You literally walk past dozens of pieces in great museums with scant regard for their back story. Then you hang on every word, entranced by the depth of history and background to this one little piece. Fascinating. Imagine what tales go untold by other pieces that you whiz by in your race to see the Rosetta Stone
It's genuinely really lovely to read this comment - means we're doing a good job. However, an episode of Curator's Corner takes way more than a week - so it's not really feasible to release more regularly than 1 vid every 2 weeks right now.
It takes a time to pick the item to present, determine who will present it, schedule filming, do the shoot including lighting, sound work etc. After that they still have to edit the entire video, color and sound grade, and then I’m sure some executive has to sign off on the final product as well. And I am assuming the museum doesn’t give them much of a budget at all to do this. Making videos takes a long time!
I like that it’s listed as “smaller than life” indicating that the person who made the list is very familiar with fauns and nymphs and knows their regular size!
Its a technical term for sculpture of subjects smaller than full scale. Classically they would not have depicted mythos figures as "small people" or children. Its a scale copy of the Greek original as mentioned.
@@ages6592 historic Greek literature on Satyrs describes their physical size in detail. It also describes them as being known to attempt to rape Nymphs and Human women. The physical size of Nymphs is also described in surviving text and literature so we have access to the knowledge that this is a smaller than life statue.
I visited the heavily guarded secret gallery in Naples where they display some of their most saucy Roman sculptures and paintings. It's so important to show them because it gives you the real cultural distance between now and ancient Rome. So much of how we think of Rome comes from the classical period and the enlightenment where people had an interest in making their serious culture and unadorned piousness look like it came from the ancient power that built those monumental ruins. You see this in the "renovations" of the medieval in the arts and crafts period , also. It's important for us to see how different they were and to understand their symbols. It helps us contextualize the biases of the present, as well.
There is a wallpainting from pompeii showing a similar scene where she has a much more determined expression and her hand is right in his face. The smiling head and the gentle touch of her hand gives the sculpture a touch of Rococo.
*As someone familiar with the human skeleton the position and angle of her neck at Cervical 6 (where it appears to terminate) is inconsistent with the curvature of her spine that matches Thoracic 1. That position, while appearing to be missing C7 entirely, would be difficult if not painful for a human without pathology to reproduce.*
I think that the nymph's head was definitely different, because the expression throws off the kind of expressive factor that Greek sculptures attempt to depict, it's just out of place simply, and also the statue has been mis-treated by people probably disgusted by the connotations, so they removed the struggling woman's expression and the man's genitals, but also I think we can see plainly its a struggle from how her foot is positioned to smash his whatevers.
I'm going to call shenanigans. There is none where she is fighting a satyr and appears determined. There are however several where she is... engaged... with a nymph, and appears enraptured.
In my opinion, the person who reconstructed the head of the Nymph gave her a more in control of the situation look. Her expression seems to say "No chance you little turd". Even her posture appears stronger than that of the Satyr. He's struggling with all him might while she is easily pushing him away and preparing to stand up and walk away. That's my take on the statue I saw on my screen. I know that others will see something else and have a different opinion, and that's okay. It's art and art is subjective and can be translated a million ways. You are not required to see it the same way as me. Since the original head was apparently lost we can only speculate on what her expression was. It may have been anger, disgust, fear or panic, we can't know unless we have either the head or a description of the statue from the time of its creation. Personally I like the "I'm stronger than you so don't even try it" idea. It would be a break from the tradition of portraying women as weak, and I like it. I myself come from a tribe who don't conform to the typical western idea that women are inferior, but rather equal. That is in no small part what influences my view of the statue.
Thank you. And we don't know if this was an assault. Missing that defining missing bit, we can't know what the original sculptor was portraying. Adding to your 'oh no you don't' from the nymph, mayhaps this was simply a young & foolish satyr trying to grab at the stronger, more agile nymph in roughhousing play. As it's missing we don't know the state of that member.
I think your interpretation is backed by the treatment of the two bodies; the satyr’s body shows his struggle, the nymph’s is smooth and graceful - there’s no tension in it. The sculptor who made the head created a face that seems to fit perfectly on that body.
@@janepage3608 thank you. I think the recreated head is pointing in the correct direction given the appearance of the body lines still evident on the original piece of marble. I would love to be able to examine it up close and personal. In the real world I'm a mineralogist with an interest in history so a marble sculpture can make me "Geek out" 😁
"it would break the tradition of..." how likely do you think the original attempted to break that tradition? why place our current ideals on an ancient piece of art?
1700s - people interpreting objects of art from the past according to their current views 1800s - people interpreting objects of art from the past according to their current views 1900s - people interpreting objects of art from the past according to their current views ... and now for something completely different... 2000s - people interpreting objects of art from the past according to their current views consistency 😀
Nailed it. I think the museum does the public a disservice with their over sensitivity. The people who visit the museum are more able to handle complex situations than the curators give them credit for.
@@HarryWHill-GAYeah. This lady seems nice and intelligent, but she is literally doing the same thing that she claims what was wrong about the the past! Hypocrisy of the upper class at its finest.
I always wonder at the amount of hand wringing that goes on about displaying such pieces. Surely, it just needs the caveat. 1. This is a representation of mythology. 2. This was carved in a time when attitudes towards sexual violence were far more lax. If people complain, then tell them grow up, and for God's sake, don't ever read classical mythology or anything historical.
The British Museum is a public institution that gets funded through attendees, donations, and government sponsorship. What do you think happens to that funding if they turn public sentiment against themselves by telling folks who complain to "grow up"?
@keen7981 Thanks for highlighting an ongoing issue with modern society. Pandering to the feckless rather than telling the truth, for fear of complaints. It'll just lead to further degradation.
Roman attitudes towards sex were not at all lax. They were strict but very different. This is a very expensive object of a venerable scene and the temporal cultural meaning of this statue is not exactly clear since most of the context is lost. Whatever it is, though, I think it is safe to assume that it is probably not sexual in any modern sense. Like the doorstep flying phalluses warding off the evil eye. Not at all juvenile imagery but a protective symbol against a very real fear. Or a display of your knowledge of the past to ward off decadence. I don't know
This was a fascinating look at this sculpture and its history, from the questionable restoration of the head before arriving in England to the evolving language used in its description. I would love to see more videos like this!
Thanks for going to the trouble of making this clip. It was very good in presentation and content. Have subscribed and look forward to exploring your content. Thanks again. Love your work Vicky :-)
You would have to compare with similar art of the same period to get an idea of what the original expression should be. That would not be 100% since there is always a chance the artist or commissioner wanted something atypical. It would have been nice if the video compared it to contemporary pieces.
@@rufferstuff9148 Or to the myths and stories about the satyrs and nymphs, how are they normally portrayed? Sculptures are often symbolic of the stories.
The thing that absolutely obsesses me about world-class museums is the fact that they have so much of their collection in storage. I want to see THAT too! What art work are we not seeing, and why not? Thank you for answering that question, at least in this one instance. But I am absolutely dying to see videos of the storage rooms, the undisplayed art.
@@martynnotman3467 Bring It On! The trouble with all these museums, is that they only change what's on view, if they lend something to another museum, or if there is a Special Anniversary coming up. Another bugbear, is that they never advertise things until it's nearly too late for Joe Public to visit the Exhibition. I've missed several, because of a lack of Advance Notice.
I think it's interesting that one obvious interpretation is not given any space: Given the Dionysian connection, the scene likely depicts a playful, flirtatious interaction between two sensual beings of the forest.
Correct and that is the interpretation one should draw from what you see. And how search descriptors shown. The museum should list that way and state as restored. Original meaning lost depending on original head. Then include tags that indicate possible reluctance but will consent sexual activity or possible sexual assault in original form. But term needs to be possible not absolutely sexual assault. It absolutely cannot use the confirmed sexual assault term. And all original meanings of possible original complete should always have the speculation version of a tag. And in description of this practice state these interpretations should not be taken as dismissive of problem of sexual assault the tags simply indicating evidence lacking.
I think from the perspective of today's strong and judgemental views on sexual depictions, it is difficult to step back and imagine the original creators intent. My first impression was that of the nymph surpressing the satr by sitting on him/it, in a way of playful dominance. The expression of the nymphs head is key though. A different expression, would imply a different meaning. I am reminded of a 1980s advert for the. Guardian newspaper, where an event is seen from 3 different positions, demonstrating how eyewitness accounts need all the information to have a hope of correctly interpreting a scene. RIP Guardian.
There's an even more obvious interpretation that seems missing despite scrolling the comments to avoid typing it. Her heel has just deflated his lust into incapacitating pain rendering him..........amusing.
More importantly the scene just does not seem to suggest any struggle. They are both totally naked. If it was a struggle, the nymph would have some piece of clotting left. The gesture on both satyr and nymph hint at playful nature of the interaction, rather than a struggle.
I love curators corner but.. I'm glad to see many disagreeing with or questioning the very modern wordage and description of what the statue depicts. Judging things from the past through the modern eye and most current moral stance takes away from or lessons the opportunity of the viewer of the art to have their own interpretation. Art is all about individual interpretation and there really shouldn't be dictation about how things are viewed or in their description.
@@MarcTRussell I appreciate that very much. I'm a silver and goldsmith and gem cutter. I've also worked around literally hundreds of artist of all kinds. So that's where my perspective comes from. 👍
There is a vein push and pull coming from her, and he is upset at the push back, but still very determined. Her hand does NOT appear to be pushing him away, but holding him in place. This is the heart of how flirtation is perceived: rejection and acceptance in the same moment.
If you look at the way his leg is between hers, it looks to me that she was sitting on his lap previously whch fits your description. He got a little too touchy and now she needs a little space
I think you nailed it. What convinces me is her hand at her torso that we were not told was restored. It has an underhand grip with the thumb folded in, not a strong overhand grip with the thumb over the top which would be the much stronger way to remove someones hand. Definitely looks to be a push and pull scenario. Also the sculpture does not indicate that her body position would be anything other than having her head facing his face. The drawing of her looking away is very misleading to reflect current values.
I got a glimpse of the back room/hallway of a city where I live, when I was a kid. It is obvious to me that the museum has much more artwork and artifacts then space. They chose not to put on display. Imagine what they may have in storage on remote sites.
“Bad Victorian Age, repressing sex and sexuality!!!” *gasp* They didn’t want to allow people unfettered access to art because it might corrupt them. … meanwhile … We are going to obsess about how we are going to label and catalog this piece so that sex and sexuality might not be misunderstood. Pardon the eye-roll for our modern day Victorians and their lists of what art is socially acceptable for the plebes to see without a guide
Everything must be viewed under the distorted lens of misogyny, oppression and victimhood. These political activists have no place in museums or anywhere near our history. They are zealots who would destroy our ancient artefacts just as ISIS did the ancient artefacts of Iraq and Syria.
I thoroughly enjoyed viewing this video. I learned so much and was amazed at the extant documentation resident within the museum. The museum should make more of these videos. Thank you for sharing!
@The_British_Museum, You reference a sketch showing how the head *might* have been turned and with a different expression. You also state that the item is a copy of a 2BCE Greek item. So: (1) where is the original? Or is the *copy* claim a supposition? ; (2) is there any example extant of such an item with the head turned around and/or with a different expression in antiquity?; (3) or are your claims an example of *correct thinking*, a political position not different in intent from those who choose to hid it from view and simply an example of the climate of this times?
And I'd like to add another question: what are the myths and stories people told about the satyr and nymphs? This video doesn't mention if they were normally depicted as playful, flirtatious, in conflict, possessive, or the satyrs taking sexual dominance over the nymphs.
@@lynettejwhite Yes, and I thought nymphs were quite powerful beings. The nymphs posture seems to actually be quite dominating with a not too forceful push to the satyr's head, whereas the satyr looks to be much more contorted in response to the push. The anatomy of the ancient sculpture in no way suggests a totally turned head and to imply that the restoration sculptor didn't know what they were doing, as if they weren't surrounded by other such works, and couldn't analyze the remaining parts of the sculpture to make a very good and informed restoration piece, rather says a lot more about modern interpretations.
The Archaeological Museum in Athens has a sculpture of a visibly aroused Pan attempting to molest Aphrodite. In that case she has one hand covering her groin, and the other raised clutching a sandal, obviously about to clout him around the ear. To me that speaks a timeless truth, and it's very funny too. In this case, I don't think we can be sure what the sculptor's intentions were, but given that nymphs could sometimes be wilful and violent, she isn't necessarily the victim here -that is to bring a 21st Century sensibility to the scene.
Please can we have more videos like this. It’s fascinating to understand not just the intention of the artist when creating a piece but the journey of that piece through history and how it has sat within the mores, opinions and traditions of society as time has moved forward.
Your reading of the word "wanting" is correct. In fact, it's not a matter of interpretation, as there is no other possible meaning in the eighteenth century. "To want" is defined in Johnson's Dictionary (1755) as "to be improperly absent; not to be in sufficient quantity...to be missed; to be not had."
@@callumclark3358 what are you talking about? The description was written in English by an English collector during the 18th century. the citation is from an 18th century English dictionary. What is colonial about that?
I don't think the presenter was in any doubt as to the meaning of this old-fashioned but hardly obscure usage, she was just informing the ignorant in a non-patronising way :)
On the subject of “struggling to escape from a Satyr” and the subjects …would these same descriptions be used for Bouguereau’s Nymphs and Satyr where the roles are reversed? It doesn’t appear to be an accurate depiction of the current state of the piece. He’s a Ennuch and she has a smile on her face. It just isn’t in the same as Apollo & Daphne, or Bernin’s Persephone which are very clearly assaults.
Descriptions like this are almost meaningless, anyway. Who defines assault? The legal experts? Oxford's? The current public opinion? Almost meaningless, even with more words to define the words.
Thank you. Excellent summary. I appreciate the time and effort it took to tell the story of this sculpture. I look forward to future presentations. Liked and subscribed 😊.
But did you get it? I would have liked more factual information, but it was somewhat lacking, replaced by too much interpretation on the part of the presenter.
Enjoyed this vid but started to wonder towards the end (13:02). “Marble group of a nymph escaping from a satyr” To “Marble group of a nymph struggling to escape from a satyr” I would argue that we do not know and have no way of knowing the intentions of the nymph. Escape or rough play. She might not want to escape and might be enjoying physical play, something they might normally do in their realm. We do not know. How about “Marble group of a nymph and satyr in a struggle”?
I liked the description used at one point in the video, "Marble group of a satyr and nymph, he seated on the ground pulling her towards him". This avoids any interpretation.
This is a great example of the importance and value of these videos. I will never visit the British Museum, and if I did, I would not have the stamina to see everything on display, never mind what isn't. But now I have seen this interesting statue and learned about its history.
The "strange word" in the document is what it looks like, "pern" which means a conical spool around which thread from an old-style spinning wheel was wound. it's a shape which would work as a centre pin to hold the new head more securely onto the torso. The fixing would be stronger than using cement or glue alone.
The nymph isn’t struggling to escape a violent rape. The positions of the statues alone show that they are being playful. The nymph is playing hard to get. Don't impose modern feminism and feminist doctrines of what is consent on an ancient culture that didn’t care about such things.
Wonderfully informative video! Thank you very much! Been years since I have visited your collections (as I live in Chicago US) but this type of presentation fuels my return.
Ancient Indians were far more advanced in their imaginations and illustrating it in the stone carvings and sculptures. Apart from Khajuraho in Madhya Pradesh, there are at least twelve and perhaps a hundred surviving Hindu temples which include in their sculptural representations acts of human sexual coupling.The Temple of Surya in Konarak in Odisha has some of the world-famous exemplars of erotic sculpture. In Maharashtra, the Markandeshwar temple and the depiction of love in Ellora are also a glorious part of India’s heritage.
Considering the satyr head is original and it has a playful expression I would argue the sexual assault description to be wrong when paired with the mythology of nymph's. The word nymphomaniac and all it means is derived from that mythology. A nymph resisting sexual advances? They were they ones that made the advances in mythology. Then the positions the 2 characters are posed in do not suggest serious aggression and resistance, his legs are not at all poised for an assault and he is on his butt, not at all a position an attacker would be in. And her position looks more like she is getting up rather than being pulled down, she is leaning forward as if to get up rather than leaning back/straight up as if being pulled down. Positions two playful lovers could find themselves in while only the nymphs position even remotely suggests struggle. And that struggle does not mean resisting assault.
Agreed. Additionally, considering her foot is on his genitals and she has her genitals pressed against his thigh, and that she's smiling while he grimaces, suggests this could be a BDSM scene. The guy, her "sub", has a grimace befitting this, her grabbing his hair would probably only get a mild grimace. If the face was repaired faithfully then this could be what the sculptor was intending. Or he meant it to be ambiguous.
@@sillysausage2244 Your question prompted me to look up the difference between fawn and satyr (I had no idea). From Wikipedia (beware), "Fauns and satyrs were originally quite different creatures: whereas late-period fauns are half-man and half-goat, satyrs originally were depicted as stocky, hairy, ugly dwarves or woodwoses, with the ears and tails of horses." ...... the implication being that their definitions have changed in time. I then looked at dictionary definitions only to become more foggy, in part, due to Roman and Greek confusions. My conclusion from this brief research was to throw my hands up in the air and walk away just as ignorant as I was. I figure I have better things to do. Sorry.
Even if the satyrs expression was playful (which I don’t think it remotely is) it’s possible for a sexual aggressor to be happy and playful even while the victim is having a very bad time. Especially if the aggressor is drunk and or under the impression that they are engaged in friendly play fighting even though the victim’s resistance is 100% genuine. And given how little the consent of women and fem creatures is considered in Greek mythology, with them being regularly assaulted and impregnated against their will without the men involved showing any remorse for or even really noticing their distress, it’s very much worth considering the potential that this sculpture may have originally depicted something that would be considered violent and unconsentual today. Failing to acknowledge the potential would require intentionally hiding realities from the public, which isn’t really what we want from centres of education and learning
The word the curator cannot identify in the handwriting at 4:40 is "pern", which is an old word for spindle or peg, which indeed fits the context of the sentence and her overall description. Cheers!
What a great video clip! Just love the incredible history behind it, even though we know very little about its first 1600yrs. But how amazing that it has survived all that time, a thousand conflicts and wars, looting and controversy, all its owners, its curators, the disputes over its subject matter, over its ownership and who it was handed down to over millennia. Thank goodness for the obsession of Victorian era record keepers and thank goodness for your skills and the British Museum.
@@YorkyOnePlease. We all know that the corrupt rich are 'eccentric' or 'made mistakes' 'deserve a second chance' all that rubbish, but corrupt poor are 'mad' 'a danger to society' 'criminal elements' and such
@@Rynewulf What's class got to do with it? Even at a low level in an organisation you can be corrupt - the police, local authorities etc. A backhander to get you to the front of the queue - or to turn a blind eye.
I'm far more concerned about the obvious attempt by the curator to interpret this statue as violence in the face of clear sculptural evidence to the contrary, than I am about any questionable restorations to the piece.
@@incogneat0901 if you’ve ever witnessed two people having sex, it looks pretty violent. Every aspect of that sculpture has meaning, especially the faces. How can you look at the sculpture of two humanoids and just completely ignore their facial expression while making your smug judgement? She is smiling. She is looking at him and smiling in this sculpture not some historical version of it… this one.“Because I say so” only works with moms.
Well, now that’s an interesting thing… If the catalog description is constantly being updated… We would hope that the dates of the updates are also included or catalog somewhere as well as the earlier description, so that we can view the evolution of views and interpretations over time.
I really enjoyed hearing an in-depth discussion of the history of this piece and the interpretation and how the sculpture moved through the museum. I marvel to think, every piece on display has a long history and a story to tell - just like this piece. You could spend years trying to grasp the knowledge of all these pieces. I am glad to hear the museum is electronically cataloging the history. As far as the interpretation of this piece, it may forever be lost in antiquity. The sculpture, to my eyes masterfully created the satyr and the nymph to have almost a 50-50 split in who is 'determining the next moment' Is the nymph going to stand up and walk away? Or, is the satyr going to be able to pull her back towards him? No one knows. I think that is the 'meaning' - the uncertainty. I wonder if there are similar drawings, or sculpture that can help 'fill out' the understanding of this piece. It would be fun for the museum catalog to have an addendum that references similar pieces that could be considered by the viewer to add a deeper knowledge. Thank You for posting, please provide more Curator's Corner. Vicky Donnellan is a wonderful presenter.
How exactly do you know what the original looked like? I'll I'm hearing are assumptions as if there couldn't possibly be any other way to conclude anything.
It is not refusal to consent as well. We cannot tell of refusal serous or not. We cannot tell if woman troubled by this or not. With head added it unlikely she feels victimized by this activity. She likely is not now but thanks for the interest or it play she will sink into embrace and sex next willingly. But this stated as it appears with current head combined with lack of struggle in her muscles.
No where does it say that the head was replaced. It says fixed. No one who is struggling to get away would be smiling. Both appear to be smiling and playing. More likely two lovers playing in the woods, yet we would rather depict it as something vulgar and very distasteful.
"Imagine if her head was in an entirely different and anatomically impossible position, based on what was clearly remaining of the original sculpture - that I'm only editorializing because of my own baseless presupositions and personal feelings. Wouldn't that change the interpretation?" Yes, completely altering a sculpture from the obvious anatomical position of the original would absolutely change things. 🙄
Yeah, like all the best stuff is in packing cases in warehouses all over the place. Probably find the Ark of the covenant (Raiders O T L A , style) somewhere, forgotten about. Along with the Holy Grail, -nah, that'd be in the Vatican archives. Hardly think pre-Christ era porn gonna hurt anyone.
Just how on earth can someone sculpt such a beautiful statue from marble which is surely a hard material ? My mind boggles in awe. Thank you for this video. ❤
3 to 4 on Mohs scale "Some types of marble also have the advantage that, when first quarried, it is relatively soft and easy to work, refine, and polish. As the finished marble ages, it becomes harder and more durable."
Marble is pretty soft as far as minerals/rocks go. That's why it was a commonly used material for sculpture historically. Granite or basalt would be much harder to sculpt, as well as being darker in color. Coincidentally, marble is also usually white or very light gray, which makes it much easier to see the details, and also makes it easier for the sculptor to work on for that reason. Interestingly, ancient greek and roman sculptures were usually painted in very bright colors.
Cultural Anthropology can be hard, both as to avoiding distortion from one's own current biases, and as to parsing meaning from a distant era and culture. I strongly doubt that sculpture represents sexual assault, even if that might be a modern interpretation of archaic societal norms.
Really interesting, appreciated the insights on How each périod labelled and interpreted this statue. Love Curator’s Corner, the best by far of all muséums vidéos. You guys could publish a vidéo a week ! Always interesting journeys through Times and places, and you respect your viewers by walking them through art, research, sociétés and so on in a very precise and understantable langage. Thanks a lot.
We can look forward to the description ultimately being altered to read "A sculpture of a nymph and satyr about to be disturbed by the police who will take away the satyr for charging, trial and imprisonment while the nymph undergoes counselling."
The narrator admits that nobody knows the original intend of the creator of this statue. But they have decided that is now assault, rather than foreplay. And they are 100% sure they are right this time. I wonder how they are going to describe Leda and the Swan.
@@Deontjie They should look at, and respect the historical norms and values of those times and present them as such. What they explain here, they should explain next to this sculpture in the exhibition. I think it's wild these people go home and put their kids on TH-cam unsupervised, with way more alarming content than two naked people's sculpture.
You forgot the fact that the nymph will also be led in how to testify against the satyr, even though, as apparent it is, she was very willing and consenting.
This was a very enjoyable presentation. The history of the piece, and certain details, were an interesting story in itself. I toured a site in Corinth indications were that such statues were either made or equipped with heads. At the Antiquities museum at the base of the pantheon at Athens, they described how some of the statutes had detachable heads. In this way a uniform classical statue could be personalized to resemble it's owner. So when the description that the heads were detached in the ruins of the building where it was found fit very nicely with what I was told elsewhere. Frankly, that moment of a close-up to the face of the nymph did not show the fear or anger that would normally be associated with the label rape, but instead a hint of a playful smile. With today's sexual norms this item could probably displayed with a minimum a complaint by the Museum's clientele. Thank you also for the voluminous display of records illustrating it's provenance.
In english the words ITS and IT'S are spelled differently because they mean different things. Since you have already re-edited your post (congratulations for caring!) you may now correct the inappropriate contractions IT IS OWNER and IT IS PROVENANCE.
@@MrCuddlyable thank you for pointing that out. I rely a lot on speech to text, it sometimes thinks it knows what I'm saying better than I do. One of my medicines gives me a Pseudo-Parkinsonian Tremor so I don't type as often as I should.
Among other possible interpretations, I think one of the problems with the use of the word "rape" in the context of classical themes is that it can be confused with the act of kidnapping, such as in the stories of the rape of the Sabine women or Ganymede, whose depictions in painting or scupture represent an abduction.
Yeah, but... The _Rap3 of the Sabines_ is probably my favourite classical statue, gruesome though the subject matter might be, but I do think it's more the other way around; paintings of an "abduction" were politely coded ways of depicting the other, keeping the meaning intact without creating a piece "unfit for public display"; the history of the sculpture in the video being case in point for why an artist might choose such a route. Persephone is another great example to add to those you list; neither Jupiter nor Hades abducted the objects of their lust just to give them a nice new home, nor were the Sabine women taken by the triumphant army in atonement for slaughtering their husbands and children.
@@rhonwenbaker2448 yeah, but since these aren't the original titles it makes more sense to keep the description which better describes what is seen rather than what is implied to happen afterwards. Symplegma is a word that can be used for sculptures like this, but I guess it's going to be criticized for being too obscure. That's what I think at least, and I know whatever choice of words we make is going to find its share of detractors. The Rape of Europa can be added to the list too.
"The kind of behavior that's not acceptable in polite society" says the British Museum, who knowingly purchased the Parthenon Sculptures, despite clear evidence they were stolen and refuses to this day to return them. The Nymphs not the only one getting screwed!
My first thought was: a flirtatious interaction where the nymph is teasing and playfully holding back the satyr. This little struggle creates an opportunity for the creator to show tension in the bodies and it makes this composition more interesting. Seems this curator doesn't consider the historical Greek/Roman context and judge this composition with a contemporary mind.
I question, what evidence exists that the restored head is different than the original? Given the "playful" nature of nymphs and satyrs in literature, how do you know that this is assault and not play? Your view that this is rape/assault seems based on what is lacking rather than what is present. If there is evidence that the head was intentionally changed why not present it? While you may well be correct, I saw no evidence in what you presented that the original statue depicted rape or assault. It seems that you have allowed modern sentiments towards male/female interactions to influence your interpretation of what is being depicted. I believe a more neutral interpretation should be given allowing viewers to make up their own mind.
"Modern sentiments?" Rape was incredibly common in ancient Greece! It maybe didn't have the same legal definition as today and may have even been more acceptable at the time but it did happen. A lot!
@@yellowwoodstraveler I am not saying rape wasn't common in antiquity. What I am questioning is the interpretation of sculpture. It may be a nymph trying to resist. What I am asking what evidence is there to say the head and face was changed. I know it was added or restored but what was the original? Just as it could be rape it could be playful sexual encounter between nymph and Satyr.
I see it as the Nymph is sculpted in a classical counter spiral form and the hands are relaxed in a caressing fashion expressing an intimate interaction.
I am appalled at the Negative attitudes towards nudity and intimacy that persists in the 21st Century; especially with regard to Ancient Art. Fifty years ago, we lived through the 'Summer of Love' and the advent of the Permissive Society and yet today, it appears that we are regressing back to the Victorian Era, where objects such as this, are now subject to Censure, to avoid Offending those of a sensitive nature, because of sexual connotations. Of particular note, is the fact that the Satyr's Phallus has not been restored, because of its association with the supposed sexual assault of the Nymph. This Prudery about artistic sculptures, is just not acceptable in these so-called Enlightened Times. At this rate, it's only a matter of time before we again cover the genitals of Michelangelo's David with a large Fig Leaf, to appease those women who decry so-called Toxic Masculinity. As a man of 76 years, my Wife, my Daughters and my Granddaughters, have been schooled in the Arts and I've lost count of the times I've had to explain to my daughters and granddaughters, why male appendages are broken off, or covered, when they should be on full view, so that the viewer can appreciate the full beauty of the Human body; both Male and Female. These sculpture should Not be hidden from view, but put on display for all to appreciate.
Nobody is covering genitals with fig leaves beacause of toxic masculinity? Toxic masculinity deals with (learned) social traits and has nothing to do with hiding the male body.
Wholeheartedly agree with you. Why not treat it all with a light heart and not pay lip service to a false morality from those who see themselves above the rest of us and feel they have the right to dictate laws that everyone should follow and are just virtue signalling?
You put it so well. These days we pretend we are enlightened above every other age that has gone before us, and that only we can properly evaluate and assess a piece of sculpture, and make final pronouncements about it. The arrogance of it all. And also the implied 'we the curators know what is best for you'. Not much progress at all, if you ask me!
I've yet to meet a single woman who has expressed any kind of opposition towards genitalia in art. Perhaps your worldview is so twisted and eager to blame everything on women, which is funny as you profess to have father daughters who are educated in art and somehow aren't familiar with the fact that many statues were mangled by the church, not some boogeywomen.
I would like to see a survey of nymph's heads from which the period this sculpture is attributed. Could we, with our modern digital tools be able to recreate the scene in a more period authentic way? Removing all bias that the head sculptor may have included.
I don't know, after this video it just sounds like people in this field make up a lot of interpretation without enough evidence. I get description is necessary but it's often biased. But unrelated to that sculpture, I love the penmanship people had. It's really beautiful.
You did not make it clear if the changes to the electronic catalogue records were recorded and if the previous records were retained. I presume they are?
Exactly! As brilliantly explained in the whole video, we learned a lot (on the art piece but also on the society of the time) by the variations in the description. If those new (electronic) variations are not anymore traçable… we loose a lot…
Very well done. Art is allways a matter of opinion, social context and changes with time. There is no absolut correct position. This is all the more true for a masterpiece heavily restored in the most important parts. The artist is no longer around so let us speculate he would have been delighted hear us with his work in high regard and debating it. Thats art!
How interesting. I wonder what the original expression would have been because the restoration was clearly meant to display a playful nature. My memory seems to believe these creatures were often painted to be mischievous and playful, not violent. In many depictions they were lovers. The fairy world didn’t have the same restrictions and taboos as humans. In fact, neither did the Greeks. I find it very interesting how different interpretation can be considering the time frame of the participants in the interpretation.
I don’t like this. It is right to point out the reconstructed portions and call out what we don’t know about it. But we shouldn’t place our social or political values onto it. Historic artifacts should be viewed in a way to try to understand the people who made it and how they viewed it. That’s what we are trying to learn from it. If we impose our own view point, we learn nothing.
History is what it is, and during various centuries the historical legacy of humankind, including the historical artifacts, has both annoyed and intrigued people. The nude Greek/Roman statues surely interested the Victorians (where could the gentlemen look at naked bodies and consider this as a cultural activity?). Thanks for this curator's corner. Judged from our modern perspective, ancient Greeks and Romans and their mythologies and social practices were in many respects just repulsive and barbarian. Yet knowing and seeing this today is our duty as being of this historical continuum, and in no way it diminishes the more positive contributions of the ancient culture. History is what it is.
I don't think any sexual violence is depicted in this sculptural scene. True, without knowing how the original nymphs' head was sculptured, it is impossible to really know what is going on. However, it seems to me that the sculpture represents two woodland creatures in a playful pose.
Where is the proof that this is an attempt assault and not an act of play? I dont see any stress in the muscles on the nymph. And nymphs are kinda know for playful, even dangerous, sexual encounters. The descriptions definitely fit the time periods. The most recent being a culture of people who think they are in a constant state of victimhood.. then project that onto their interpretation of ancient art.
The proof is in her head. Without ever being assaulted, she knows exactly how an assault looks. Without ever been engaged in foreplay, she can truly says what foreplay looks like.
I do not agree with the interpretation of this particular sculpture. Despite the replacement of certain parts over the years, I am uncertain about the authentic head position or expressions. However, I am capable of interpreting the creation differently. Maybe the Nymph is forcing sex over the Satyr. The expression over the face of the Nymph is of pleasure. The hand of the Satyr is forcibly drawn towards her, not removed. The very position of the two bodies does not show that the Satyr is forcing over the Nymph.
I understand the difficulty of finding a suitable label to this sculpture. However, I have a remark about the Curator's decision to classify it as the representation of a rape attempt. The truth is that the sculpture has more than one author. The interpretation of "Lo Spossino" cannot be ignored unless the head is removed. "Lo Spossino" chose to interpret the sculpture as an erotic game between the nymph and the satyr. The nymph is smiling. To label the sculpture in its current form as "rape" is problematic from the pedagogical point of view. It conveys the idea that a rape is pleasant to the victim, which is a dangerous message.
@@amrcg2 So is this playful resisistance or "rape"?...clearly the desire to frame this sculpture in those terms is a byproduct of modern feminist views...many possibilities exist regarding the artists intentions.
@@donaldkbruce , in fact, if you stick to "Lo Spossino" 's interpretation, it is playful resistance. As to the original, we will never know, unless another copy is found with head. However, I have just checked the British Museum online collection. Unlike the description proposed in this video, it shows "Marble group of a nymph struggling to escape from a satyr. Parts are restored, including the head of the nymph." This is quite fair in my opinion.
Satyr’s are half man, half goat as the goat was sacred to Dionysus. Nymphs were also half female , half fawn. They are both highly charged sexual creatures who often cavorted together in Bacchanalian debauchery. I think the idea of it being viewed as a sexual attack is historically inaccurate especially when you consider we get the word nymphomaniac and insatiable from Nymphs and Satyrs behavior. These mythological creatures are having carnal fun with each other . She’s not running away just playing hard to get to enhance their foreplay.
2:15 this is VERY likely NOT her original expression. There are other versions of this same motif that she looks the other way. "Abduction of a Sabine Woman" and other renascence and baroque versions / evolutions, like Bernini's daphne also gives us some clues
At first glance, these two characters are simply playing. To assume that the nymph's head was originally showing distress is a gross misreading of the visible facts and perhaps reflects today's assumption that all males are inherently violent.
The negative description of the sculpture and the underlying distaste for the gentlemen collectors seem to show the influence of 'wokeism' over the curator. Bad. The narrative could just as easily be a playful sex-wrestle between lovers.
Seeing how they are mythical to begin with- let's give the artist (be they original, or restorer) the benefit of the doubt. In that, they weren't so messed up in the head to spend what appears to have taken quite some time and effort, just to create a non-consensual scene. You know... innocence until proven otherwise. Then visitors might be able to see art that is always claimed to spiritually belong to us all, by museums. Onlookers are free to make an opinion of the art as they dissect what they see and interpret themselves- the way art is supposed to be viewed.
@@JOHNOGRADY-un2ft You might want to watch the video. The sculpture was bought for a considerable sum from an inhabitant of the country where it was found, & who was not under any form of colonial rule whatsoever.
The facial expression of the Nymph looks more like a grimace than a smile, to me. Love the video and would like seeing more of these as many sculptures are not available for public display.
You literally walk past dozens of pieces in great museums with scant regard for their back story. Then you hang on every word, entranced by the depth of history and background to this one little piece. Fascinating. Imagine what tales go untold by other pieces that you whiz by in your race to see the Rosetta Stone
You guys should really put out more videos. You could do an item spotlight a week and not run out of content in our lifetime.
It's genuinely really lovely to read this comment - means we're doing a good job. However, an episode of Curator's Corner takes way more than a week - so it's not really feasible to release more regularly than 1 vid every 2 weeks right now.
@@britishmuseumJust fill in the rest of the time with Irving Finkel talking about anything that comes to his mind haha
@RDSwords I like that idea too.👍🏼
It takes a time to pick the item to present, determine who will present it, schedule filming, do the shoot including lighting, sound work etc. After that they still have to edit the entire video, color and sound grade, and then I’m sure some executive has to sign off on the final product as well. And I am assuming the museum doesn’t give them much of a budget at all to do this. Making videos takes a long time!
I hope you continue on whatever schedule works for you. Hearing about its history, acquisition and the archival aspects was fascinating.
I like that it’s listed as “smaller than life” indicating that the person who made the list is very familiar with fauns and nymphs and knows their regular size!
@@ages6592 Presumably the Italian geezer told the Townley geezer, and if the Italians don’t know how big fauns and such are, I don’t know who do?
Its a technical term for sculpture of subjects smaller than full scale. Classically they would not have depicted mythos figures as "small people" or children. Its a scale copy of the Greek original as mentioned.
@@obsidianjane4413
---------------------->
Whoooooosh
🙍♀
@@ages6592 historic Greek literature on Satyrs describes their physical size in detail. It also describes them as being known to attempt to rape Nymphs and Human women. The physical size of Nymphs is also described in surviving text and literature so we have access to the knowledge that this is a smaller than life statue.
The researchers at the British Museum don't mess about. I'm sure that they have detailed research showing the exact size of both fauns and nymphs.
I visited the heavily guarded secret gallery in Naples where they display some of their most saucy Roman sculptures and paintings. It's so important to show them because it gives you the real cultural distance between now and ancient Rome. So much of how we think of Rome comes from the classical period and the enlightenment where people had an interest in making their serious culture and unadorned piousness look like it came from the ancient power that built those monumental ruins. You see this in the "renovations" of the medieval in the arts and crafts period , also. It's important for us to see how different they were and to understand their symbols. It helps us contextualize the biases of the present, as well.
Heavy guarded and secret? Not anymore. And that’s great. visit the Archeological Museum in Naples
There is a wallpainting from pompeii showing a similar scene where she has a much more determined expression and her hand is right in his face. The smiling head and the gentle touch of her hand gives the sculpture a touch of Rococo.
Rococo... Great for the period of the head, revolution, and opera.
*As someone familiar with the human skeleton the position and angle of her neck at Cervical 6 (where it appears to terminate) is inconsistent with the curvature of her spine that matches Thoracic 1. That position, while appearing to be missing C7 entirely, would be difficult if not painful for a human without pathology to reproduce.*
@@1nvisible1 Good thing she isn't a human then! (Also, artistic licence is a thing.)
I think that the nymph's head was definitely different, because the expression throws off the kind of expressive factor that Greek sculptures attempt to depict, it's just out of place simply, and also the statue has been mis-treated by people probably disgusted by the connotations, so they removed the struggling woman's expression and the man's genitals, but also I think we can see plainly its a struggle from how her foot is positioned to smash his whatevers.
I'm going to call shenanigans. There is none where she is fighting a satyr and appears determined. There are however several where she is... engaged... with a nymph, and appears enraptured.
In my opinion, the person who reconstructed the head of the Nymph gave her a more in control of the situation look. Her expression seems to say "No chance you little turd". Even her posture appears stronger than that of the Satyr. He's struggling with all him might while she is easily pushing him away and preparing to stand up and walk away.
That's my take on the statue I saw on my screen. I know that others will see something else and have a different opinion, and that's okay. It's art and art is subjective and can be translated a million ways. You are not required to see it the same way as me.
Since the original head was apparently lost we can only speculate on what her expression was. It may have been anger, disgust, fear or panic, we can't know unless we have either the head or a description of the statue from the time of its creation.
Personally I like the "I'm stronger than you so don't even try it" idea. It would be a break from the tradition of portraying women as weak, and I like it.
I myself come from a tribe who don't conform to the typical western idea that women are inferior, but rather equal. That is in no small part what influences my view of the statue.
Thank you. And we don't know if this was an assault. Missing that defining missing bit, we can't know what the original sculptor was portraying. Adding to your 'oh no you don't' from the nymph, mayhaps this was simply a young & foolish satyr trying to grab at the stronger, more agile nymph in roughhousing play. As it's missing we don't know the state of that member.
I agree with you.
I think your interpretation is backed by the treatment of the two bodies; the satyr’s body shows his struggle, the nymph’s is smooth and graceful - there’s no tension in it. The sculptor who made the head created a face that seems to fit perfectly on that body.
@@janepage3608 thank you. I think the recreated head is pointing in the correct direction given the appearance of the body lines still evident on the original piece of marble. I would love to be able to examine it up close and personal. In the real world I'm a mineralogist with an interest in history so a marble sculpture can make me "Geek out" 😁
"it would break the tradition of..." how likely do you think the original attempted to break that tradition? why place our current ideals on an ancient piece of art?
1700s - people interpreting objects of art from the past according to their current views
1800s - people interpreting objects of art from the past according to their current views
1900s - people interpreting objects of art from the past according to their current views
... and now for something completely different...
2000s - people interpreting objects of art from the past according to their current views
consistency 😀
Nailed it. I think the museum does the public a disservice with their over sensitivity. The people who visit the museum are more able to handle complex situations than the curators give them credit for.
@@HarryWHill-GAYeah. This lady seems nice and intelligent, but she is literally doing the same thing that she claims what was wrong about the the past! Hypocrisy of the upper class at its finest.
"Presentism" is a known logical fallacy - but people are just not getting it.
Isn't this what art is for, to be interpreted?
Yes. The moral warning and grandstanding reeks of patronizing infantilization. A sad commentary of our times.
I always wonder at the amount of hand wringing that goes on about displaying such pieces. Surely, it just needs the caveat.
1. This is a representation of mythology.
2. This was carved in a time when attitudes towards sexual violence were far more lax.
If people complain, then tell them grow up, and for God's sake, don't ever read classical mythology or anything historical.
The British Museum is a public institution that gets funded through attendees, donations, and government sponsorship. What do you think happens to that funding if they turn public sentiment against themselves by telling folks who complain to "grow up"?
@keen7981 Thanks for highlighting an ongoing issue with modern society. Pandering to the feckless rather than telling the truth, for fear of complaints. It'll just lead to further degradation.
@@keen7981 It's a big yawner these days. No one will be telling anyone anything, unless they can drag race into it.
#1 will alone suffice
Roman attitudes towards sex were not at all lax. They were strict but very different. This is a very expensive object of a venerable scene and the temporal cultural meaning of this statue is not exactly clear since most of the context is lost. Whatever it is, though, I think it is safe to assume that it is probably not sexual in any modern sense. Like the doorstep flying phalluses warding off the evil eye. Not at all juvenile imagery but a protective symbol against a very real fear. Or a display of your knowledge of the past to ward off decadence. I don't know
This was a fascinating look at this sculpture and its history, from the questionable restoration of the head before arriving in England to the evolving language used in its description. I would love to see more videos like this!
Thanks for going to the trouble of making this clip. It was very good in presentation and content. Have subscribed and look forward to exploring your content. Thanks again. Love your work Vicky :-)
Is there any reason to assume that the original face had an expression showing pain or fear or disgust?
Excellent point!
You would have to compare with similar art of the same period to get an idea of what the original expression should be. That would not be 100% since there is always a chance the artist or commissioner wanted something atypical.
It would have been nice if the video compared it to contemporary pieces.
@@rufferstuff9148 Or to the myths and stories about the satyrs and nymphs, how are they normally portrayed? Sculptures are often symbolic of the stories.
@@lynettejwhite Often portrayed/reported as, "lovers enjoying their abandonment", so I guess she could easily have a smile.
What if we imagine that the sculpture of the nymph is completely different from what it is? Just think about what that might mean!
The thing that absolutely obsesses me about world-class museums is the fact that they have so much of their collection in storage. I want to see THAT too! What art work are we not seeing, and why not? Thank you for answering that question, at least in this one instance. But I am absolutely dying to see videos of the storage rooms, the undisplayed art.
The BM would be enormous. The V&A would need to be the entirety of Kensington too.
@@martynnotman3467 Bring It On! The trouble with all these museums, is that they only change what's on view, if they lend something to another museum, or if there is a Special Anniversary coming up. Another bugbear, is that they never advertise things until it's nearly too late for Joe Public to visit the Exhibition. I've missed several, because of a lack of Advance Notice.
At one time , the MOMA in New York, had over 175 thousand pieces of sculpture in storage.
I totally agree. What makes it worse is that we pay and other totally unaccountable people decide that we can’t see certain things - for reasons.
It’s a beautiful piece of art. I’m always impressed by the quality of such work in marble.
I think it's interesting that one obvious interpretation is not given any space: Given the Dionysian connection, the scene likely depicts a playful, flirtatious interaction between two sensual beings of the forest.
Correct and that is the interpretation one should draw from what you see. And how search descriptors shown.
The museum should list that way and state as restored. Original meaning lost depending on original head.
Then include tags that indicate possible reluctance but will consent sexual activity or possible sexual assault in original form. But term needs to be possible not absolutely sexual assault. It absolutely cannot use the confirmed sexual assault term. And all original meanings of possible original complete should always have the speculation version of a tag. And in description of this practice state these interpretations should not be taken as dismissive of problem of sexual assault the tags simply indicating evidence lacking.
I think from the perspective of today's strong and judgemental views on sexual depictions, it is difficult to step back and imagine the original creators intent. My first impression was that of the nymph surpressing the satr by sitting on him/it, in a way of playful dominance. The expression of the nymphs head is key though. A different expression, would imply a different meaning. I am reminded of a 1980s advert for the. Guardian newspaper, where an event is seen from 3 different positions, demonstrating how eyewitness accounts need all the information to have a hope of correctly interpreting a scene. RIP Guardian.
There's an even more obvious interpretation that seems missing despite scrolling the comments to avoid typing it. Her heel has just deflated his lust into incapacitating pain rendering him..........amusing.
More importantly the scene just does not seem to suggest any struggle. They are both totally naked. If it was a struggle, the nymph would have some piece of clotting left. The gesture on both satyr and nymph hint at playful nature of the interaction, rather than a struggle.
He's taking a hard shove to the face. His neck is snapped back. I don't know about mythical creatures, but a man doing that goes to jail today.
I love curators corner but.. I'm glad to see many disagreeing with or questioning the very modern wordage and description of what the statue depicts. Judging things from the past through the modern eye and most current moral stance takes away from or lessons the opportunity of the viewer of the art to have their own interpretation. Art is all about individual interpretation and there really shouldn't be dictation about how things are viewed or in their description.
well said
@@MarcTRussell I appreciate that very much. I'm a silver and goldsmith and gem cutter. I've also worked around literally hundreds of artist of all kinds. So that's where my perspective comes from. 👍
Agree.😊
Totally agree!
There is a vein push and pull coming from her, and he is upset at the push back, but still very determined. Her hand does NOT appear to be pushing him away, but holding him in place. This is the heart of how flirtation is perceived: rejection and acceptance in the same moment.
"Baby it's cold outside" in sculpture.
If you look at the way his leg is between hers, it looks to me that she was sitting on his lap previously whch fits your description. He got a little too touchy and now she needs a little space
@@juniperpansy Agreed, a little space, a 'little back and forth', or 'yes but not yet' is not violent or trying to escape.
ever think she finished first and he's wanting his turn?
I think you nailed it. What convinces me is her hand at her torso that we were not told was restored. It has an underhand grip with the thumb folded in, not a strong overhand grip with the thumb over the top which would be the much stronger way to remove someones hand. Definitely looks to be a push and pull scenario. Also the sculpture does not indicate that her body position would be anything other than having her head facing his face. The drawing of her looking away is very misleading to reflect current values.
i'm always up for spending some time in a BM curator's corner. thank you for doing these!
Somewhere out there, his lost tadger is just waiting to be discovered.
It is under her foot, hence his expression.
So is mine🙃
Check the bedside drawer 😅
"Dad! do you know the piano's on my foot?!"
"You hum it son, I'll play it"
Nah he was trans.
I got a glimpse of the back room/hallway of a city where I live, when I was a kid. It is obvious to me that the museum has much more artwork and artifacts then space. They chose not to put on display. Imagine what they may have in storage on remote sites.
“Bad Victorian Age, repressing sex and sexuality!!!” *gasp* They didn’t want to allow people unfettered access to art because it might corrupt them.
… meanwhile … We are going to obsess about how we are going to label and catalog this piece so that sex and sexuality might not be misunderstood.
Pardon the eye-roll for our modern day Victorians and their lists of what art is socially acceptable for the plebes to see without a guide
This is so true.
They’re equally as pompous and tiresome.
Overtly yes, for the Subjects. Covertly quite to the contrary for Royals and Aristocrats.
Everything must be viewed under the distorted lens of misogyny, oppression and victimhood. These political activists have no place in museums or anywhere near our history. They are zealots who would destroy our ancient artefacts just as ISIS did the ancient artefacts of Iraq and Syria.
I thoroughly enjoyed viewing this video. I learned so much and was amazed at the extant documentation resident within the museum. The museum should make more of these videos. Thank you for sharing!
I love these Curators' Corners. Being unable to travel, i appreciate the experience and education. Especially Irving Fenkel
@The_British_Museum, You reference a sketch showing how the head *might* have been turned and with a different expression. You also state that the item is a copy of a 2BCE Greek item. So: (1) where is the original? Or is the *copy* claim a supposition? ; (2) is there any example extant of such an item with the head turned around and/or with a different expression in antiquity?; (3) or are your claims an example of *correct thinking*, a political position not different in intent from those who choose to hid it from view and simply an example of the climate of this times?
And I'd like to add another question: what are the myths and stories people told about the satyr and nymphs? This video doesn't mention if they were normally depicted as playful, flirtatious, in conflict, possessive, or the satyrs taking sexual dominance over the nymphs.
@@lynettejwhite Yes, and I thought nymphs were quite powerful beings. The nymphs posture seems to actually be quite dominating with a not too forceful push to the satyr's head, whereas the satyr looks to be much more contorted in response to the push. The anatomy of the ancient sculpture in no way suggests a totally turned head and to imply that the restoration sculptor didn't know what they were doing, as if they weren't surrounded by other such works, and couldn't analyze the remaining parts of the sculpture to make a very good and informed restoration piece, rather says a lot more about modern interpretations.
I too would like to know the origin of that sketch.
The Archaeological Museum in Athens has a sculpture of a visibly aroused Pan attempting to molest Aphrodite. In that case she has one hand covering her groin, and the other raised clutching a sandal, obviously about to clout him around the ear. To me that speaks a timeless truth, and it's very funny too. In this case, I don't think we can be sure what the sculptor's intentions were, but given that nymphs could sometimes be wilful and violent, she isn't necessarily the victim here -that is to bring a 21st Century sensibility to the scene.
Wonderful to know you have all the documentation over time, thanks for sharing. Charles
Please can we have more videos like this. It’s fascinating to understand not just the intention of the artist when creating a piece but the journey of that piece through history and how it has sat within the mores, opinions and traditions of society as time has moved forward.
Very interesting video, love a behind the scenes, through the ages
Lust
Really enjoy these Curated moments! Thank you!
Your reading of the word "wanting" is correct. In fact, it's not a matter of interpretation, as there is no other possible meaning in the eighteenth century. "To want" is defined in Johnson's Dictionary (1755) as "to be improperly absent; not to be in sufficient quantity...to be missed; to be not had."
@@callimas I think you’re using language colonially.
@@callumclark3358 what are you talking about? The description was written in English by an English collector during the 18th century. the citation is from an 18th century English dictionary. What is colonial about that?
@@The_Butler_Did_It Sorry, that was supposed to be a joke.
Yes, indeed! I remember "wanting" from Dickens, and perhaps Austen too.
I don't think the presenter was in any doubt as to the meaning of this old-fashioned but hardly obscure usage, she was just informing the ignorant in a non-patronising way :)
On the subject of “struggling to escape from a Satyr” and the subjects …would these same descriptions be used for Bouguereau’s Nymphs and Satyr where the roles are reversed? It doesn’t appear to be an accurate depiction of the current state of the piece. He’s a Ennuch and she has a smile on her face. It just isn’t in the same as Apollo & Daphne, or Bernin’s Persephone which are very clearly assaults.
Not a eunich it is just broken off and missing.
Descriptions like this are almost meaningless, anyway. Who defines assault? The legal experts? Oxford's? The current public opinion? Almost meaningless, even with more words to define the words.
That may not be a smile on her face; it may be a grimace of force.
The head is modern
@@casteretpollux Yes, I finally read that
Thank you. Excellent summary. I appreciate the time and effort it took to tell the story of this sculpture. I look forward to future presentations. Liked and subscribed 😊.
Excellent presentation. Very complete description . Well done.
Beautifully narrated. I watched to the end wanting more information. Thankyou.
But did you get it? I would have liked more factual information, but it was somewhat lacking, replaced by too much interpretation on the part of the presenter.
Enjoyed this vid but started to wonder towards the end (13:02).
“Marble group of a nymph escaping from a satyr”
To
“Marble group of a nymph struggling to escape from a satyr”
I would argue that we do not know and have no way of knowing the intentions of the nymph. Escape or rough play. She might not want to escape and might be enjoying physical play, something they might normally do in their realm. We do not know.
How about “Marble group of a nymph and satyr in a struggle”?
I liked the description used at one point in the video, "Marble group of a satyr and nymph, he seated on the ground pulling her towards him". This avoids any interpretation.
@@johnnzboyit’s also far more accurate
@@johnnzboy Very good
It appears to be more or less a heterosexual interaction, which is organically suspect to the academic.
@@johnnzboy 'Nymph and Satyr demonstrating birth control'
Thank you for this excellent presentation which explains the interpretation and reactions to art in the viewing culture.
Thank you for this fascinating glimpse into the workings of a major museum.
I wonder when museums around the world will start to destroy artifacts not politically correct, if it has not already started to happen.
Let Sadiq Khan decide, he seems to know what's best for everyone! 😊😮💀
Can you not
@@billtomson5791usually it right wing elements that do the destroying
This is a great example of the importance and value of these videos. I will never visit the British Museum, and if I did, I would not have the stamina to see everything on display, never mind what isn't. But now I have seen this interesting statue and learned about its history.
The "strange word" in the document is what it looks like, "pern" which means a conical spool around which thread from an old-style spinning wheel was wound. it's a shape which would work as a centre pin to hold the new head more securely onto the torso. The fixing would be stronger than using cement or glue alone.
Pern was also an English variant of perno which means a stonemason's pin.
@@davidbennett9691 Not short for "pern-ography"?
@@astrid703 It is now...
Exceptional content - more pls! 🙏🏻 I love the discussions & thoughtful comments! 🎉
The nymph isn’t struggling to escape a violent rape. The positions of the statues alone show that they are being playful. The nymph is playing hard to get. Don't impose modern feminism and feminist doctrines of what is consent on an ancient culture that didn’t care about such things.
Absolutely!
Wonderfully informative video! Thank you very much! Been years since I have visited your collections (as I live in Chicago US) but this type of presentation fuels my return.
In other words, a new era of censorship at the British Museum.
Ancient Indians were far more advanced in their imaginations and illustrating it in the stone carvings and sculptures.
Apart from Khajuraho in Madhya Pradesh, there are at least twelve and perhaps a hundred surviving Hindu temples which include in their sculptural representations acts of human sexual coupling.The Temple of Surya in Konarak in Odisha has some of the world-famous exemplars of erotic sculpture. In Maharashtra, the Markandeshwar temple and the depiction of love in Ellora are also a glorious part of India’s heritage.
Considering the satyr head is original and it has a playful expression I would argue the sexual assault description to be wrong when paired with the mythology of nymph's. The word nymphomaniac and all it means is derived from that mythology. A nymph resisting sexual advances? They were they ones that made the advances in mythology. Then the positions the 2 characters are posed in do not suggest serious aggression and resistance, his legs are not at all poised for an assault and he is on his butt, not at all a position an attacker would be in. And her position looks more like she is getting up rather than being pulled down, she is leaning forward as if to get up rather than leaning back/straight up as if being pulled down. Positions two playful lovers could find themselves in while only the nymphs position even remotely suggests struggle. And that struggle does not mean resisting assault.
Agreed. Additionally, considering her foot is on his genitals and she has her genitals pressed against his thigh, and that she's smiling while he grimaces, suggests this could be a BDSM scene. The guy, her "sub", has a grimace befitting this, her grabbing his hair would probably only get a mild grimace. If the face was repaired faithfully then this could be what the sculptor was intending. Or he meant it to be ambiguous.
How can you describe his expression as 'playful'? It looks psychotic to me.
@@sillysausage2244 Your question prompted me to look up the difference between fawn and satyr (I had no idea). From Wikipedia (beware), "Fauns and satyrs were originally quite different creatures: whereas late-period fauns are half-man and half-goat, satyrs originally were depicted as stocky, hairy, ugly dwarves or woodwoses, with the ears and tails of horses." ...... the implication being that their definitions have changed in time. I then looked at dictionary definitions only to become more foggy, in part, due to Roman and Greek confusions. My conclusion from this brief research was to throw my hands up in the air and walk away just as ignorant as I was. I figure I have better things to do. Sorry.
@@sillysausage2244 Thanks
Even if the satyrs expression was playful (which I don’t think it remotely is) it’s possible for a sexual aggressor to be happy and playful even while the victim is having a very bad time. Especially if the aggressor is drunk and or under the impression that they are engaged in friendly play fighting even though the victim’s resistance is 100% genuine. And given how little the consent of women and fem creatures is considered in Greek mythology, with them being regularly assaulted and impregnated against their will without the men involved showing any remorse for or even really noticing their distress, it’s very much worth considering the potential that this sculpture may have originally depicted something that would be considered violent and unconsentual today. Failing to acknowledge the potential would require intentionally hiding realities from the public, which isn’t really what we want from centres of education and learning
The word the curator cannot identify in the handwriting at 4:40 is "pern", which is an old word for spindle or peg, which indeed fits the context of the sentence and her overall description. Cheers!
What a great video clip! Just love the incredible history behind it, even though we know very little about its first 1600yrs. But how amazing that it has survived all that time, a thousand conflicts and wars, looting and controversy, all its owners, its curators, the disputes over its subject matter, over its ownership and who it was handed down to over millennia. Thank goodness for the obsession of Victorian era record keepers and thank goodness for your skills and the British Museum.
Corrupt the lower classes? God forbid.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Corruption was, and probably still is, a privilege of the upper class.
@@TubeArmadillo
Corruption knows no class.
@@YorkyOnePlease. We all know that the corrupt rich are 'eccentric' or 'made mistakes' 'deserve a second chance' all that rubbish, but corrupt poor are 'mad' 'a danger to society' 'criminal elements' and such
@@Rynewulf
What's class got to do with it?
Even at a low level in an organisation you can be corrupt - the police, local authorities etc.
A backhander to get you to the front of the queue - or to turn a blind eye.
Nicely done. Really great interplay of images into the video - obviously a lot of work!
I'm far more concerned about the obvious attempt by the curator to interpret this statue as violence in the face of clear sculptural evidence to the contrary, than I am about any questionable restorations to the piece.
What sculptural evidence was there?, as the head was not the original? In mythology, Satyrs dir try and rape Nymphs and mortal women.
@@georgesibley7152they seduced both. Words have meaning.
I think it's pretty clear that the nymph is trying to escape. That does make this an act of violence.
@@incogneat0901 if you’ve ever witnessed two people having sex, it looks pretty violent. Every aspect of that sculpture has meaning, especially the faces. How can you look at the sculpture of two humanoids and just completely ignore their facial expression while making your smug judgement? She is smiling. She is looking at him and smiling in this sculpture not some historical version of it… this one.“Because I say so” only works with moms.
@@G4L4CTIC if people are pushing against you while you're having sex with them, if you have to pull them down, you are assaulting them, bud.
What an enlightening and fascinating video, thank you!
The back story of this sculpture is fascinating particularly its history, restoration and changing social perception. Thank you!
I love curators corner, thank you!!
Well, now that’s an interesting thing… If the catalog description is constantly being updated… We would hope that the dates of the updates are also included or catalog somewhere as well as the earlier description, so that we can view the evolution of views and interpretations over time.
I really enjoyed hearing an in-depth discussion of the history of this piece and the interpretation and how the sculpture moved through the museum. I marvel to think, every piece on display has a long history and a story to tell - just like this piece. You could spend years trying to grasp the knowledge of all these pieces. I am glad to hear the museum is electronically cataloging the history.
As far as the interpretation of this piece, it may forever be lost in antiquity. The sculpture, to my eyes masterfully created the satyr and the nymph to have almost a 50-50 split in who is 'determining the next moment' Is the nymph going to stand up and walk away? Or, is the satyr going to be able to pull her back towards him? No one knows. I think that is the 'meaning' - the uncertainty.
I wonder if there are similar drawings, or sculpture that can help 'fill out' the understanding of this piece. It would be fun for the museum catalog to have an addendum that references similar pieces that could be considered by the viewer to add a deeper knowledge.
Thank You for posting, please provide more Curator's Corner. Vicky Donnellan is a wonderful presenter.
How exactly do you know what the original looked like? I'll I'm hearing are assumptions as if there couldn't possibly be any other way to conclude anything.
I don't see any sign of struggle in the body of the nymph. You can't judge by the head, as it's not original.
I fully agree, yet it is NOT consent.
@@rychei5393Maybe it’s foreplay 🤷♂️
It is not refusal to consent as well. We cannot tell of refusal serous or not. We cannot tell if woman troubled by this or not.
With head added it unlikely she feels victimized by this activity.
She likely is not now but thanks for the interest or it play she will sink into embrace and sex next willingly. But this stated as it appears with current head combined with lack of struggle in her muscles.
Yet that shouldn't make one IOTA'S difference as to whether it gets displayed or not.
@@milferdjones2573That's what men always think: "If I just persevere, she will 'sink into willingness.' "
NO, WE WON'T
Came for insight on the statue. Stayed for the fascinating history of record keeping for museum artifacts.
Wow thank you Vicky, I loved your presentation of this fascinating piece of sculpture
No where does it say that the head was replaced. It says fixed. No one who is struggling to get away would be smiling. Both appear to be smiling and playing. More likely two lovers playing in the woods, yet we would rather depict it as something vulgar and very distasteful.
"Imagine if her head was in an entirely different and anatomically impossible position, based on what was clearly remaining of the original sculpture - that I'm only editorializing because of my own baseless presupositions and personal feelings. Wouldn't that change the interpretation?" Yes, completely altering a sculpture from the obvious anatomical position of the original would absolutely change things. 🙄
This is an absolute masterpiece - not displaying it is a crime. Why dont You give it to someone who will?
Yeah, like all the best stuff is in packing cases in warehouses all over the place. Probably find the Ark of the covenant (Raiders O T L A , style) somewhere, forgotten about. Along with the Holy Grail, -nah, that'd be in the Vatican archives.
Hardly think pre-Christ era porn gonna hurt anyone.
You never heard of this sculpture until now but now you’re the expert?
The simple answer is because the BM is not permitted by law to remove anything from its collections. Lend, possibly, but not give.
@@matthias8122 Hiding it in the basement because it is "inappropriate" does not help, does it?
It's a nice sculpture. I pity any man who behaves that way today. Jail time!
This was a wonderful educational piece. Would love to more of these. Brava.
Just how on earth can someone sculpt such a beautiful statue from marble which is surely a hard material ? My mind boggles in awe. Thank you for this video. ❤
3 to 4 on Mohs scale "Some types of marble also have the advantage that, when first quarried, it is relatively soft and easy to work, refine, and polish. As the finished marble ages, it becomes harder and more durable."
@@OldOneTooth Exactly. Marble is "softer" when first extracted.
Marble is pretty soft as far as minerals/rocks go. That's why it was a commonly used material for sculpture historically. Granite or basalt would be much harder to sculpt, as well as being darker in color. Coincidentally, marble is also usually white or very light gray, which makes it much easier to see the details, and also makes it easier for the sculptor to work on for that reason. Interestingly, ancient greek and roman sculptures were usually painted in very bright colors.
Check _Undine Rising from the Waters_ if you want to see solid rock look soft.
You shape hard materials with harder materials.
Cultural Anthropology can be hard, both as to avoiding distortion from one's own current biases, and as to parsing meaning from a distant era and culture.
I strongly doubt that sculpture represents sexual assault, even if that might be a modern interpretation of archaic societal norms.
Really interesting, appreciated the insights on How each périod labelled and interpreted this statue. Love Curator’s Corner, the best by far of all muséums vidéos. You guys could publish a vidéo a week ! Always interesting journeys through Times and places, and you respect your viewers by walking them through art, research, sociétés and so on in a very precise and understantable langage. Thanks a lot.
This is fantastic from beginning to end.
We can look forward to the description ultimately being altered to read "A sculpture of a nymph and satyr about to be disturbed by the police who will take away the satyr for charging, trial and imprisonment while the nymph undergoes counselling."
The narrator admits that nobody knows the original intend of the creator of this statue. But they have decided that is now assault, rather than foreplay. And they are 100% sure they are right this time. I wonder how they are going to describe Leda and the Swan.
@@Deontjie They should look at, and respect the historical norms and values of those times and present them as such. What they explain here, they should explain next to this sculpture in the exhibition. I think it's wild these people go home and put their kids on TH-cam unsupervised, with way more alarming content than two naked people's sculpture.
You forgot the fact that the nymph will also be led in how to testify against the satyr, even though, as apparent it is, she was very willing and consenting.
Bad news for him.
Did the satyr post something about immigration on social media?
This was a very enjoyable presentation. The history of the piece, and certain details, were an interesting story in itself. I toured a site in Corinth indications were that such statues were either made or equipped with heads. At the Antiquities museum at the base of the pantheon at Athens, they described how some of the statutes had detachable heads. In this way a uniform classical statue could be personalized to resemble it's owner. So when the description that the heads were detached in the ruins of the building where it was found fit very nicely with what I was told elsewhere. Frankly, that moment of a close-up to the face of the nymph did not show the fear or anger that would normally be associated with the label rape, but instead a hint of a playful smile. With today's sexual norms this item could probably displayed with a minimum a complaint by the Museum's clientele. Thank you also for the voluminous display of records illustrating it's provenance.
In english the words ITS and IT'S are spelled differently because they mean different things. Since you have already re-edited your post (congratulations for caring!) you may now correct the inappropriate contractions IT IS OWNER and IT IS PROVENANCE.
@@MrCuddlyable thank you for pointing that out. I rely a lot on speech to text, it sometimes thinks it knows what I'm saying better than I do. One of my medicines gives me a Pseudo-Parkinsonian Tremor so I don't type as often as I should.
Among other possible interpretations, I think one of the problems with the use of the word "rape" in the context of classical themes is that it can be confused with the act of kidnapping, such as in the stories of the rape of the Sabine women or Ganymede, whose depictions in painting or scupture represent an abduction.
Yeah, but... The _Rap3 of the Sabines_ is probably my favourite classical statue, gruesome though the subject matter might be, but I do think it's more the other way around; paintings of an "abduction" were politely coded ways of depicting the other, keeping the meaning intact without creating a piece "unfit for public display"; the history of the sculpture in the video being case in point for why an artist might choose such a route. Persephone is another great example to add to those you list; neither Jupiter nor Hades abducted the objects of their lust just to give them a nice new home, nor were the Sabine women taken by the triumphant army in atonement for slaughtering their husbands and children.
@@rhonwenbaker2448 yeah, but since these aren't the original titles it makes more sense to keep the description which better describes what is seen rather than what is implied to happen afterwards. Symplegma is a word that can be used for sculptures like this, but I guess it's going to be criticized for being too obscure. That's what I think at least, and I know whatever choice of words we make is going to find its share of detractors.
The Rape of Europa can be added to the list too.
@@lubbertdas3797 fair enough. Also, thank you for teaching me a new word, "Symplegma" :)
"The kind of behavior that's not acceptable in polite society" says the British Museum, who knowingly purchased the Parthenon Sculptures, despite clear evidence they were stolen and refuses to this day to return them. The Nymphs not the only one getting screwed!
Thank you for a fabulous insight into a piece of sculpture and the museums handling and recording of it.
My first thought was: a flirtatious interaction where the nymph is teasing and playfully holding back the satyr. This little struggle creates an opportunity for the creator to show tension in the bodies and it makes this composition more interesting. Seems this curator doesn't consider the historical Greek/Roman context and judge this composition with a contemporary mind.
I question, what evidence exists that the restored head is different than the original? Given the "playful" nature of nymphs and satyrs in literature, how do you know that this is assault and not play? Your view that this is rape/assault seems based on what is lacking rather than what is present. If there is evidence that the head was intentionally changed why not present it? While you may well be correct, I saw no evidence in what you presented that the original statue depicted rape or assault. It seems that you have allowed modern sentiments towards male/female interactions to influence your interpretation of what is being depicted. I believe a more neutral interpretation should be given allowing viewers to make up their own mind.
"Modern sentiments?" Rape was incredibly common in ancient Greece! It maybe didn't have the same legal definition as today and may have even been more acceptable at the time but it did happen. A lot!
@@yellowwoodstraveler I am not saying rape wasn't common in antiquity. What I am questioning is the interpretation of sculpture. It may be a nymph trying to resist. What I am asking what evidence is there to say the head and face was changed. I know it was added or restored but what was the original? Just as it could be rape it could be playful sexual encounter between nymph and Satyr.
I see it as the Nymph is sculpted in a classical counter spiral form and the hands are relaxed in a caressing fashion expressing an intimate interaction.
The drawing at 8:05 appears to show less of a smile on the nymph's face, with her focus upon the observer rather than on the satyr.
The nymph may not be smiling; she may have a grimace of force.
Very interesting and informative.
I am appalled at the Negative attitudes towards nudity and intimacy that persists in the 21st Century; especially with regard to Ancient Art. Fifty years ago, we lived through the 'Summer of Love' and the advent of the Permissive Society and yet today, it appears that we are regressing back to the Victorian Era, where objects such as this, are now subject to Censure, to avoid Offending those of a sensitive nature, because of sexual connotations. Of particular note, is the fact that the Satyr's Phallus has not been restored, because of its association with the supposed sexual assault of the Nymph. This Prudery about artistic sculptures, is just not acceptable in these so-called Enlightened Times. At this rate, it's only a matter of time before we again cover the genitals of Michelangelo's David with a large Fig Leaf, to appease those women who decry so-called Toxic Masculinity. As a man of 76 years, my Wife, my Daughters and my Granddaughters, have been schooled in the Arts and I've lost count of the times I've had to explain to my daughters and granddaughters, why male appendages are broken off, or covered, when they should be on full view, so that the viewer can appreciate the full beauty of the Human body; both Male and Female. These sculpture should Not be hidden from view, but put on display for all to appreciate.
Nobody is covering genitals with fig leaves beacause of toxic masculinity? Toxic masculinity deals with (learned) social traits and has nothing to do with hiding the male body.
Indeed.
Wholeheartedly agree with you. Why not treat it all with a light heart and not pay lip service to a false morality from those who see themselves above the rest of us and feel they have the right to dictate laws that everyone should follow and are just virtue signalling?
You put it so well. These days we pretend we are enlightened above every other age that has gone before us, and that only we can properly evaluate and assess a piece of sculpture, and make final pronouncements about it. The arrogance of it all. And also the implied 'we the curators know what is best for you'. Not much progress at all, if you ask me!
I've yet to meet a single woman who has expressed any kind of opposition towards genitalia in art. Perhaps your worldview is so twisted and eager to blame everything on women, which is funny as you profess to have father daughters who are educated in art and somehow aren't familiar with the fact that many statues were mangled by the church, not some boogeywomen.
It does seem to be a sign of the times that a sculpture that could have a light or a dark interpretation automatically gets the dark view.
I would like to see a survey of nymph's heads from which the period this sculpture is attributed. Could we, with our modern digital tools be able to recreate the scene in a more period authentic way? Removing all bias that the head sculptor may have included.
It’s very profound that a sculpture made 2000 years ago challenges us.
Impressive documentation regarding the object's history and ownership. At least it wasn't destroyed.
I don't know, after this video it just sounds like people in this field make up a lot of interpretation without enough evidence. I get description is necessary but it's often biased.
But unrelated to that sculpture, I love the penmanship people had. It's really beautiful.
You did not make it clear if the changes to the electronic catalogue records were recorded and if the previous records were retained. I presume they are?
Exactly! As brilliantly explained in the whole video, we learned a lot (on the art piece but also on the society of the time) by the variations in the description. If those new (electronic) variations are not anymore traçable… we loose a lot…
Very well done. Art is allways a matter of opinion, social context and changes with time. There is no absolut correct position. This is all the more true for a masterpiece heavily restored in the most important parts. The artist is no longer around so let us speculate he would have been delighted hear us with his work in high regard and debating it. Thats art!
How interesting. I wonder what the original expression would have been because the restoration was clearly meant to display a playful nature. My memory seems to believe these creatures were often painted to be mischievous and playful, not violent. In many depictions they were lovers. The fairy world didn’t have the same restrictions and taboos as humans. In fact, neither did the Greeks.
I find it very interesting how different interpretation can be considering the time frame of the participants in the interpretation.
Thanks so much for your work... I love this
One is even led to suspect that the British Museum curators themselves broke off the Satyr's member in a fit of envy.
A most instructive video. Thanks.
I don’t like this. It is right to point out the reconstructed portions and call out what we don’t know about it. But we shouldn’t place our social or political values onto it. Historic artifacts should be viewed in a way to try to understand the people who made it and how they viewed it. That’s what we are trying to learn from it. If we impose our own view point, we learn nothing.
Super job. I enjoyed hearing your experiences!
History is what it is, and during various centuries the historical legacy of humankind, including the historical artifacts, has both annoyed and intrigued people. The nude Greek/Roman statues surely interested the Victorians (where could the gentlemen look at naked bodies and consider this as a cultural activity?). Thanks for this curator's corner. Judged from our modern perspective, ancient Greeks and Romans and their mythologies and social practices were in many respects just repulsive and barbarian. Yet knowing and seeing this today is our duty as being of this historical continuum, and in no way it diminishes the more positive contributions of the ancient culture. History is what it is.
The Victorian gentlemen could look at naked bodies at any brothel.
I don't think any sexual violence is depicted in this sculptural scene. True, without knowing how the original nymphs' head was sculptured, it is impossible to really know what is going on. However, it seems to me that the sculpture represents two woodland creatures in a playful pose.
Where is the proof that this is an attempt assault and not an act of play? I dont see any stress in the muscles on the nymph. And nymphs are kinda know for playful, even dangerous, sexual encounters.
The descriptions definitely fit the time periods. The most recent being a culture of people who think they are in a constant state of victimhood.. then project that onto their interpretation of ancient art.
The proof is in her head. Without ever being assaulted, she knows exactly how an assault looks. Without ever been engaged in foreplay, she can truly says what foreplay looks like.
I do not agree with the interpretation of this particular sculpture. Despite the replacement of certain parts over the years, I am uncertain about the authentic head position or expressions. However, I am capable of interpreting the creation differently. Maybe the Nymph is forcing sex over the Satyr. The expression over the face of the Nymph is of pleasure. The hand of the Satyr is forcibly drawn towards her, not removed. The very position of the two bodies does not show that the Satyr is forcing over the Nymph.
I understand the difficulty of finding a suitable label to this sculpture. However, I have a remark about the Curator's decision to classify it as the representation of a rape attempt. The truth is that the sculpture has more than one author. The interpretation of "Lo Spossino" cannot be ignored unless the head is removed. "Lo Spossino" chose to interpret the sculpture as an erotic game between the nymph and the satyr. The nymph is smiling. To label the sculpture in its current form as "rape" is problematic from the pedagogical point of view. It conveys the idea that a rape is pleasant to the victim, which is a dangerous message.
Everything is dangerous and problematic when you live in a society of softies.
@@joek600 , correct. That's precisely the society you live in. And I had to my remark that we don't even know the intention of the original author.
@@amrcg2 So is this playful resisistance or "rape"?...clearly the desire to frame this sculpture in those terms is a byproduct of modern feminist views...many possibilities exist regarding the artists intentions.
Some modern feminist views.
Because to be a feminist one only has to believe women and men are equal.
@@donaldkbruce , in fact, if you stick to "Lo Spossino" 's interpretation, it is playful resistance. As to the original, we will never know, unless another copy is found with head.
However, I have just checked the British Museum online collection. Unlike the description proposed in this video, it shows "Marble group of a nymph struggling to escape from a satyr. Parts are restored, including the head of the nymph." This is quite fair in my opinion.
Satyr’s are half man, half goat as the goat was sacred to Dionysus. Nymphs were also half female , half fawn. They are both highly charged sexual creatures who often cavorted together in Bacchanalian debauchery. I think the idea of it being viewed as a sexual attack is historically inaccurate especially when you consider we get the word nymphomaniac and insatiable from Nymphs and Satyrs behavior. These mythological creatures are having carnal fun with each other . She’s not running away just playing hard to get to enhance their foreplay.
2:15 this is VERY likely NOT her original expression. There are other versions of this same motif that she looks the other way. "Abduction of a Sabine Woman" and other renascence and baroque versions / evolutions, like Bernini's daphne also gives us some clues
At first glance, these two characters are simply playing. To assume that the nymph's head was originally showing distress is a gross misreading of the visible facts and perhaps reflects today's assumption that all males are inherently violent.
The negative description of the sculpture and the underlying distaste for the gentlemen collectors seem to show the influence of 'wokeism' over the curator. Bad. The narrative could just as easily be a playful sex-wrestle between lovers.
Seeing how they are mythical to begin with- let's give the artist (be they original, or restorer) the benefit of the doubt. In that, they weren't so messed up in the head to spend what appears to have taken quite some time and effort, just to create a non-consensual scene. You know... innocence until proven otherwise. Then visitors might be able to see art that is always claimed to spiritually belong to us all, by museums. Onlookers are free to make an opinion of the art as they dissect what they see and interpret themselves- the way art is supposed to be viewed.
Thank you for treating your audience as intelligent, research-oriented adults, as well as ordinary people who are interested in art.
And no thank you for treating us all like little woke idiots who cannot bear the slightest triggering...
Stolen art
@@JOHNOGRADY-un2ft You might want to watch the video. The sculpture was bought for a considerable sum from an inhabitant of the country where it was found, & who was not under any form of colonial rule whatsoever.
The facial expression of the Nymph looks more like a grimace than a smile, to me. Love the video and would like seeing more of these as many sculptures are not available for public display.