DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.21832#0014
Plaster Casts of the Works of Art
to be given to the new institution. Viollet-le-Duc developed a programme for a mu-
seum of life-sized casts where the finest models of French sculpture from the 12th
to the 16th century would be compared with models from Antiquity and foreign
sculpture. In order to value national medieval sculpture, disdained by the classical
education of the Academy of Fine Arts, he intended to demonstrate with these
confrontations that art of various civilizations and cultures had evolved following
similar phases of development. According to Viollet-le-Duc the sculpture from
various civilizations evolved successively in three common phases of development:
archaism, classicism and decline. The Museum of comparative sculpture's philosophy
was consequently founded on analogical relations and on a double evolutionary
conception of sculpture: firstly, the model of Winckelmann's History of Ancient Art;
secondly, the comparative model elaborated by Georges Cuvier for natural sciences.4
After Viollet-le-Duc's death in September 1879, the Committee on Historical Monu-
ments was made responsible for the creation of the new museum. A subcommittee
'of the Museum of Comparative Sculpture", was set up within the Committee on
Historical Monuments to give substance to the new institution. It was in charge
of the organization and the selection of the most representative types of monumen-
tal sculpture from previous centuries, both in France and abroad. The architects
specialised in historic monuments and the scholars of the subcommittee were all
followers and close co-workers of Eugene Viollet-le-Duc. They were all major actors
in the preservation of cultural heritage and among the first theorists of medieval
archaeology in France. They made first mouldings of the French artworks mentioned
in Eugene Viollet-le-Duc's reports and his theoretical writings, such as the Diction-
naire raisonne de I 'architecture franęaise du XP au XVIe siecles. The casts of antique
and foreign sculptures were obtained by exchanges with European museums. These
institutional exchanges were officialised in 1867, with the ratification by fifteen nations
of the "Convention for Promoting Universally Reproductions of Works of Arts for
the Benefit of Museums of All Countries".6
Until the dissolution of the subcommittee at the beginning of the 20th century,
the casting decisions, based on a close examination of photographs, were discussed
between the members of the assembly. The subcommittee's records give evidence
that if most casting projects were adopted universally by all members, other projects
met severe disapproval. For instance, fourteen years of debate preceded the casting
of The Entombment in the church of Saint-Mihiel (Meuse) (fig. 2). The controversies
concerned the artistic value of the sculptor Ligier Richier (ca. 1500 -1567), and the
representativeness of this finest artwork of the 16th century within his artistic pro-
duction. The criterion of authenticity was also privileged by the committee: works
excessively restored were considered not worthy of casting. The archaeological
integrity of the Fountain of Neptune on the Place Stanislas in Nancy, more authen-
tic than its companion piece, the Fountain of Amphitrite, was the main argument
advanced in favour of its casting in 1891.
12
to be given to the new institution. Viollet-le-Duc developed a programme for a mu-
seum of life-sized casts where the finest models of French sculpture from the 12th
to the 16th century would be compared with models from Antiquity and foreign
sculpture. In order to value national medieval sculpture, disdained by the classical
education of the Academy of Fine Arts, he intended to demonstrate with these
confrontations that art of various civilizations and cultures had evolved following
similar phases of development. According to Viollet-le-Duc the sculpture from
various civilizations evolved successively in three common phases of development:
archaism, classicism and decline. The Museum of comparative sculpture's philosophy
was consequently founded on analogical relations and on a double evolutionary
conception of sculpture: firstly, the model of Winckelmann's History of Ancient Art;
secondly, the comparative model elaborated by Georges Cuvier for natural sciences.4
After Viollet-le-Duc's death in September 1879, the Committee on Historical Monu-
ments was made responsible for the creation of the new museum. A subcommittee
'of the Museum of Comparative Sculpture", was set up within the Committee on
Historical Monuments to give substance to the new institution. It was in charge
of the organization and the selection of the most representative types of monumen-
tal sculpture from previous centuries, both in France and abroad. The architects
specialised in historic monuments and the scholars of the subcommittee were all
followers and close co-workers of Eugene Viollet-le-Duc. They were all major actors
in the preservation of cultural heritage and among the first theorists of medieval
archaeology in France. They made first mouldings of the French artworks mentioned
in Eugene Viollet-le-Duc's reports and his theoretical writings, such as the Diction-
naire raisonne de I 'architecture franęaise du XP au XVIe siecles. The casts of antique
and foreign sculptures were obtained by exchanges with European museums. These
institutional exchanges were officialised in 1867, with the ratification by fifteen nations
of the "Convention for Promoting Universally Reproductions of Works of Arts for
the Benefit of Museums of All Countries".6
Until the dissolution of the subcommittee at the beginning of the 20th century,
the casting decisions, based on a close examination of photographs, were discussed
between the members of the assembly. The subcommittee's records give evidence
that if most casting projects were adopted universally by all members, other projects
met severe disapproval. For instance, fourteen years of debate preceded the casting
of The Entombment in the church of Saint-Mihiel (Meuse) (fig. 2). The controversies
concerned the artistic value of the sculptor Ligier Richier (ca. 1500 -1567), and the
representativeness of this finest artwork of the 16th century within his artistic pro-
duction. The criterion of authenticity was also privileged by the committee: works
excessively restored were considered not worthy of casting. The archaeological
integrity of the Fountain of Neptune on the Place Stanislas in Nancy, more authen-
tic than its companion piece, the Fountain of Amphitrite, was the main argument
advanced in favour of its casting in 1891.
12