The San Francisco call., 1895-12-15
Mathews Protests Against the
Pretensions of the Cali.
fornia Venus.
NOT OF A CALIFORNIA TYPE.
He Considers the Comparisons With
Real Venuses III Timed and
Vulgar.

There is considerable criticism in local
art circles over the figure which Rupert
Schmid has called 1.-THE California
Venus" The sculptor has given his
handiwork to a syndicate, which intends
to take it abroad and exhibit it as the type
of California womanhood.
If such is the case the artists say that
the work will naturally be commented on
and perhaps criticized. They arc criticiz-
ing 1T quite freely here, and in the follow
ing letter Arthur Mathews gives his view
on the statue, as we'll as on the way in
which the cicerone of the california
Venus" syndicate presents the statue to
the public.
Arthur Mathews says:
A noted physician has condemned one OF the
classic Nenuses (the Venus de Medici, I be-
heve) in about the following: "She has no in
fa1thiess woman and bad mother. What would
one have? Was not Venus the demi-mondaine
of Olympia?
Why call this creation of the California
Venus Company Venus? Why not Mi
nerva? Or are we to understand that Venus
Is the ideal type of California womanhood?
The representative of the company says ray;
that "she is high-bred, intellectual, vigorous
and true" Good; then we will judge the in
depreciation from their standpoint, and merely
treat the name as a mistake in identification.
Would write a few lines about her and the
ideals OF the California Venus Company? Well,
perhaps might just Tor the pleasure of prop
erly placing her before the public which pays.
had seen her before in plaster, but thought
1T would be we'll to get glimpse of her in
''hawless Carrara marble" to correct my I'M
@pressllons. pre- You know the French have say
ing that ''the clay is the birth of statue, the
plaster the death and the marble the resurrec-
tlon," SO | fastened 10 the secluded work
"sternly simple"-on Post street, and entered
on press ticket. ] ceased to be an artist in
name for her sake, for the circular of the COM
pany intimated that was TO view a work of
the ethnolopist.
1 have always had the idea that critic
should endeavor to place himself or herself
within the compass OF the creator before judg
Ing his work. Creators would be more. correct
in this case, presume as one constantly heard
the term tive" in the neighborhood of Post
street.
| have been taught severely that one had no
rightto criticize that which he has made pro-
fessional study OF. Understand me, am not an
ethnologist, and tried to lay aside all artistic
feelings and the attending prejudices-though
one cannot forget in moment, after once
learning, the principles so ably set forth in
works of Greek sculpture. Which one? That a
figure should be well poised; that the supports
should be, in relation to the body, supported
not too high or too heavy; that it should be
equally developed in all parts; and that de-
tails should be unobstructed so our perception
of the whole may not be disturbed.
We have been taught that the subjectmatter
of work is of but little consequence, provided
the creator has not lost sight of 1t. Again, we
understand that ones aim, however high, is
bad if he misses the mark.
The circular addressed to the press by the
Venus Company fully supported me in the po-
sition was forced to take, which was that one
ings entirely, for it distinctly states that the
ethnologist should look for ineness of quality
as well as proportion. Artists also do that.
l renamed the statue in order to harmonic
it with the company's Ideals, and l adjusted
my sight, like the "we," so that I might find
whether they shot above or below the mark.
lat rf
Mine did the moment met the effusive greet
ings of the company's representative in the in
closure on Post street. l was not prepared to
receive lessons in art from an avowed ethnolo-
gist, and was shocked at the rude treatment
of the Venus of Milos and the way she was
mixed up in vulgar comparisons. had always
looked upon her as a work OF art, pure and sim
Ele, and resented her dissection or any discus
sion OF her character as would that OF my own
sister.
was told that the Venus of Milo wasa peas
ant girl; that her head was too small that her
intelligence was little, as her hair grew low on
her brow. I don't acknowledge the truth OF
the imputations, but l will grant as true the
statement within certain limit for the sake
of argument. Any ethnologist Will tell US that
the size OF the brain is not calculated by
measuring the growth OF hair above 1t, but by
comparison of the line OF the vertebr9 with
the facial angle and a measurement of the
Uranium. And, further, the qualfty of the
brain is of about as much value as its size.
AS to the formation ofthe brow, the anatomlsts
have barred US from any discussion of that by
calling attention to its dodble formation in
the frontal bone structure. AS to the bony
construction of the heads of the two ladies, |
should say that the California statue would
have very weak voice and the Greek round,
full one. This is merely fancy OF mine.
The general proportions-in length cf parts
of the California work are about the same as
the Greek, except that the forearm is long for
the upper part OF the torso.
The type is not distinctively Californian.
have seen it in the ateiers of Paris and it is
characterized by an abnormal development
of flesh on the hips and thighs and lack of
full development in the torso from waist to
teresting from the ethnologists standpoint.
l once assisted an ethnologist while in Paris In
taking series of photographs for the purpose
Of studying the effect of corsetwearing on the
female branch. He called my attention to the
stringiness of the muscles between the breast
and hips, the punching OF flesh just back OF
the arms and over the hips and down the
thighs and the enlargement OF the abdomen as
direct results of lacing.
For the representative of the California Venus
Company to insist that these characteristics
are typical of California women or a mark of
beauty seems to me to be an error. Would it
not have been wiser to have sought model
whose growth had not been restricted? Or, If
it were intended to create lady of quality, in
the accepted meaning of the term, would it
not have been wiser TO have shown her in full
harness?
Duval, the eminent anatomist of the EcoIe de
Beaux Arts. often called attention to the
fact that nearly all the differences in height
OF people was III Jne fegS anu lnOSt OF tndC from
the knee down. Also that the head was gener-
ally in proportion to the weight of the torso,
or rather that we judge its size by comparative
weight with the torso and not by com parison
with the height of the figure. The Greek gave
his statues small heads and good length OF
limbs for the sake of grace and dignity, not
for the sake of sciences but for arts sake.
Therefore any comparison between Greek
and California Venus Company creations I
consider i'll timed and extremely vulgar. This
is why decline to discuss the artistic side of
the question at all.
l don't care how much the surroundings of
the California Venus cost-$1000 or less.
don't care what they have been offered for it.
/ object to having what may be a work of art
stuck under my nose as freak or curiosity. /
don't believe the sculptor SO intended it. If 1t
is presented unpretentiously as a work of art
at some future time will be pleased to SO