists. The Victory of Samothrace is a grandiose adaptation of the moving statue of the Athena-Niké of the Cyrene monument: the sculptor added wings, stretched out the front leg to express the flight, and modified the arrangement of the mantle with the floating panel at the back. He thus gave the statue of Samothrace a dynamic that brings it closer to the figures the Gigantomachy of the altar of Pergamon, conceived shortly after in the same spirit.

Image:Victoire de Samothrace parties conservées de la statue.jpg

File:Victoire de Samothrace - Musee du Louvre - 20190812.jpg

General plan of the [[Samothrace temple complex

The ''Nike of Samothrace'' at the Louvre Palace in Paris, at the top of the main staircase.

Image:Victoire de Samothrace - vue de gauche, détail de la proue.JPG

File:F4135 Paris Louvre victoire Samontrace rwk.jpg

Category:Archaeological discoveries in the Aegean Islands

Construction of the assembled monument, (drawing V. Foret).

Image:Schéma de la Victoire de Samothrace.jpg

Model of the ''Victory of Samothrace'' after Benndorf and Hauser, 1880.

The ''Winged Victory of Samothrace'' after the restoration of 2014.

Category:2nd-century BC Greek sculptures

''Nike of Samothrace'': the conserved parts of the statue, after Benndorf, 1880

Category:Ancient Greek and Roman sculptures in the Louvre

Naval monument in the agora of [[Cyrene (Libya)

Image:Tétradrachme en argent représentant Poséidon à droite.jpg


Winged Victory of Samothrace

Prompt: Describe the characteristics of the Style and workshop in Winged Victory of Samothrace's Function, date and style.

Although the supposed dedication inscription of the name of a Rhodian found at the Victory's base was very quickly contested because of its small size, the entire monument remained attributed to the Rhodian sculpture school. This made it possible to put an end to previous doubts about the style of the statue. In 1955 Margarete Bieber made him a major figure in the "Rhodian school" and the "Hellenic Baroque", next to the frieze of the Gigantomachy of the Great Altar of Pergamon, characterized by the strength of attitudes, the virtuosity of the draperies and the expressiveness of the figures. This style lasted in Rhodes until Roman times in complex and monumental creations such as the Laocoon group or Sperlonga sculptures attributed or signed by Rhodian sculptors.The base blocks and the sculpture of the statue are not by the same hand. The two parts of the monument were designed together, but produced by two different workshops. The marble base of Lartos was certainly made in Rhodes, where there are parallels. Moreover, the Rhodian sculpture in large marble is of high quality, without being exceptional for its time, but there are no parallels for the virtuosity of the Nike, which remains unusual. The sculptor could also come from elsewhere, as was common in the ancient Greek world for great artists. The Victory of Samothrace is a grandiose adaptation of the moving statue of the Athena-Niké of the Cyrene monument: the sculptor added wings, stretched out the front leg to express the flight, and modified the arrangement of the mantle with the floating panel at the back. He thus gave the statue of Samothrace a dynamic that brings it closer to the figures the Gigantomachy of the altar of Pergamon, conceived shortly after in the same spirit.

Image:Victoire de Samothrace parties conservées de la statue.jpg

File:Victoire de Samothrace - Musee du Louvre - 20190812.jpg

General plan of the [[Samothrace temple complex

The ''Nike of Samothrace'' at the Louvre Palace in Paris, at the top of the main staircase.

Image:Victoire de Samothrace - vue de gauche, détail de la proue.JPG

File:F4135 Paris Louvre victoire Samontrace rwk.jpg

Category:Archaeological discoveries in the Aegean Islands

Construction of the assembled monument, (drawing V. Foret).

Image:Schéma de la Victoire de Samothrace.jpg

Model of the ''Victory of Samothrace'' after Benndorf and Hauser, 1880.

The ''Winged Victory of Samothrace'' after the restoration of 2014.

Category:2nd-century BC Greek sculptures

''Nike of Samothrace'': the conserved parts of the statue, after Benndorf, 1880

Category:Ancient Greek and Roman sculptures in the Louvre

Naval monument in the agora of [[Cyrene (Libya)

Image:Tétradrachme en argent représentant Poséidon à droite.jpg


Venus de Milo

Prompt: Focus on Venus de Milo and explain the abstract.

The Venus de Milo or Aphrodite of Melos is an ancient Greek marble sculpture that was created during the Hellenistic period.  Its exact dating is uncertain, but the modern consensus places it in the 2nd century BC, perhaps between 160 and 110 BC.  It was rediscovered in 1820 on the island of Milos, Greece, and has been displayed at the Louvre Museum since 1821. Since the statue's discovery, it has become one of the most famous works of ancient Greek sculpture in the world.The Venus de Milo is believed to depict Aphrodite, the Greek goddess of love, whose Roman counterpart was Venus.  Made of Parian marble, the statue is larger than life size, standing over 2 metres (6 ft 7 in) high. The statue is missing both arms. The original position of these missing arms is uncertain. The sculpture was originally identified as depicting Aphrodite holding the apple of discord as a marble hand holding an apple was found alongside it; recent scientific analysis supports the identification of this hand as part of the sculpture. On the basis of a now-lost inscription found near the sculpture, it has been attributed to Alexandros from Antioch on the Maeander, though the name on the inscription is uncertain and its connection to the Venus is disputed.The Venus de Milo rapidly became a cornerstone of the Louvre's antiquities collection in the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars, and its fame spread through distribution in photographs and three-dimensional copies. The statue inspired over 70 poems, influenced 19th-century art and the Surrealist movement in the early 20th century, and has been featured in various modern artistic projects, including film and advertising. In contrast to the popular appreciation of the sculpture, scholars have been more critical. Though upon its discovery the Venus was considered a classical masterpiece, since it was re-dated to the Hellenistic period classicists have neglected the Venus in favour of studying sculptures mentioned in ancient written sources, even though they only survive as later copies which are technically inferior to the Venus.

Marie-Louis Jean André Charles de Martin du Tyrac

File:Paris Louvre Venus de Milo Debay drawing.jpg

Charles François de Riffardeau, marquis de Rivière

File:Joseph Warlencourt - L'ancienne salle du Tibre.jpg

Louis Nicolas Philippe Auguste de Forbin

The ''Venus de Milo'' on display in the Louvre, c.1824–1830, attributed to [[Joseph Warlencourt

Category:Archaeological discoveries in the Aegean Islands

Charles Othon Frédéric Jean-Baptiste de Clarac

Category:2nd-century BC Greek sculptures

Category:Ancient Greek and Roman sculptures in the Louvre

''Venus de Milo'' drawn by Auguste Debay.  The inscribed plinth, if originally part of the Venus, identifies the sculptor as [---]andros of [[Antioch on the Maeander


Venus de Milo

Prompt: Explain the abstract of this artwork, Venus de Milo.

The Venus de Milo or Aphrodite of Melos is an ancient Greek marble sculpture that was created during the Hellenistic period.  Its exact dating is uncertain, but the modern consensus places it in the 2nd century BC, perhaps between 160 and 110 BC.  It was rediscovered in 1820 on the island of Milos, Greece, and has been displayed at the Louvre Museum since 1821. Since the statue's discovery, it has become one of the most famous works of ancient Greek sculpture in the world.The Venus de Milo is believed to depict Aphrodite, the Greek goddess of love, whose Roman counterpart was Venus.  Made of Parian marble, the statue is larger than life size, standing over 2 metres (6 ft 7 in) high. The statue is missing both arms. The original position of these missing arms is uncertain. The sculpture was originally identified as depicting Aphrodite holding the apple of discord as a marble hand holding an apple was found alongside it; recent scientific analysis supports the identification of this hand as part of the sculpture. On the basis of a now-lost inscription found near the sculpture, it has been attributed to Alexandros from Antioch on the Maeander, though the name on the inscription is uncertain and its connection to the Venus is disputed.The Venus de Milo rapidly became a cornerstone of the Louvre's antiquities collection in the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars, and its fame spread through distribution in photographs and three-dimensional copies. The statue inspired over 70 poems, influenced 19th-century art and the Surrealist movement in the early 20th century, and has been featured in various modern artistic projects, including film and advertising. In contrast to the popular appreciation of the sculpture, scholars have been more critical. Though upon its discovery the Venus was considered a classical masterpiece, since it was re-dated to the Hellenistic period classicists have neglected the Venus in favour of studying sculptures mentioned in ancient written sources, even though they only survive as later copies which are technically inferior to the Venus.

Marie-Louis Jean André Charles de Martin du Tyrac

File:Paris Louvre Venus de Milo Debay drawing.jpg

Charles François de Riffardeau, marquis de Rivière

File:Joseph Warlencourt - L'ancienne salle du Tibre.jpg

Louis Nicolas Philippe Auguste de Forbin

The ''Venus de Milo'' on display in the Louvre, c.1824–1830, attributed to [[Joseph Warlencourt

Category:Archaeological discoveries in the Aegean Islands

Charles Othon Frédéric Jean-Baptiste de Clarac

Category:2nd-century BC Greek sculptures

Category:Ancient Greek and Roman sculptures in the Louvre

''Venus de Milo'' drawn by Auguste Debay.  The inscribed plinth, if originally part of the Venus, identifies the sculptor as [---]andros of [[Antioch on the Maeander


Venus de Milo

Prompt: How does Venus de Milo explain its abstract?

The Venus de Milo or Aphrodite of Melos is an ancient Greek marble sculpture that was created during the Hellenistic period.  Its exact dating is uncertain, but the modern consensus places it in the 2nd century BC, perhaps between 160 and 110 BC.  It was rediscovered in 1820 on the island of Milos, Greece, and has been displayed at the Louvre Museum since 1821. Since the statue's discovery, it has become one of the most famous works of ancient Greek sculpture in the world.The Venus de Milo is believed to depict Aphrodite, the Greek goddess of love, whose Roman counterpart was Venus.  Made of Parian marble, the statue is larger than life size, standing over 2 metres (6 ft 7 in) high. The statue is missing both arms. The original position of these missing arms is uncertain. The sculpture was originally identified as depicting Aphrodite holding the apple of discord as a marble hand holding an apple was found alongside it; recent scientific analysis supports the identification of this hand as part of the sculpture. On the basis of a now-lost inscription found near the sculpture, it has been attributed to Alexandros from Antioch on the Maeander, though the name on the inscription is uncertain and its connection to the Venus is disputed.The Venus de Milo rapidly became a cornerstone of the Louvre's antiquities collection in the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars, and its fame spread through distribution in photographs and three-dimensional copies. The statue inspired over 70 poems, influenced 19th-century art and the Surrealist movement in the early 20th century, and has been featured in various modern artistic projects, including film and advertising. In contrast to the popular appreciation of the sculpture, scholars have been more critical. Though upon its discovery the Venus was considered a classical masterpiece, since it was re-dated to the Hellenistic period classicists have neglected the Venus in favour of studying sculptures mentioned in ancient written sources, even though they only survive as later copies which are technically inferior to the Venus.

Marie-Louis Jean André Charles de Martin du Tyrac

File:Paris Louvre Venus de Milo Debay drawing.jpg

Charles François de Riffardeau, marquis de Rivière

File:Joseph Warlencourt - L'ancienne salle du Tibre.jpg

Louis Nicolas Philippe Auguste de Forbin

The ''Venus de Milo'' on display in the Louvre, c.1824–1830, attributed to [[Joseph Warlencourt

Category:Archaeological discoveries in the Aegean Islands

Charles Othon Frédéric Jean-Baptiste de Clarac

Category:2nd-century BC Greek sculptures

Category:Ancient Greek and Roman sculptures in the Louvre

''Venus de Milo'' drawn by Auguste Debay.  The inscribed plinth, if originally part of the Venus, identifies the sculptor as [---]andros of [[Antioch on the Maeander


Venus de Milo

Prompt: In Venus de Milo, how is the abstract discussed?

The Venus de Milo or Aphrodite of Melos is an ancient Greek marble sculpture that was created during the Hellenistic period.  Its exact dating is uncertain, but the modern consensus places it in the 2nd century BC, perhaps between 160 and 110 BC.  It was rediscovered in 1820 on the island of Milos, Greece, and has been displayed at the Louvre Museum since 1821. Since the statue's discovery, it has become one of the most famous works of ancient Greek sculpture in the world.The Venus de Milo is believed to depict Aphrodite, the Greek goddess of love, whose Roman counterpart was Venus.  Made of Parian marble, the statue is larger than life size, standing over 2 metres (6 ft 7 in) high. The statue is missing both arms. The original position of these missing arms is uncertain. The sculpture was originally identified as depicting Aphrodite holding the apple of discord as a marble hand holding an apple was found alongside it; recent scientific analysis supports the identification of this hand as part of the sculpture. On the basis of a now-lost inscription found near the sculpture, it has been attributed to Alexandros from Antioch on the Maeander, though the name on the inscription is uncertain and its connection to the Venus is disputed.The Venus de Milo rapidly became a cornerstone of the Louvre's antiquities collection in the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars, and its fame spread through distribution in photographs and three-dimensional copies. The statue inspired over 70 poems, influenced 19th-century art and the Surrealist movement in the early 20th century, and has been featured in various modern artistic projects, including film and advertising. In contrast to the popular appreciation of the sculpture, scholars have been more critical. Though upon its discovery the Venus was considered a classical masterpiece, since it was re-dated to the Hellenistic period classicists have neglected the Venus in favour of studying sculptures mentioned in ancient written sources, even though they only survive as later copies which are technically inferior to the Venus.

Marie-Louis Jean André Charles de Martin du Tyrac

File:Paris Louvre Venus de Milo Debay drawing.jpg

Charles François de Riffardeau, marquis de Rivière

File:Joseph Warlencourt - L'ancienne salle du Tibre.jpg

Louis Nicolas Philippe Auguste de Forbin

The ''Venus de Milo'' on display in the Louvre, c.1824–1830, attributed to [[Joseph Warlencourt

Category:Archaeological discoveries in the Aegean Islands

Charles Othon Frédéric Jean-Baptiste de Clarac

Category:2nd-century BC Greek sculptures

Category:Ancient Greek and Roman sculptures in the Louvre

''Venus de Milo'' drawn by Auguste Debay.  The inscribed plinth, if originally part of the Venus, identifies the sculptor as [---]andros of [[Antioch on the Maeander


Venus de Milo

Prompt: Focus on Venus de Milo and explain the Description.

The Venus de Milo is an over 2 metres (6 ft 7 in) tall Parian marble statue of a Greek goddess, most likely Aphrodite, depicted with a bare torso and drapery over the lower half of her body.  The figure stands with her weight on her right leg, and the left leg raised; her head is turned to the left. The statue is missing both arms, the left foot, and the earlobes. There is a filled hole below her right breast that originally contained a metal tenon that would have supported the right arm.  The Venus' flesh is polished smooth, but chisel marks are still visible on other surfaces.  The drapery is more elaborately carved on the right-hand side of the statue than the left, perhaps because on the left-hand side it was originally obscured from view.  Likewise the Venus is less finely-finished from behind, suggesting that it was originally intended to be viewed only from the front. While the body of the Venus is depicted in a realistic style, the head is more idealised. The lips are slightly open, the eyes and mouth are small. The sculpture has been minimally restored: only the tip of the nose, lower lip, big toe on the right foot, and some of the drapery.Stylistically, the sculpture combines elements of classical and Hellenistic art. Features such as the small, regular eyes and mouth, and the strong brow and nose, are classical in style, while the shape of the torso and the deeply carved drapery are Hellenistic.Kenneth Clark describes the figure as "the last great work of antique Greece", and "of all the works of antiquity one of the most complex and the most artful. ...[the sculptor] has consciously attempted to give the effect of a 5th-century work", while also using "the inventions of his own time"; "the planes of her body are so large and calm that at first we do not realise the number of angles through which they pass. In architectural terms, she is a baroque composition with classic effect".

Marie-Louis Jean André Charles de Martin du Tyrac

File:Paris Louvre Venus de Milo Debay drawing.jpg

Charles François de Riffardeau, marquis de Rivière

File:Joseph Warlencourt - L'ancienne salle du Tibre.jpg

Louis Nicolas Philippe Auguste de Forbin

The ''Venus de Milo'' on display in the Louvre, c.1824–1830, attributed to [[Joseph Warlencourt

Category:Archaeological discoveries in the Aegean Islands

Charles Othon Frédéric Jean-Baptiste de Clarac

Category:2nd-century BC Greek sculptures

Category:Ancient Greek and Roman sculptures in the Louvre

''Venus de Milo'' drawn by Auguste Debay.  The inscribed plinth, if originally part of the Venus, identifies the sculptor as [---]andros of [[Antioch on the Maeander


Venus de Milo

Prompt: Explain the Description of this artwork, Venus de Milo.

The Venus de Milo is an over 2 metres (6 ft 7 in) tall Parian marble statue of a Greek goddess, most likely Aphrodite, depicted with a bare torso and drapery over the lower half of her body.  The figure stands with her weight on her right leg, and the left leg raised; her head is turned to the left. The statue is missing both arms, the left foot, and the earlobes. There is a filled hole below her right breast that originally contained a metal tenon that would have supported the right arm.  The Venus' flesh is polished smooth, but chisel marks are still visible on other surfaces.  The drapery is more elaborately carved on the right-hand side of the statue than the left, perhaps because on the left-hand side it was originally obscured from view.  Likewise the Venus is less finely-finished from behind, suggesting that it was originally intended to be viewed only from the front. While the body of the Venus is depicted in a realistic style, the head is more idealised. The lips are slightly open, the eyes and mouth are small. The sculpture has been minimally restored: only the tip of the nose, lower lip, big toe on the right foot, and some of the drapery.Stylistically, the sculpture combines elements of classical and Hellenistic art. Features such as the small, regular eyes and mouth, and the strong brow and nose, are classical in style, while the shape of the torso and the deeply carved drapery are Hellenistic.Kenneth Clark describes the figure as "the last great work of antique Greece", and "of all the works of antiquity one of the most complex and the most artful. ...[the sculptor] has consciously attempted to give the effect of a 5th-century work", while also using "the inventions of his own time"; "the planes of her body are so large and calm that at first we do not realise the number of angles through which they pass. In architectural terms, she is a baroque composition with classic effect".

Marie-Louis Jean André Charles de Martin du Tyrac

File:Paris Louvre Venus de Milo Debay drawing.jpg

Charles François de Riffardeau, marquis de Rivière

File:Joseph Warlencourt - L'ancienne salle du Tibre.jpg

Louis Nicolas Philippe Auguste de Forbin

The ''Venus de Milo'' on display in the Louvre, c.1824–1830, attributed to [[Joseph Warlencourt

Category:Archaeological discoveries in the Aegean Islands

Charles Othon Frédéric Jean-Baptiste de Clarac

Category:2nd-century BC Greek sculptures

Category:Ancient Greek and Roman sculptures in the Louvre

''Venus de Milo'' drawn by Auguste Debay.  The inscribed plinth, if originally part of the Venus, identifies the sculptor as [---]andros of [[Antioch on the Maeander


Venus de Milo

Prompt: How does Venus de Milo explain its Description?

The Venus de Milo is an over 2 metres (6 ft 7 in) tall Parian marble statue of a Greek goddess, most likely Aphrodite, depicted with a bare torso and drapery over the lower half of her body.  The figure stands with her weight on her right leg, and the left leg raised; her head is turned to the left. The statue is missing both arms, the left foot, and the earlobes. There is a filled hole below her right breast that originally contained a metal tenon that would have supported the right arm.  The Venus' flesh is polished smooth, but chisel marks are still visible on other surfaces.  The drapery is more elaborately carved on the right-hand side of the statue than the left, perhaps because on the left-hand side it was originally obscured from view.  Likewise the Venus is less finely-finished from behind, suggesting that it was originally intended to be viewed only from the front. While the body of the Venus is depicted in a realistic style, the head is more idealised. The lips are slightly open, the eyes and mouth are small. The sculpture has been minimally restored: only the tip of the nose, lower lip, big toe on the right foot, and some of the drapery.Stylistically, the sculpture combines elements of classical and Hellenistic art. Features such as the small, regular eyes and mouth, and the strong brow and nose, are classical in style, while the shape of the torso and the deeply carved drapery are Hellenistic.Kenneth Clark describes the figure as "the last great work of antique Greece", and "of all the works of antiquity one of the most complex and the most artful. ...[the sculptor] has consciously attempted to give the effect of a 5th-century work", while also using "the inventions of his own time"; "the planes of her body are so large and calm that at first we do not realise the number of angles through which they pass. In architectural terms, she is a baroque composition with classic effect".

Marie-Louis Jean André Charles de Martin du Tyrac

File:Paris Louvre Venus de Milo Debay drawing.jpg

Charles François de Riffardeau, marquis de Rivière

File:Joseph Warlencourt - L'ancienne salle du Tibre.jpg

Louis Nicolas Philippe Auguste de Forbin

The ''Venus de Milo'' on display in the Louvre, c.1824–1830, attributed to [[Joseph Warlencourt

Category:Archaeological discoveries in the Aegean Islands

Charles Othon Frédéric Jean-Baptiste de Clarac

Category:2nd-century BC Greek sculptures

Category:Ancient Greek and Roman sculptures in the Louvre

''Venus de Milo'' drawn by Auguste Debay.  The inscribed plinth, if originally part of the Venus, identifies the sculptor as [---]andros of [[Antioch on the Maeander


Venus de Milo

Prompt: In Venus de Milo, how is the Description discussed?

The Venus de Milo is an over 2 metres (6 ft 7 in) tall Parian marble statue of a Greek goddess, most likely Aphrodite, depicted with a bare torso and drapery over the lower half of her body.  The figure stands with her weight on her right leg, and the left leg raised; her head is turned to the left. The statue is missing both arms, the left foot, and the earlobes. There is a filled hole below her right breast that originally contained a metal tenon that would have supported the right arm.  The Venus' flesh is polished smooth, but chisel marks are still visible on other surfaces.  The drapery is more elaborately carved on the right-hand side of the statue than the left, perhaps because on the left-hand side it was originally obscured from view.  Likewise the Venus is less finely-finished from behind, suggesting that it was originally intended to be viewed only from the front. While the body of the Venus is depicted in a realistic style, the head is more idealised. The lips are slightly open, the eyes and mouth are small. The sculpture has been minimally restored: only the tip of the nose, lower lip, big toe on the right foot, and some of the drapery.Stylistically, the sculpture combines elements of classical and Hellenistic art. Features such as the small, regular eyes and mouth, and the strong brow and nose, are classical in style, while the shape of the torso and the deeply carved drapery are Hellenistic.Kenneth Clark describes the figure as "the last great work of antique Greece", and "of all the works of antiquity one of the most complex and the most artful. ...[the sculptor] has consciously attempted to give the effect of a 5th-century work", while also using "the inventions of his own time"; "the planes of her body are so large and calm that at first we do not realise the number of angles through which they pass. In architectural terms, she is a baroque composition with classic effect".

Marie-Louis Jean André Charles de Martin du Tyrac

File:Paris Louvre Venus de Milo Debay drawing.jpg

Charles François de Riffardeau, marquis de Rivière

File:Joseph Warlencourt - L'ancienne salle du Tibre.jpg

Louis Nicolas Philippe Auguste de Forbin

The ''Venus de Milo'' on display in the Louvre, c.1824–1830, attributed to [[Joseph Warlencourt

Category:Archaeological discoveries in the Aegean Islands

Charles Othon Frédéric Jean-Baptiste de Clarac

Category:2nd-century BC Greek sculptures

Category:Ancient Greek and Roman sculptures in the Louvre

''Venus de Milo'' drawn by Auguste Debay.  The inscribed plinth, if originally part of the Venus, identifies the sculptor as [---]andros of [[Antioch on the Maeander


Venus de Milo

Prompt: Focus on Venus de Milo and explain the Discovery.

The Venus de Milo was discovered on 8 April 1820 by a Greek farmer on the island of Milos, then still part of the Ottoman Empire.  Olivier Voutier, a French sailor interested in archaeology, witnessed the discovery and encouraged the farmer to continue digging.  Voutier and the farmer uncovered  two large pieces of the sculpture and a third, smaller piece.  A fragment of an arm, a hand holding an apple, and two herms were also found alongside the statue. Two inscriptions were also apparently found with the Venus. One, transcribed by Dumont D'Urville, a French naval officer who arrived on Milos shortly after the discovery, commemorates a dedication by one Bakchios son of Satios, the assistant gymnasiarch. The other, recorded on a drawing made by Auguste Debay, preserves part of a sculptor's signature.  Both inscriptions are now lost.  Other sculptural fragments found around the same time include a third herm, two further arms, and a foot with sandal.Dumont D'Urville wrote an account of the find.  According to his testimony, the Venus statue was found in a quadrangular niche.  If this findspot were the original context for the Venus, the niche and the gymnasiarch's inscription suggests that the Venus de Milo was installed in the gymnasium of Melos.  An alternative theory proposed by Salomon Reinach is that the findspot was instead the remains of a lime kiln, and that the other fragments had no connection to the Venus; this theory is dismissed by Christofilis Maggidis as having "no factual basis".After stopping in Melos, D'Urville's ship sailed to Constantinople, where he reported the find to the Comte de Marcellus, assistant to Charles François de Riffardeau, marquis de Rivière, the French ambassador. Rivière agreed that Marcellus should go to Melos to buy the statue.  By the time Marcellus arrived at Melos, the farmer who discovered the statue had already received another offer to buy it, and it had been loaded onto a ship; the French intervened and Marcellus was able to buy the Venus.  It was brought to France, where Louis XVIII had it installed in the Louvre. Contrary to the usual practice at the time, on the recommendation of Quatremère de Quincy, the Venus was not significantly restored but was exhibited in the state in which she was discovered.  Quatremère, who believed that the Venus was originally part of a group with a sculpture of Mars, argued that as the entire Mars was missing it was impossible to restore the sculpture.

Marie-Louis Jean André Charles de Martin du Tyrac

File:Paris Louvre Venus de Milo Debay drawing.jpg

File:Joseph Warlencourt - L'ancienne salle du Tibre.jpg

Louis Nicolas Philippe Auguste de Forbin

The ''Venus de Milo'' on display in the Louvre, c.1824–1830, attributed to [[Joseph Warlencourt

Category:Archaeological discoveries in the Aegean Islands

Charles Othon Frédéric Jean-Baptiste de Clarac

Category:2nd-century BC Greek sculptures

Category:Ancient Greek and Roman sculptures in the Louvre

''Venus de Milo'' drawn by Auguste Debay.  The inscribed plinth, if originally part of the Venus, identifies the sculptor as [---]andros of [[Antioch on the Maeander


Venus de Milo

Prompt: Explain the Discovery of this artwork, Venus de Milo.

The Venus de Milo was discovered on 8 April 1820 by a Greek farmer on the island of Milos, then still part of the Ottoman Empire.  Olivier Voutier, a French sailor interested in archaeology, witnessed the discovery and encouraged the farmer to continue digging.  Voutier and the farmer uncovered  two large pieces of the sculpture and a third, smaller piece.  A fragment of an arm, a hand holding an apple, and two herms were also found alongside the statue. Two inscriptions were also apparently found with the Venus. One, transcribed by Dumont D'Urville, a French naval officer who arrived on Milos shortly after the discovery, commemorates a dedication by one Bakchios son of Satios, the assistant gymnasiarch. The other, recorded on a drawing made by Auguste Debay, preserves part of a sculptor's signature.  Both inscriptions are now lost.  Other sculptural fragments found around the same time include a third herm, two further arms, and a foot with sandal.Dumont D'Urville wrote an account of the find.  According to his testimony, the Venus statue was found in a quadrangular niche.  If this findspot were the original context for the Venus, the niche and the gymnasiarch's inscription suggests that the Venus de Milo was installed in the gymnasium of Melos.  An alternative theory proposed by Salomon Reinach is that the findspot was instead the remains of a lime kiln, and that the other fragments had no connection to the Venus; this theory is dismissed by Christofilis Maggidis as having "no factual basis".After stopping in Melos, D'Urville's ship sailed to Constantinople, where he reported the find to the Comte de Marcellus, assistant to Charles François de Riffardeau, marquis de Rivière, the French ambassador. Rivière agreed that Marcellus should go to Melos to buy the statue.  By the time Marcellus arrived at Melos, the farmer who discovered the statue had already received another offer to buy it, and it had been loaded onto a ship; the French intervened and Marcellus was able to buy the Venus.  It was brought to France, where Louis XVIII had it installed in the Louvre. Contrary to the usual practice at the time, on the recommendation of Quatremère de Quincy, the Venus was not significantly restored but was exhibited in the state in which she was discovered.  Quatremère, who believed that the Venus was originally part of a group with a sculpture of Mars, argued that as the entire Mars was missing it was impossible to restore the sculpture.

Marie-Louis Jean André Charles de Martin du Tyrac

File:Paris Louvre Venus de Milo Debay drawing.jpg

File:Joseph Warlencourt - L'ancienne salle du Tibre.jpg

Louis Nicolas Philippe Auguste de Forbin

The ''Venus de Milo'' on display in the Louvre, c.1824–1830, attributed to [[Joseph Warlencourt

Category:Archaeological discoveries in the Aegean Islands

Charles Othon Frédéric Jean-Baptiste de Clarac

Category:2nd-century BC Greek sculptures

Category:Ancient Greek and Roman sculptures in the Louvre

''Venus de Milo'' drawn by Auguste Debay.  The inscribed plinth, if originally part of the Venus, identifies the sculptor as [---]andros of [[Antioch on the Maeander


Venus de Milo

Prompt: How does Venus de Milo explain its Discovery?

The Venus de Milo was discovered on 8 April 1820 by a Greek farmer on the island of Milos, then still part of the Ottoman Empire.  Olivier Voutier, a French sailor interested in archaeology, witnessed the discovery and encouraged the farmer to continue digging.  Voutier and the farmer uncovered  two large pieces of the sculpture and a third, smaller piece.  A fragment of an arm, a hand holding an apple, and two herms were also found alongside the statue. Two inscriptions were also apparently found with the Venus. One, transcribed by Dumont D'Urville, a French naval officer who arrived on Milos shortly after the discovery, commemorates a dedication by one Bakchios son of Satios, the assistant gymnasiarch. The other, recorded on a drawing made by Auguste Debay, preserves part of a sculptor's signature.  Both inscriptions are now lost.  Other sculptural fragments found around the same time include a third herm, two further arms, and a foot with sandal.Dumont D'Urville wrote an account of the find.  According to his testimony, the Venus statue was found in a quadrangular niche.  If this findspot were the original context for the Venus, the niche and the gymnasiarch's inscription suggests that the Venus de Milo was installed in the gymnasium of Melos.  An alternative theory proposed by Salomon Reinach is that the findspot was instead the remains of a lime kiln, and that the other fragments had no connection to the Venus; this theory is dismissed by Christofilis Maggidis as having "no factual basis".After stopping in Melos, D'Urville's ship sailed to Constantinople, where he reported the find to the Comte de Marcellus, assistant to Charles François de Riffardeau, marquis de Rivière, the French ambassador. Rivière agreed that Marcellus should go to Melos to buy the statue.  By the time Marcellus arrived at Melos, the farmer who discovered the statue had already received another offer to buy it, and it had been loaded onto a ship; the French intervened and Marcellus was able to buy the Venus.  It was brought to France, where Louis XVIII had it installed in the Louvre. Contrary to the usual practice at the time, on the recommendation of Quatremère de Quincy, the Venus was not significantly restored but was exhibited in the state in which she was discovered.  Quatremère, who believed that the Venus was originally part of a group with a sculpture of Mars, argued that as the entire Mars was missing it was impossible to restore the sculpture.

Marie-Louis Jean André Charles de Martin du Tyrac

File:Paris Louvre Venus de Milo Debay drawing.jpg

File:Joseph Warlencourt - L'ancienne salle du Tibre.jpg

Louis Nicolas Philippe Auguste de Forbin

The ''Venus de Milo'' on display in the Louvre, c.1824–1830, attributed to [[Joseph Warlencourt

Category:Archaeological discoveries in the Aegean Islands

Charles Othon Frédéric Jean-Baptiste de Clarac

Category:2nd-century BC Greek sculptures

Category:Ancient Greek and Roman sculptures in the Louvre

''Venus de Milo'' drawn by Auguste Debay.  The inscribed plinth, if originally part of the Venus, identifies the sculptor as [---]andros of [[Antioch on the Maeander


Venus de Milo

Prompt: In Venus de Milo, how is the Discovery discussed?

The Venus de Milo was discovered on 8 April 1820 by a Greek farmer on the island of Milos, then still part of the Ottoman Empire.  Olivier Voutier, a French sailor interested in archaeology, witnessed the discovery and encouraged the farmer to continue digging.  Voutier and the farmer uncovered  two large pieces of the sculpture and a third, smaller piece.  A fragment of an arm, a hand holding an apple, and two herms were also found alongside the statue. Two inscriptions were also apparently found with the Venus. One, transcribed by Dumont D'Urville, a French naval officer who arrived on Milos shortly after the discovery, commemorates a dedication by one Bakchios son of Satios, the assistant gymnasiarch. The other, recorded on a drawing made by Auguste Debay, preserves part of a sculptor's signature.  Both inscriptions are now lost.  Other sculptural fragments found around the same time include a third herm, two further arms, and a foot with sandal.Dumont D'Urville wrote an account of the find.  According to his testimony, the Venus statue was found in a quadrangular niche.  If this findspot were the original context for the Venus, the niche and the gymnasiarch's inscription suggests that the Venus de Milo was installed in the gymnasium of Melos.  An alternative theory proposed by Salomon Reinach is that the findspot was instead the remains of a lime kiln, and that the other fragments had no connection to the Venus; this theory is dismissed by Christofilis Maggidis as having "no factual basis".After stopping in Melos, D'Urville's ship sailed to Constantinople, where he reported the find to the Comte de Marcellus, assistant to Charles François de Riffardeau, marquis de Rivière, the French ambassador. Rivière agreed that Marcellus should go to Melos to buy the statue.  By the time Marcellus arrived at Melos, the farmer who discovered the statue had already received another offer to buy it, and it had been loaded onto a ship; the French intervened and Marcellus was able to buy the Venus.  It was brought to France, where Louis XVIII had it installed in the Louvre. Contrary to the usual practice at the time, on the recommendation of Quatremère de Quincy, the Venus was not significantly restored but was exhibited in the state in which she was discovered.  Quatremère, who believed that the Venus was originally part of a group with a sculpture of Mars, argued that as the entire Mars was missing it was impossible to restore the sculpture.

Marie-Louis Jean André Charles de Martin du Tyrac

File:Paris Louvre Venus de Milo Debay drawing.jpg

File:Joseph Warlencourt - L'ancienne salle du Tibre.jpg

Louis Nicolas Philippe Auguste de Forbin

The ''Venus de Milo'' on display in the Louvre, c.1824–1830, attributed to [[Joseph Warlencourt

Category:Archaeological discoveries in the Aegean Islands

Charles Othon Frédéric Jean-Baptiste de Clarac

Category:2nd-century BC Greek sculptures

Category:Ancient Greek and Roman sculptures in the Louvre

''Venus de Milo'' drawn by Auguste Debay.  The inscribed plinth, if originally part of the Venus, identifies the sculptor as [---]andros of [[Antioch on the Maeander


Venus de Milo

Prompt: Focus on Venus de Milo and explain the Display.

The Venus de Milo was initially installed in the Louvre in 1821; it was rapidly moved twice before finding a long-term home in the Salle du Tibre where it remained until 1848.  From there it was moved to the Salle de l'Isis, where it remained until being removed from the museum in 1870 for protection during the Paris Commune.  When the Salle de l'Isis was renovated in the 1880s, the Venus was given a new pedestal which allowed spectators to rotate the sculpture; at the same time the approach to the sculpture was filled with other ancient Venus statues.  A proposal in 1919 to display the Venus alongside the Leonardo's Mona Lisa and Michelangelo's Dying Slave and Rebellious Slave was never carried out, but in 1936, the sculpture was once again moved to the Salle de la Vénus de Milo to accommodate the volume of visitors to the Louvre; the other Venus statues were removed to focus visitors on the Venus de Milo. At this time the route for visitors through the Louvre was modified to be more chronological, coming through galleries of archaic and classical sculpture before arriving in a gallery dedicated to the Hellenstic period; the Venus de Milo was placed between the classical and Hellenistic galleries. During the Second World War the sculpture was once again removed from the Louvre for safekeeping, and stored in the Château de Valençay. In 1964 it was exhibited in Tokyo and Kyoto; this is the only time the sculpture has left France since it was acquired by the Louvre.  In 1972 an experiment was made with a new site for the sculpture, and it was temporarily moved to allow renovations in the 1980s and 1990s; by 1999 the volume of visitors to the Venus was causing problems and the Louvre authorities were considering returning the sculpture to its previous setting. In 2010 the sculpture was installed in its new setting, with the sculptural fragments discovered alongside it on display in the same room.

Marie-Louis Jean André Charles de Martin du Tyrac

File:Paris Louvre Venus de Milo Debay drawing.jpg

Charles François de Riffardeau, marquis de Rivière

File:Joseph Warlencourt - L'ancienne salle du Tibre.jpg

Louis Nicolas Philippe Auguste de Forbin

The ''Venus de Milo'' on display in the Louvre, c.1824–1830, attributed to [[Joseph Warlencourt

Category:Archaeological discoveries in the Aegean Islands

Charles Othon Frédéric Jean-Baptiste de Clarac

Category:2nd-century BC Greek sculptures

Category:Ancient Greek and Roman sculptures in the Louvre

''Venus de Milo'' drawn by Auguste Debay.  The inscribed plinth, if originally part of the Venus, identifies the sculptor as [---]andros of [[Antioch on the Maeander


Venus de Milo

Prompt: Explain the Display of this artwork, Venus de Milo.

The Venus de Milo was initially installed in the Louvre in 1821; it was rapidly moved twice before finding a long-term home in the Salle du Tibre where it remained until 1848.  From there it was moved to the Salle de l'Isis, where it remained until being removed from the museum in 1870 for protection during the Paris Commune.  When the Salle de l'Isis was renovated in the 1880s, the Venus was given a new pedestal which allowed spectators to rotate the sculpture; at the same time the approach to the sculpture was filled with other ancient Venus statues.  A proposal in 1919 to display the Venus alongside the Leonardo's Mona Lisa and Michelangelo's Dying Slave and Rebellious Slave was never carried out, but in 1936, the sculpture was once again moved to the Salle de la Vénus de Milo to accommodate the volume of visitors to the Louvre; the other Venus statues were removed to focus visitors on the Venus de Milo. At this time the route for visitors through the Louvre was modified to be more chronological, coming through galleries of archaic and classical sculpture before arriving in a gallery dedicated to the Hellenstic period; the Venus de Milo was placed between the classical and Hellenistic galleries. During the Second World War the sculpture was once again removed from the Louvre for safekeeping, and stored in the Château de Valençay. In 1964 it was exhibited in Tokyo and Kyoto; this is the only time the sculpture has left France since it was acquired by the Louvre.  In 1972 an experiment was made with a new site for the sculpture, and it was temporarily moved to allow renovations in the 1980s and 1990s; by 1999 the volume of visitors to the Venus was causing problems and the Louvre authorities were considering returning the sculpture to its previous setting. In 2010 the sculpture was installed in its new setting, with the sculptural fragments discovered alongside it on display in the same room.

Marie-Louis Jean André Charles de Martin du Tyrac

File:Paris Louvre Venus de Milo Debay drawing.jpg

Charles François de Riffardeau, marquis de Rivière

File:Joseph Warlencourt - L'ancienne salle du Tibre.jpg

Louis Nicolas Philippe Auguste de Forbin

The ''Venus de Milo'' on display in the Louvre, c.1824–1830, attributed to [[Joseph Warlencourt

Category:Archaeological discoveries in the Aegean Islands

Charles Othon Frédéric Jean-Baptiste de Clarac

Category:2nd-century BC Greek sculptures

Category:Ancient Greek and Roman sculptures in the Louvre

''Venus de Milo'' drawn by Auguste Debay.  The inscribed plinth, if originally part of the Venus, identifies the sculptor as [---]andros of [[Antioch on the Maeander


Venus de Milo

Prompt: How does Venus de Milo explain its Display?

The Venus de Milo was initially installed in the Louvre in 1821; it was rapidly moved twice before finding a long-term home in the Salle du Tibre where it remained until 1848.  From there it was moved to the Salle de l'Isis, where it remained until being removed from the museum in 1870 for protection during the Paris Commune.  When the Salle de l'Isis was renovated in the 1880s, the Venus was given a new pedestal which allowed spectators to rotate the sculpture; at the same time the approach to the sculpture was filled with other ancient Venus statues.  A proposal in 1919 to display the Venus alongside the Leonardo's Mona Lisa and Michelangelo's Dying Slave and Rebellious Slave was never carried out, but in 1936, the sculpture was once again moved to the Salle de la Vénus de Milo to accommodate the volume of visitors to the Louvre; the other Venus statues were removed to focus visitors on the Venus de Milo. At this time the route for visitors through the Louvre was modified to be more chronological, coming through galleries of archaic and classical sculpture before arriving in a gallery dedicated to the Hellenstic period; the Venus de Milo was placed between the classical and Hellenistic galleries. During the Second World War the sculpture was once again removed from the Louvre for safekeeping, and stored in the Château de Valençay. In 1964 it was exhibited in Tokyo and Kyoto; this is the only time the sculpture has left France since it was acquired by the Louvre.  In 1972 an experiment was made with a new site for the sculpture, and it was temporarily moved to allow renovations in the 1980s and 1990s; by 1999 the volume of visitors to the Venus was causing problems and the Louvre authorities were considering returning the sculpture to its previous setting. In 2010 the sculpture was installed in its new setting, with the sculptural fragments discovered alongside it on display in the same room.

Marie-Louis Jean André Charles de Martin du Tyrac

File:Paris Louvre Venus de Milo Debay drawing.jpg

Charles François de Riffardeau, marquis de Rivière

File:Joseph Warlencourt - L'ancienne salle du Tibre.jpg

Louis Nicolas Philippe Auguste de Forbin

The ''Venus de Milo'' on display in the Louvre, c.1824–1830, attributed to [[Joseph Warlencourt

Category:Archaeological discoveries in the Aegean Islands

Charles Othon Frédéric Jean-Baptiste de Clarac

Category:2nd-century BC Greek sculptures

Category:Ancient Greek and Roman sculptures in the Louvre

''Venus de Milo'' drawn by Auguste Debay.  The inscribed plinth, if originally part of the Venus, identifies the sculptor as [---]andros of [[Antioch on the Maeander


Venus de Milo

Prompt: In Venus de Milo, how is the Display discussed?

The Venus de Milo was initially installed in the Louvre in 1821; it was rapidly moved twice before finding a long-term home in the Salle du Tibre where it remained until 1848.  From there it was moved to the Salle de l'Isis, where it remained until being removed from the museum in 1870 for protection during the Paris Commune.  When the Salle de l'Isis was renovated in the 1880s, the Venus was given a new pedestal which allowed spectators to rotate the sculpture; at the same time the approach to the sculpture was filled with other ancient Venus statues.  A proposal in 1919 to display the Venus alongside the Leonardo's Mona Lisa and Michelangelo's Dying Slave and Rebellious Slave was never carried out, but in 1936, the sculpture was once again moved to the Salle de la Vénus de Milo to accommodate the volume of visitors to the Louvre; the other Venus statues were removed to focus visitors on the Venus de Milo. At this time the route for visitors through the Louvre was modified to be more chronological, coming through galleries of archaic and classical sculpture before arriving in a gallery dedicated to the Hellenstic period; the Venus de Milo was placed between the classical and Hellenistic galleries. During the Second World War the sculpture was once again removed from the Louvre for safekeeping, and stored in the Château de Valençay. In 1964 it was exhibited in Tokyo and Kyoto; this is the only time the sculpture has left France since it was acquired by the Louvre.  In 1972 an experiment was made with a new site for the sculpture, and it was temporarily moved to allow renovations in the 1980s and 1990s; by 1999 the volume of visitors to the Venus was causing problems and the Louvre authorities were considering returning the sculpture to its previous setting. In 2010 the sculpture was installed in its new setting, with the sculptural fragments discovered alongside it on display in the same room.

Marie-Louis Jean André Charles de Martin du Tyrac

File:Paris Louvre Venus de Milo Debay drawing.jpg

Charles François de Riffardeau, marquis de Rivière

File:Joseph Warlencourt - L'ancienne salle du Tibre.jpg

Louis Nicolas Philippe Auguste de Forbin

The ''Venus de Milo'' on display in the Louvre, c.1824–1830, attributed to [[Joseph Warlencourt

Category:Archaeological discoveries in the Aegean Islands

Charles Othon Frédéric Jean-Baptiste de Clarac

Category:2nd-century BC Greek sculptures

Category:Ancient Greek and Roman sculptures in the Louvre

''Venus de Milo'' drawn by Auguste Debay.  The inscribed plinth, if originally part of the Venus, identifies the sculptor as [---]andros of [[Antioch on the Maeander


Venus de Milo

Prompt: In the context of Venus de Milo, explain the Identification and the Interpretation.

The Venus de Milo is probably a sculpture of the goddess Aphrodite, but its fragmentary state makes secure identification difficult.  The earliest written accounts of the sculpture, by a French captain and the French vice-consul on Melos, both identify it as representing Aphrodite holding the apple of discord, apparently on the basis of the now-lost hand holding an apple found with the sculpture.  An alternative identification proposed by Reinach is that she represents the sea-goddess Amphitrite, and was originally grouped with a sculpture of Poseidon from Melos, discovered in 1878.  Other proposed identifications include a Muse, Nemesis, or Sappho.The authorship and date of the Venus de Milo were both disputed from its discovery.  Within a month of its acquisition by the Louvre, three French scholars had published papers on the statue, disagreeing on all aspects of its interpretation: Toussaint-Bernard Éméric-David thought it dated to c. 420 BC – c. 380 BC, between sculptors Phidias and Praxiteles; Quatremère de Quincy attributed it to the mid-fourth century and the circle of Praxiteles; and the Comte de Clarac thought it a later copy of a work by Praxiteles.  The scholarly consensus in the 19th century was that the Venus dated to the fourth century BC.  In 1893, Adolf Furtwängler was the first to argue that it was in fact late Hellenistic, dating to c. 150 BC – c. 50 BC, and this dating continues to be widely accepted.One of the inscriptions discovered with the statue, which was drawn by Debay as fitting into the missing section of the statue's plinth, names the sculptor as [---]andros, son of [M]enides, of Antioch on the Maeander. The inscription must date to after 280 BC, when Antioch on the Maeander was founded; the lettering of the inscription suggests a date of 150–50 BC.  Maggidis argues based on this inscription, as well as the style of the statue and the increasing prosperity of Melos in the period due to Roman involvement on the island which he suggests is a plausible context for the commissioning of the sculpture, that it probably dates to c. 150 BC – c. 110 BC.  Rachel Kousser agrees with Furtwängler's dates for the sculpture.  Marianne Hamiaux suggests c. 160 BC – c. 140 BC. The association of the fragmentary artist's signature with the sculpture, and thus the identification of the sculptor as Alexandros of Antioch, is not universally accepted. Kousser and Jean-Luc Martinez both question this connection. Kousser notes that though the plaque is shown fitting into the broken base of the Venus in Debay's drawing, the drawing shows no evidence of the sculpture's missing left foot which would have rested on it, while in Voutier's sketch of the finds the plaque is shown as the base of one of the herms found alongside the Venus. As the inscription is lost, its connection to the Venus cannot be either proven or disproven.Magiddis suggested that the Venus de Milo was carved by the same sculptor who also made the Poseidon of Melos. Isméni Trianti has suggested that three further sculptures found in Melos can be attributed to the same artist: two statues of women, and a colossal statue of a god.

Marie-Louis Jean André Charles de Martin du Tyrac

File:Paris Louvre Venus de Milo Debay drawing.jpg

Charles François de Riffardeau, marquis de Rivière

File:Joseph Warlencourt - L'ancienne salle du Tibre.jpg

Louis Nicolas Philippe Auguste de Forbin

The ''Venus de Milo'' on display in the Louvre, c.1824–1830, attributed to [[Joseph Warlencourt

Category:Archaeological discoveries in the Aegean Islands

Charles Othon Frédéric Jean-Baptiste de Clarac

Category:2nd-century BC Greek sculptures

Category:Ancient Greek and Roman sculptures in the Louvre

''Venus de Milo'' drawn by Auguste Debay.  The inscribed plinth, if originally part of the Venus, identifies the sculptor as [---]andros of [[Antioch on the Maeander


Venus de Milo

Prompt: Explain the Identification about the Interpretation of this artwork, Venus de Milo.

The Venus de Milo is probably a sculpture of the goddess Aphrodite, but its fragmentary state makes secure identification difficult.  The earliest written accounts of the sculpture, by a French captain and the French vice-consul on Melos, both identify it as representing Aphrodite holding the apple of discord, apparently on the basis of the now-lost hand holding an apple found with the sculpture.  An alternative identification proposed by Reinach is that she represents the sea-goddess Amphitrite, and was originally grouped with a sculpture of Poseidon from Melos, discovered in 1878.  Other proposed identifications include a Muse, Nemesis, or Sappho.The authorship and date of the Venus de Milo were both disputed from its discovery.  Within a month of its acquisition by the Louvre, three French scholars had published papers on the statue, disagreeing on all aspects of its interpretation: Toussaint-Bernard Éméric-David thought it dated to c. 420 BC – c. 380 BC, between sculptors Phidias and Praxiteles; Quatremère de Quincy attributed it to the mid-fourth century and the circle of Praxiteles; and the Comte de Clarac thought it a later copy of a work by Praxiteles.  The scholarly consensus in the 19th century was that the Venus dated to the fourth century BC.  In 1893, Adolf Furtwängler was the first to argue that it was in fact late Hellenistic, dating to c. 150 BC – c. 50 BC, and this dating continues to be widely accepted.One of the inscriptions discovered with the statue, which was drawn by Debay as fitting into the missing section of the statue's plinth, names the sculptor as [---]andros, son of [M]enides, of Antioch on the Maeander. The inscription must date to after 280 BC, when Antioch on the Maeander was founded; the lettering of the inscription suggests a date of 150–50 BC.  Maggidis argues based on this inscription, as well as the style of the statue and the increasing prosperity of Melos in the period due to Roman involvement on the island which he suggests is a plausible context for the commissioning of the sculpture, that it probably dates to c. 150 BC – c. 110 BC.  Rachel Kousser agrees with Furtwängler's dates for the sculpture.  Marianne Hamiaux suggests c. 160 BC – c. 140 BC. The association of the fragmentary artist's signature with the sculpture, and thus the identification of the sculptor as Alexandros of Antioch, is not universally accepted. Kousser and Jean-Luc Martinez both question this connection. Kousser notes that though the plaque is shown fitting into the broken base of the Venus in Debay's drawing, the drawing shows no evidence of the sculpture's missing left foot which would have rested on it, while in Voutier's sketch of the finds the plaque is shown as the base of one of the herms found alongside the Venus. As the inscription is lost, its connection to the Venus cannot be either proven or disproven.Magiddis suggested that the Venus de Milo was carved by the same sculptor who also made the Poseidon of Melos. Isméni Trianti has suggested that three further sculptures found in Melos can be attributed to the same artist: two statues of women, and a colossal statue of a god.

Marie-Louis Jean André Charles de Martin du Tyrac

File:Paris Louvre Venus de Milo Debay drawing.jpg

Charles François de Riffardeau, marquis de Rivière

File:Joseph Warlencourt - L'ancienne salle du Tibre.jpg

Louis Nicolas Philippe Auguste de Forbin

The ''Venus de Milo'' on display in the Louvre, c.1824–1830, attributed to [[Joseph Warlencourt

Category:Archaeological discoveries in the Aegean Islands

Charles Othon Frédéric Jean-Baptiste de Clarac

Category:2nd-century BC Greek sculptures

Category:Ancient Greek and Roman sculptures in the Louvre

''Venus de Milo'' drawn by Auguste Debay.  The inscribed plinth, if originally part of the Venus, identifies the sculptor as [---]andros of [[Antioch on the Maeander


Venus de Milo

Prompt: In Venus de Milo, how is the Identification of the Interpretation explained?

The Venus de Milo is probably a sculpture of the goddess Aphrodite, but its fragmentary state makes secure identification difficult.  The earliest written accounts of the sculpture, by a French captain and the French vice-consul on Melos, both identify it as representing Aphrodite holding the apple of discord, apparently on the basis of the now-lost hand holding an apple found with the sculpture.  An alternative identification proposed by Reinach is that she represents the sea-goddess Amphitrite, and was originally grouped with a sculpture of Poseidon from Melos, discovered in 1878.  Other proposed identifications include a Muse, Nemesis, or Sappho.The authorship and date of the Venus de Milo were both disputed from its discovery.  Within a month of its acquisition by the Louvre, three French scholars had published papers on the statue, disagreeing on all aspects of its interpretation: Toussaint-Bernard Éméric-David thought it dated to c. 420 BC – c. 380 BC, between sculptors Phidias and Praxiteles; Quatremère de Quincy attributed it to the mid-fourth century and the circle of Praxiteles; and the Comte de Clarac thought it a later copy of a work by Praxiteles.  The scholarly consensus in the 19th century was that the Venus dated to the fourth century BC.  In 1893, Adolf Furtwängler was the first to argue that it was in fact late Hellenistic, dating to c. 150 BC – c. 50 BC, and this dating continues to be widely accepted.One of the inscriptions discovered with the statue, which was drawn by Debay as fitting into the missing section of the statue's plinth, names the sculptor as [---]andros, son of [M]enides, of Antioch on the Maeander. The inscription must date to after 280 BC, when Antioch on the Maeander was founded; the lettering of the inscription suggests a date of 150–50 BC.  Maggidis argues based on this inscription, as well as the style of the statue and the increasing prosperity of Melos in the period due to Roman involvement on the island which he suggests is a plausible context for the commissioning of the sculpture, that it probably dates to c. 150 BC – c. 110 BC.  Rachel Kousser agrees with Furtwängler's dates for the sculpture.  Marianne Hamiaux suggests c. 160 BC – c. 140 BC. The association of the fragmentary artist's signature with the sculpture, and thus the identification of the sculptor as Alexandros of Antioch, is not universally accepted. Kousser and Jean-Luc Martinez both question this connection. Kousser notes that though the plaque is shown fitting into the broken base of the Venus in Debay's drawing, the drawing shows no evidence of the sculpture's missing left foot which would have rested on it, while in Voutier's sketch of the finds the plaque is shown as the base of one of the herms found alongside the Venus. As the inscription is lost, its connection to the Venus cannot be either proven or disproven.Magiddis suggested that the Venus de Milo was carved by the same sculptor who also made the Poseidon of Melos. Isméni Trianti has suggested that three further sculptures found in Melos can be attributed to the same artist: two statues of women, and a colossal statue of a god.

Marie-Louis Jean André Charles de Martin du Tyrac

File:Paris Louvre Venus de Milo Debay drawing.jpg

Charles François de Riffardeau, marquis de Rivière

File:Joseph Warlencourt - L'ancienne salle du Tibre.jpg

Louis Nicolas Philippe Auguste de Forbin

The ''Venus de Milo'' on display in the Louvre, c.1824–1830, attributed to [[Joseph Warlencourt

Category:Archaeological discoveries in the Aegean Islands

Charles Othon Frédéric Jean-Baptiste de Clarac

Category:2nd-century BC Greek sculptures

Category:Ancient Greek and Roman sculptures in the Louvre

''Venus de Milo'' drawn by Auguste Debay.  The inscribed plinth, if originally part of the Venus, identifies the sculptor as [---]andros of [[Antioch on the Maeander


Venus de Milo

Prompt: Describe the characteristics of the Identification in Venus de Milo's Interpretation.

The Venus de Milo is probably a sculpture of the goddess Aphrodite, but its fragmentary state makes secure identification difficult.  The earliest written accounts of the sculpture, by a French captain and the French vice-consul on Melos, both identify it as representing Aphrodite holding the apple of discord, apparently on the basis of the now-lost hand holding an apple found with the sculpture.  An alternative identification proposed by Reinach is that she represents the sea-goddess Amphitrite, and was originally grouped with a sculpture of Poseidon from Melos, discovered in 1878.  Other proposed identifications include a Muse, Nemesis, or Sappho.The authorship and date of the Venus de Milo were both disputed from its discovery.  Within a month of its acquisition by the Louvre, three French scholars had published papers on the statue, disagreeing on all aspects of its interpretation: Toussaint-Bernard Éméric-David thought it dated to c. 420 BC – c. 380 BC, between sculptors Phidias and Praxiteles; Quatremère de Quincy attributed it to the mid-fourth century and the circle of Praxiteles; and the Comte de Clarac thought it a later copy of a work by Praxiteles.  The scholarly consensus in the 19th century was that the Venus dated to the fourth century BC.  In 1893, Adolf Furtwängler was the first to argue that it was in fact late Hellenistic, dating to c. 150 BC – c. 50 BC, and this dating continues to be widely accepted.One of the inscriptions discovered with the statue, which was drawn by Debay as fitting into the missing section of the statue's plinth, names the sculptor as [---]andros, son of [M]enides, of Antioch on the Maeander. The inscription must date to after 280 BC, when Antioch on the Maeander was founded; the lettering of the inscription suggests a date of 150–50 BC.  Maggidis argues based on this inscription, as well as the style of the statue and the increasing prosperity of Melos in the period due to Roman involvement on the island which he suggests is a plausible context for the commissioning of the sculpture, that it probably dates to c. 150 BC – c. 110 BC.  Rachel Kousser agrees with Furtwängler's dates for the sculpture.  Marianne Hamiaux suggests c. 160 BC – c. 140 BC. The association of the fragmentary artist's signature with the sculpture, and thus the identification of the sculptor as Alexandros of Antioch, is not universally accepted. Kousser and Jean-Luc Martinez both question this connection. Kousser notes that though the plaque is shown fitting into the broken base of the Venus in Debay's drawing, the drawing shows no evidence of the sculpture's missing left foot which would have rested on it, while in Voutier's sketch of the finds the plaque is shown as the base of one of the herms found alongside the Venus. As the inscription is lost, its connection to the Venus cannot be either proven or disproven.Magiddis suggested that the Venus de Milo was carved by the same sculptor who also made the Poseidon of Melos. Isméni Trianti has suggested that three further sculptures found in Melos can be attributed to the same artist: two statues of women, and a colossal statue of a god.

Marie-Louis Jean André Charles de Martin du Tyrac

File:Paris Louvre Venus de Milo Debay drawing.jpg

Charles François de Riffardeau, marquis de Rivière

File:Joseph Warlencourt - L'ancienne salle du Tibre.jpg

Louis Nicolas Philippe Auguste de Forbin

The ''Venus de Milo'' on display in the Louvre, c.1824–1830, attributed to [[Joseph Warlencourt

Category:Archaeological discoveries in the Aegean Islands

Charles Othon Frédéric Jean-Baptiste de Clarac

Category:2nd-century BC Greek sculptures

Category:Ancient Greek and Roman sculptures in the Louvre

''Venus de Milo'' drawn by Auguste Debay.  The inscribed plinth, if originally part of the Venus, identifies the sculptor as [---]andros of [[Antioch on the Maeander


Venus de Milo

Prompt: In the context of Venus de Milo, explain the Reconstructions and the Interpretation.

Without arms, it is unclear what the statue originally looked like. The original appearance of the Venus has been disputed since 1821, with de Clarac arguing that the Venus was a single figure holding an apple, whereas Quatremere held that she was part of a group, with her arms around another figure.  Other proposed restorations have included the Venus holding wreaths, a dove, or spears.Wilhelm Fröhner suggested in 1876 that the Venus de Milo's right hand held the drapery slipping down from her hips, while the left held an apple; this theory was expanded on by Furtwängler.  Kousser considers this the "most plausible" reconstruction. Scientific analyses conducted during restoration of the Venus in 2010 supported the theory that the  arm fragment and hand holding the apple found alongside the sculpture were originally part of the Venus; Martinez argues that the identification of the sculpture as Venus holding an apple is thus definitively proved.Hamiaux suggests that the Venus de Milo is of the same sculptural type as the Capuan Venus and another sculpture of Aphrodite from Perge.  She argues that all derive from the cult statue in the temple of Aphrodite on the Acrocorinth, which depicted Aphrodite admiring herself in a shield.  Christine Mitchell Havelock, who believes the Capuan Venus was based on the Venus de Milo, by contrast considers the Melian sculpture "a fresh invention" of the Hellenistic period.

Marie-Louis Jean André Charles de Martin du Tyrac

File:Paris Louvre Venus de Milo Debay drawing.jpg

Charles François de Riffardeau, marquis de Rivière

File:Joseph Warlencourt - L'ancienne salle du Tibre.jpg

Louis Nicolas Philippe Auguste de Forbin

The ''Venus de Milo'' on display in the Louvre, c.1824–1830, attributed to [[Joseph Warlencourt

Category:Archaeological discoveries in the Aegean Islands

Charles Othon Frédéric Jean-Baptiste de Clarac

Category:2nd-century BC Greek sculptures

Category:Ancient Greek and Roman sculptures in the Louvre

''Venus de Milo'' drawn by Auguste Debay.  The inscribed plinth, if originally part of the Venus, identifies the sculptor as [---]andros of [[Antioch on the Maeander


Venus de Milo

Prompt: Explain the Reconstructions about the Interpretation of this artwork, Venus de Milo.

Without arms, it is unclear what the statue originally looked like. The original appearance of the Venus has been disputed since 1821, with de Clarac arguing that the Venus was a single figure holding an apple, whereas Quatremere held that she was part of a group, with her arms around another figure.  Other proposed restorations have included the Venus holding wreaths, a dove, or spears.Wilhelm Fröhner suggested in 1876 that the Venus de Milo's right hand held the drapery slipping down from her hips, while the left held an apple; this theory was expanded on by Furtwängler.  Kousser considers this the "most plausible" reconstruction. Scientific analyses conducted during restoration of the Venus in 2010 supported the theory that the  arm fragment and hand holding the apple found alongside the sculpture were originally part of the Venus; Martinez argues that the identification of the sculpture as Venus holding an apple is thus definitively proved.Hamiaux suggests that the Venus de Milo is of the same sculptural type as the Capuan Venus and another sculpture of Aphrodite from Perge.  She argues that all derive from the cult statue in the temple of Aphrodite on the Acrocorinth, which depicted Aphrodite admiring herself in a shield.  Christine Mitchell Havelock, who believes the Capuan Venus was based on the Venus de Milo, by contrast considers the Melian sculpture "a fresh invention" of the Hellenistic period.

Marie-Louis Jean André Charles de Martin du Tyrac

File:Paris Louvre Venus de Milo Debay drawing.jpg

Charles François de Riffardeau, marquis de Rivière

File:Joseph Warlencourt - L'ancienne salle du Tibre.jpg

Louis Nicolas Philippe Auguste de Forbin

The ''Venus de Milo'' on display in the Louvre, c.1824–1830, attributed to [[Joseph Warlencourt

Category:Archaeological discoveries in the Aegean Islands

Charles Othon Frédéric Jean-Baptiste de Clarac

Category:2nd-century BC Greek sculptures

Category:Ancient Greek and Roman sculptures in the Louvre

''Venus de Milo'' drawn by Auguste Debay.  The inscribed plinth, if originally part of the Venus, identifies the sculptor as [---]andros of [[Antioch on the Maeander


Venus de Milo

Prompt: In Venus de Milo, how is the Reconstructions of the Interpretation explained?

Without arms, it is unclear what the statue originally looked like. The original appearance of the Venus has been disputed since 1821, with de Clarac arguing that the Venus was a single figure holding an apple, whereas Quatremere held that she was part of a group, with her arms around another figure.  Other proposed restorations have included the Venus holding wreaths, a dove, or spears.Wilhelm Fröhner suggested in 1876 that the Venus de Milo's right hand held the drapery slipping down from her hips, while the left held an apple; this theory was expanded on by Furtwängler.  Kousser considers this the "most plausible" reconstruction. Scientific analyses conducted during restoration of the Venus in 2010 supported the theory that the  arm fragment and hand holding the apple found alongside the sculpture were originally part of the Venus; Martinez argues that the identification of the sculpture as Venus holding an apple is thus definitively proved.Hamiaux suggests that the Venus de Milo is of the same sculptural type as the Capuan Venus and another sculpture of Aphrodite from Perge.  She argues that all derive from the cult statue in the temple of Aphrodite on the Acrocorinth, which depicted Aphrodite admiring herself in a shield.  Christine Mitchell Havelock, who believes the Capuan Venus was based on the Venus de Milo, by contrast considers the Melian sculpture "a fresh invention" of the Hellenistic period.

Marie-Louis Jean André Charles de Martin du Tyrac

File:Paris Louvre Venus de Milo Debay drawing.jpg

Charles François de Riffardeau, marquis de Rivière

File:Joseph Warlencourt - L'ancienne salle du Tibre.jpg

Louis Nicolas Philippe Auguste de Forbin

The ''Venus de Milo'' on display in the Louvre, c.1824–1830, attributed to [[Joseph Warlencourt

Category:Archaeological discoveries in the Aegean Islands

Charles Othon Frédéric Jean-Baptiste de Clarac

Category:2nd-century BC Greek sculptures

Category:Ancient Greek and Roman sculptures in the Louvre

''Venus de Milo'' drawn by Auguste Debay.  The inscribed plinth, if originally part of the Venus, identifies the sculptor as [---]andros of [[Antioch on the Maeander