微信公众号 
图码生活

每天发布有五花八门的文章,各种有趣的知识等,期待您的订阅与参与
搜索结果最多仅显示 10 条随机数据
结果缓存两分钟
如需更多更快搜索结果请访问小程序
美国纽约大都会艺术博物馆展品查阅
美国纽约大都会艺术博物馆展品查阅
美国大都会艺术博物馆中的24万件展品,图片展示以及中文和英文双语介绍(中文翻译仅供参考)
读取中
读取中
读取中
品名(中)海怪
品名(英)Sea monster
入馆年号1982年,1982.60.95
策展部门欧洲雕塑和装饰艺术European Sculpture and Decorative Arts
创作者Severo Calzetta da Ravenna【1496 至 1543】【意大利人】
创作年份公元 1495 - 公元 1515
创作地区
分类雕塑青铜(Sculpture-Bronze)
尺寸长: 10 英寸 (25.4 厘米)
介绍(中)在利奥·普兰尼西奇于1935年发现塞韦罗·达·拉文纳(Severo da Ravenna)的签名《海洋怪兽》之前,这些杂交生物的模型,以及塞韦罗更广泛的作品,都被归功于贝拉诺(Bellano)和里奇奥(Riccio)。[1] Planiscig是第一个鉴定出一系列青铜海洋怪物的人,其中一些是独立的,另一些是顶着海王星的,并将它们指定为第三位帕杜大师的作品,也就是匿名的"龙之王"[2],直到十年后,他在维也纳的罗伯特·梅耶收藏中偶然发现了签名O.SEVERI.RA。现在在弗里克,签名海怪被广泛认为是现存最好的例子,也是所有后续模型的原型(图36a)。[3] 这种作品有十几种版本,在细节和执行质量上各不相同,但它们符合蛇形身体、蛙式前肢和由叶状胡须构成的人脸的基本公式。[4] 除了弗里克的例子,约翰·波普·轩尼诗(John Pope Hennessy)将独立怪物的最佳版本确定为V&;A和艺术史博物馆。[5]

在Met的两个铸造品中,林斯基青铜显然质量更高。与米尔斯野兽缺乏表情相比,它皱起的眉毛、悲伤的眼睛和扭曲的鬼脸,保留了弗里克原型的痛苦。它浓密的鳞片主要在蜡中切割,然后通过追逐磨尖,形成一个更具活力的表面,以奇怪的角度散射光线。与这种纹理粗糙相对比的是其郁金香形尾鳍的光滑光滑。当蜿蜒的尾巴卷曲成螺旋状时,人们可以明显感觉到它扭动的表面下的强大肌肉。铸造青铜上涂有一层黑色的铜绿,这是大多数帕多瓦青铜器的典型特征,并且随着时间的推移,似乎已经磨掉了一些斑点。[6] 暖棕色的铜绿,在树干中部最为明显,似乎是自然氧化的结果。詹姆斯·戴维·德雷珀(James David Draper)首次发表这件青铜雕像时,它作为林斯基遗产的一部分进入大都会博物馆,将这只怪兽与巴杰洛的海王星群中的同类联系起来。[7] 从其生动的处理方式和与弗里克海怪(Frick Sea Monster)的相似性来看,林斯基青铜应该被认为是这种广泛组成的更为成功的作坊铸造之一。由于没有螺丝插入,它很可能是一个放在柜子里的装饰物,或者用作镇纸

另一方面,米尔斯青铜是一种晚期的作坊式生产,与塞维罗的直接参与相去甚远,这表明了著名的模型如何成为一种传统的实用物品,质量降低。由于缺乏林斯基青铜的图形动画,它有一个惰性的表面,慵懒地使用工具,拥有较少定义的较短的鳍;它下垂的尾巴看起来与主体断开了。鸡壳很可能含有吸墨砂而不是墨水,墨水往往储存在较窄的容器中,以尽量减少蒸发。[8] 背面下半部分的锥形螺钉表明容器缺失,可能是一个墨水罐。塞韦罗和他的工作室典型地使用了这样的螺丝钉来将功能元素固定在图形上。然而,与怪物的前肢一体铸造的外壳表明与他的工作方法不同,因此预示着更晚的日期。2016年苏富比拍卖行出售的一只海怪,在头部和鳞片的造型上与米尔斯青铜相似,带有一个墨水井,提供了米尔斯铸造的原貌的图像。[9] 根据它的功能和扁平的姿势,这只搁浅的海洋怪物可能会在学者的研究中坐在一张桌子上,触手可及。米尔斯青铜器于1978年在弗里克举行的塞韦罗·达·拉文纳小型展览中展出并首次出版。[10]该展览是首次对塞韦罗青铜器进行射线照相检查并进行讨论,这使学者们能够在技术层面上进一步区分他的作品。[11]

面对帕多瓦和整个意大利的学术界对此类工具的需求不断增加,随着本世纪的发展,塞韦罗系统地使用了他的蜡模和石膏芯的碎片模具,以促进其设计在青铜中的复制,从而使他的工作室在他去世后的几十年里仍然保持着惊人的产量。[12] 他的店铺通常用成本较低的黄铜铸造,这在大都会博物馆的大多数例子中都有,包括我们的海怪。他还因使用螺纹螺钉将各种预制部件连接到他的青铜雕像上而闻名,这使得人物雕塑可以适应不同的功能。[13] 正如理查德·斯通(Richard Stone)所观察到的那样,这些鳞甲动物的制作可能最好通过将其概念化为浮雕而不是三维雕塑来理解,因为它们的底部是开放的。[14] 因此,塞维罗的海洋怪物比圆形的人物更容易、更快地制作。这篇作品大受欢迎,因此在其他巴杜铸造厂也引发了模仿和变体,这或许可以解释为什么在塞维罗的全部作品中,海怪存活的数量最多。[15]

Severo的发明源于Andrea Mantegna在《海神之战》(Battle of the Sea Gods)中雕刻的最左边的缰绳兽,[16]但也可以指为拯救仙女座而被征服的怪兽珀尔修斯(Perseus)。[17] 然而,塞维罗的怪物并不是利维坦:它脸上的痛苦让人想起了拉奥科恩大理石群中痛苦的特洛伊祭司的特征。[18] 对于一位文艺复兴时期的赞助人来说,这件青铜可能体现了人性中贵族与野兽之间的冲突。[19] 海怪与其说是一种威胁,不如说是一个奇迹,它的巨大受欢迎程度反映了早期现代人对神奇动物的迷恋,这在雅典的阿波洛多罗斯的古代故事和当代旅游记录中都有记载。[20]
介绍(英)Before Leo Planiscig’s discovery in 1935 of Severo da Ravenna’s signed Sea-Monster, the model for these hybrid creatures, and Severo’s oeuvre more generally, had been attributed to Bellano and Riccio.[1] Planiscig was the first to identify a series of bronze marine monsters, some independent and others with Neptune atop, designating them as the work of a third Paduan master, the anonymous “Master of the Dragons,”[2] until his fortuitous encounter with the signature O.SEVERI.RA a decade later in Robert Mayer’s collection in Vienna. Now at the Frick, the autograph Sea-Monster is widely considered to be the finest surviving example and the archetype for all subsequent models (fig. 36a).[3] More than a dozen versions of this composition exist, varying in detail and quality of execution, but they conform to the basic formula of a serpentine body, froglike front limbs, and a human visage framed by a foliate beard.[4] Apart from the Frick exemplar, John Pope-Hennessy identified the best versions of the standalone monster as those in the V&A and the Kunsthistorisches Museum.[5]

Of the two Met casts, the Linsky bronze is clearly of higher quality. With its furrowed brows, sorrowful eyes, and contorting grimace, it retains the anguish of the Frick prototype, in contrast to the Mills beast’s lack of expression. Its dense scales were mainly incised in the wax, then later sharpened through chasing to create a more vibrant surface, which scatters light at odd angles. Juxtaposed against this textural roughness is the smooth slickness of its tulip-shaped caudal fin. As the sinuous tail curls into a spiral, one gets a palpable sense of the powerful muscle beneath its writhing surface. A black patina, typical of most Paduan bronzes, was applied to the cast bronze and appears to have worn off in spots over time.[6] The warm brown patina, most visible in the middle of its trunk, appears to be the result of natural oxidization. James David Draper first published this bronze when it entered The Met as part of the Linsky bequest, connecting the monster to its counterpart in a Neptune group in the Bargello.[7] Judging from its lively handling and close resemblance to the Frick Sea-Monster, the Linsky bronze should be considered one of the more accomplished workshop casts of this widespread composition. Lacking a screwed insert, it was probably a decorative object kept in a cabinet, or used as a paperweight.

On the other hand, the Mills bronze is a late workshop production, far removed from Severo’s direct involvement, that exemplifies how a celebrated model can become a conventional utilitarian object, debased in quality. Lacking the graphic animation of the Linsky bronze, it has an inert surface, is lazily tooled, and possesses less defined, shorter fins; its droopy tail appears disconnected from the main body. The cockleshell most likely held blotting sand rather than ink, which tended to be stored in a narrower receptacle to minimize evaporation.[8] A tapered screw mount on the lower half of its back indicates a missing vessel, perhaps an inkpot. Severo and his workshop characteristically employed screws like these to affix functional elements on figures. However, the shell integrally cast with the monster’s front limbs suggests a departure from his working methods, and thus indicates a later date. A sea monster sold at Sotheby’s in 2016, similar to the Mills bronze in its modeling of the head and scales, comes with an inkwell and provides an image of what the Mills cast might have looked like originally.[9] Based on its function and flattened pose, this beached marine monster would have sat within arm’s reach on a desk in a scholar’s study. The Mills bronze was exhibited and first published in a small exhibition on Severo da Ravenna at the Frick in 1978.[10] The show was significant for being the first time radiographic examinations of Severo’s bronzes were conducted and discussed, which allowed scholars to further distinguish his works on a technical level.[11]

Facing rising demand for such implements from the scholarly community in Padua and, as the century progressed, throughout Italy, Severo systematically employed piece-molds of his wax models and plaster cores to facilitate his designs’ reproduction in bronze, which thus enabled his workshop to remain remarkably prolific decades after his death.[12] His shop generally cast in less costly brass, which was found in most of The Met examples, including our Sea Monsters. He was also well-known for using threaded screws to attach assorted prefabricated parts onto his bronzetti, which permitted figural sculpture to be adapted for different functions.[13] As Richard Stone has observed, production of these squamate creatures is perhaps best understood by conceptualizing them as reliefs, rather than as three-dimensional sculptures, because they are open underneath.[14] Consequently, Severo’s marine monsters were much easier and quicker to produce than figures in the round. This composition was so well-received that it spurred imitations and variants at other Paduan foundries, which might explain why, out of Severo’s entire oeuvre, the Sea Monster survives in the greatest number.[15]

Severo’s invention derives from the bridled beast on the far left in Andrea Mantegna’s engraving of the Battle of the Sea Gods,[16] but could also refer to the ketos or pistrix, the monster Perseus vanquished to rescue Andromeda.[17] Severo’s monster, however, is no leviathan: the agony on its face recalls the features of the suffering Trojan priest of the Laocoön marble group.[18] For a Renaissance patron, the bronze would have embodied the conflict between the noble and the bestial in human nature.[19] More a marvel than a menace, the Sea Monster and its immense popularity reflect the early modern fascination with fantastic beasts, recounted in the ancient tales of Apollodorus of Athens and in contemporary travel accounts.[20] The wide disparity in quality between The Met’s two bronzes testifies to the longevity of Severo’s creation. Together, they bespeak the enduring Renaissance interest in “the swarming monsters found beneath the surface of the marbled sea.”[21]
-AF

Footnotes
(For key to shortened references see bibliography in Allen, Italian Renaissance and Baroque Bronzes in The Metropolitan Museum of Art. NY: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2022.)


1. Planiscig 1935. For attributions to or after Bellano, see Morelli 1884, p. 71 (identifying the beast as a crocodile); Bode 1907–12, vol. 1, pl. XXIV; Bode 1910, vol. 1, p. xii, pls. XVI–XVIII; Bode 1922, p. 26. For attributions to Riccio, see Bode 1922, p. 25. See Padua 2001, pp. 135–39, for Jeremy Warren’s comprehensive examination of Severo da Ravenna’s critical fortune with additional references.
2. Planiscig 1924, pp. 15–17; Planiscig 1927, pp. 105–13, figs. 106–16.
3. Planiscig 1935, p. 79. Planiscig attributes all versions of the sea monster to the sculptor’s studio, but Pope-Hennessy 1965, p. 22 n. 43, demurs, given the difference in quality of the many variants vis-à-vis the Frick bronze. For a general overview, see Davidson 1997, p. 15.
4. De Winter 1986, p. 132 n. 43, offers a preliminary but detailed list of about seventeen or so related examples of the sea monster, including both Met bronzes, but there are certainly more workshop copies in private collections.
5. Pope-Hennessy 1970, p. 130. V&A, A.15-1967 (Motture 2019, p. 160, pl. 5.27); KHM, KK 5901 (Leithe-Jasper 1976, p. 105, cat. 139).
6. Stone 2010, pp. 107–8.
7. Draper notes that the Bargello group (inv. bronzi 1879 n. 106) is less vigorous than those in the Frick (1916.2.12) and the National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C. (1942.9.104); Linsky 1984, p. 147. See Rago 2010–11, fig. 10, for the Bargello Neptune on the Sea Monster.
8. Davidson 1997, p. 13.
9. Sotheby’s, London, July 5, 2016, lot 66; see Scalini and Tartuferi 2001, p. 70, cat. 51, pl. 26. 10. Munhall 1978, no. 8.
11. Warren in Padua 2001, p. 137.
12. Stone 2006, p. 813.
13. Ibid., p. 818.
14. Ibid., p. 815.
15. Motture 2019, pp. 159–61. For instance, see the sea monster with a female figure above (possibly Andromeda) in Planiscig 1935, p. 80, no. 42, and the reversed pose of the sea monster in the Civici Musei di Arte e Storia di Brescia (BR 40) in Beck and Bol 1985, pp. 519–20, cat. 234, and Motture 2012, pp. 284–85, no. VII/16.
16. MMA, 1984.1201.4.
17. Jacopo de’ Barbari’s woodcut View of Venice (1500) also features a Mantegnesque Neptune astride a watery creature. See Davidson 1997, pp. 16–18, and Luchs 2010, pp. 159–61, for specific examples of sea monsters with which Severo would have been familiar.
18. De Winter 1986, p. 94.
19. Luchs 2010, pp. 160–61.
20. Davidson 1997, p. 24; De Winter 1986, pp. 92–98.
21. Aeneid VI.729, as cited in Davidson 1997, p. 21.
22. ESDA/OF contain correspondence between Denise Lenore Jones and Sotheby’s London to ascertain if the Linsky bronze was lot 117 sold in December 1956, but it remains uncertain as the auction house does not have photographs of the sold lot.
  大都会艺术博物馆,英文 Metropolitan Museum of Art,是美国最大的艺术博物馆,世界著名博物馆,位于美国纽约第五大道的82号大街。
  大都会博物馆回顾了人类自身的文明史的发展,与中国北京的故宫、英国伦敦的大英博物馆、法国巴黎的卢浮宫、俄罗斯圣彼得堡的艾尔米塔什博物馆并称为世界五大博物馆。