
I found this figure in the collection area of the Cooper Hewitt website. The museum is unsure of the artist, but it was received in 1901. It is a dark brown, cast bronze sculpture. It can be viewed and touched from all sides, making it 3D. He is 6 7/8 inches tall, 2 3/8 inches wide, and 4 5/16 inches from front to back. This is a representational object because the subject matter is clear. It is a realistic depiction of a short man with small bits of hair on both sides of his head and a long, curly beard. He is only wearing a flowing shirt. He has a large belly and muscular calves. The entire figure is very dark with lighter brown areas around the belly button, top of the head and nipples. He is situated on a peanut butter-colored rectangular block and there is most of a scalloped circle between his legs. The block has a slight marbling effect with tan bits swirled throughout, featuring a tiny, gold, circular drop located on the very front. The positive space is the object and negative being everything else. If this was touched, it would be mostly smooth, with rough areas in the beard, hair and folds in the shirt. My selection does not apply to Berger's passage because he says to "notice the violence" while looking at a photograph of a naked man. The figure is looking down and looks carefree, making it more apparent he is not an object. He looks very open by his pose and lack of clothing. I would imagine the artist did not add genitalia because they didn't think it was essential. There are other features shown indicating a more masculine identity. I believe the tag wrapped around his left leg was done by the museum to illustrate details about the piece.
This is such a fun (and funny!) sculpture. Think abut the Berger essay- you are right to pint out that it doesn't relate to the typical representations of the female nude- can you say why though? What is the figure doing (posture) that is different that doesn't cause the "violence" that Berger mentions?
ReplyDelete