Hellenistic Art (3rd-1st centuries BC) Author(s): Marie-Bénédicte Astier This graceful statue of a goddess has intrigued and fascinated since its discovery on the island of Melos in 1820. Is it Aphrodite, who was often portrayed half-naked, or the sea goddess Amphitrite, who was venerated on Milo? The statue reflects sculptural research during the late Hellenistic Period: classical in essence, with innovatory features such as the spiral composition, the positioning in space, and the fall of the drapery over the hips. The discovery of a mutilated masterpiece The Venus de Milo was discovered in 1820 on the island of Melos (Milo in modern Greek) in the south-western Cyclades. The Marquis de Rivière presented it to Louis XVIII, who donated it to the Louvre the following year. The statue won instant and lasting fame.

Essentially two blocks of marble, it is comprised of several parts which were sculpted separately (bust, legs, left arm and foot) then fixed with vertical pegs, a technique which was fairly common in the Greek world (especially in the Cyclades, where this work was produced around 100 BC). The goddess originally wore metal jewelry — bracelet, earrings, and headband — of which only the fixation holes remain. The marble may have been embellished with (now faded) polychromy. The arms were never found. A mysterious goddess with neither name nor attributes The goddess is shrouded in mystery, her attitude a persistent enigma. The missing pieces of marble and absence of attributes made the restoration and identification of the statue difficult. A whole range of positions have been suggested: leaning against a pillar, resting her elbow on Ares' shoulder, or holding a variety of attributes. According to whether she held a bow or an amphora, she was Artemis or a Danaid. She is popularly thought to represent Aphrodite, because of her half-nakedness and her sensual, feminine curves.

She may have held an apple — an allusion to the Judgement of Paris — a crown, a shield, or a mirror in which she admired her reflection. However she might also be the sea goddess Amphitrite, who was venerated on the island of Milo. A Hellenistic creation: a blend of classical tradition and innovation The statue has sometimes been thought to be a replica, freely inspired by an original from the late 4th century BC, because of its resemblance to the Aphrodite of Capua (Museo Archeologico Nazionale, Naples) — a similar style Roman work, copy of a Greek original. The Venus de Milo certainly revives the classical tradition, but would appear to be a classicizing re-creation dating from the late 2nd century BC. The goddess's air of aloofness, the harmony of her face and her impassivity are stamped with the aesthetics of the 5th century BC; the hairstyle and delicate modeling of the flesh evoke the works of 4th-century sculptor Praxiteles. However, the sculpture reflects innovations that appeared during the Hellenistic period, between the 3rd and 1st centuries BC.

The spiral composition, the positioning of the figure in three-dimensional space, and the small-breasted, elongated body are characteristic of this period. The goddess is arrested in time, holding her legs together as the drapery slides over her hips. Her nudity contrasts with the effects of light and shade of the finely-detailed drapery. Bibliography Laugier (L.), « La Vénus de Milo », Feuillet pédagogique du Musée du Louvre, 3, n°50, Paris, 2001. D’après l’antique, Musée du Louvre, Paris, 2000, p. 432-433, p. 441, n° 235. Ridgway (B. S.), Hellenistic Sculpture, II, 2000, p. 167-171, ill. 21, fig. 5. Hamiaux (M.), Les sculptures grecques, II, Paris, 1998, p. 41-44, n° 52. Havelock (C.

M.), The Aphrodite of Knidos and Her Successors, A Historical Review of the female Nude in Greek Art, University of Michigan, 1995, p. 93-98, fig. 13. Haskell (Fr.), Penny (N.), Pour l’amour de l’art antique : la statuaire gréco-romaine et le goût européen 1500-1900, Paris, 1988, p. 363-365, n° 178, fig. (éd. anglaise, Taste and the antique : the lure of classical sculpture 1500-1900, New Haven, 1981). Pasquier (A.), La Vénus de Milo et les Aphrodites du Louvre, Paris, 1985. Charbonneaux (J.), « La Vénus de Milo et Mithridate le grand », Revue des Arts, 1951, p. 8-16, fig. 1, 4, 7-9. Technical description Aphrodite, known as the "Venus de Milo" C.

100 BC Provenance: Island of Melos (Cyclades, Greece) H. 2.02 m Gift of the marquis de Rivière to Louis XVIII, 1821 N° d'entrée LL 299 (n° usuel Ma 399) Venus de Milo by CosmoWenman - Thingiverse [email protected] The 3D print shown in the photos and video was made with white PLA and finished in patinated copper using Alternate Reality Patinas (coming soon!). It's the first of its kind, and it was shown at the London and Paris 3D Printshows in November 2013. It's for sale. I am also offering 3D prints of Venus de Milo through my Shapeways shop, In addition to my Shapeways offerings, I can cast Venus for you in bronze or stainless steel in any size.

Information, Tools, and Specifications: Venus de Milo Skulpturhalle Basel accession number 261 1850 plaster molded and cast from the original by the Louvre atelier, with only very slight evidence of parting lines, and a false patina likely added in the 1950s or 1960s. Skulpturhalle Basel: History of the Skulpturhalle and uses of plaster casts: 250 JPEGs processed with Autodesk's ReCap Photo cloud-based photogrammetry application: , using every other third photo from 663 sequential positions, plus a selection of detail shots. Camera: Canon EOS 5D Mark II Lens: Sigma EX 50mm Using a wireless remote shutter release and a loose tripod for shots at eye level and below, and a tripod on extended legs with wheels for shots from above. Camera settings: No flash 5616 x 3744 pixels per shot Lighting: Normal museum lights plus three additional fixed spotlights, with diffuse light from skylight on a cloudy day.

Scaling, cropping, sectioning, and print preparation of the model was done with Blender, on an under-powered Windows 7 PC that is dying at this very moment, as I type. Scale references in the raw unedited .obj: The grey plinth Venus stands on is 690mm x 519mm x 337mm (345mm to the floor). The white balance reference card is 254mm x 216mm. The "Frauen und Sport" poster is 2000mm wide. The "Weitere Sportarten" poster is 1700mm wide. The "Wagenrennen und Reiten" poster is 2188mm wide and 915mm from the floor. (I am having trouble uploading the original .obj and textures of the unedited capture -- they are very large files.

I'll keep trying and post a link if I wind up hosting it somewhere else.) The model has been only very lightly re-sculpted with Meshmixer to fix one spot at the top of the head to fill a hole in the physical plaster cast, and to edit a capture defect, also at the top of the head, which the photos did not capture well. The valley where the back of the figure's right arm meets the side of the torso was made slightly crisper. A few small areas in some of the valleys in the drapery are inverted, convex where they should be concave, but these were left as-is. Printing: The complete, single-part model needs supports under the figure's right arm, and under the face. I've printed it small, with no infill, with RepG for file prep and a Replicator1. The multi-part sections print well in PLA with no external supports. I've printed them several times with RepG for file prep and a Replicator1, with zero infill, 3 walls thick, at .2mm layer height for the body pieces, and 10% infill, 4 walls thick and .12mm layer height for the face and crown pieces.

At its current scale, the assembled print stands about 19.5 inches tall, and is roughly the same scale as my Winged Victory model -- they make a nice pair side-by-side. Other machine and software combos may require different settings. Acknowledgments: This project was made possible by the financial support of Autodesk's Reality Capture division. My thanks to Tatjana Dzambazova and Brian Mathews there for making it happen, and to the people in Autodesk's Reality Capture and 123D teams, who make incredible products. + Thanks to Dr. Tomas Lochman, director of the Skulpturhalle Basel museum, for giving me access to the museum and allowing me to conduct this experiment in extending the reach of its incredible collection and the spirit that informed its creation. I'd also like to thank the following: Bernard Frischer, Professor of Informatics and Director of the Virtual World Heritage Laboratory, Indiana University, for his advice on where to try this experiment (e dove non), and for introducing me to Dr. Lochman.

FARO, for making a FARO Scanarm Edge laser scanner available to me, and to FARO's Florian Fuenfschilling and Chris Bartschat for their expertise operating it and grabbing some laser scans of additional pieces for me. Ralph Wiedemeier, who made and lent me a custom, 10' tall tripod on wheels that was absolutely critical. He even delivered it to me from Zurich. Bre Pettis and Kio Stark for early feedback and advice on my Kickstarter campaign. + MakerBot for featuring my Kickstarter on Thingiverse. Kerry Hogarth of the 3D Printshow, for giving me tickets to the London, Paris, and New York shows to use as Kickstarter rewards, and for exhibition space there to show off the project's results. Susan Self for her help promoting the Kickstarter to the media. [email protected] Virginia Postrel for her advice and help telling the story of the bigger picture as it's been coming into focus. Thank you to all my Kickstarter's backers. Even though it wasn't the viral hit we'd hoped for and the campaign fell through, without their support and help promoting it, the project would have remained dead in the water.

-- Cosmo Venus de Milo: Greek Statue by Alexandros of Antioch Hellenistic Period . Introduction One of the most famous examples of sculpture from Ancient Greece , the Venus de Milo is an armless marble statue of Aphrodite - the Greek goddess of love and beauty - which was sculpted during the Hellenistic period between about 130 and 100 BCE. A little larger than life size, it is believed to be the work of the sculptor Alexandros of Antioch, after an inscription on its plinth (now lost). This graceful figure of a goddess has fascinated art lovers for almost two centuries, ever since its discovery, in 1820, on the small Greek island of Melos in the Aegean. Arguably the most well-known statue in the history of sculpture , it is on public display in the collection of Greek sculpture at the Louvre Museum in Paris. Other celebrated Hellenistic marbles include The Punishment of Dirce (known as The Farnese Bull) (2nd century BCE, National Archeological Museum, Naples) and The Three Graces (2nd century BCE, Louvre, Paris).

Another Hellenistic Greek marble statue of Aphrodite (1st century BCE), called the Venus of Arles, which bears something of a resemblance to the Venus de Milo, is also in the Louvre. See also our review of the famous Hellenistic marble known as Laocoon and His Sons (42-20 BCE). SCULPTURE APPRECIATION the Venus de Milo, see our educational essays: History The Venus de Milo was unearthed on the Greek island of Melos (Milos), one of the southwestern Cyclades group. It was found in a field by a young farmer called Yorgos Kentrotas, buried in a wall niche within the ruins of the ancient city of Milos. The stone sculpture was in two main pieces: (1) the upper torso, and (2) the legs, covered in drapery. Several other sculptural fragments were discovered close by, including a separate left arm (and hand) holding an apple, and an inscribed plinth with a clear reference to a sculptor called "...sandros from Anchiochia on the Meander". The farmer was assisted in his recovery of the statue by Olivier Voutier, a French naval officer from the French fleet anchored nearby.

As news spread of the find, a second French officer, Jules Dumont d'Urville, notified the French Consul to the Ottoman Empire in Constantinople Charles-Francois de Riffardeau, Marquis de Riviere. He in turn arranged for the statue to be shipped to France, where it was presented as a gift to Louis XVIII, who duly donated it to the Louvre. At the time, the museum was still feeling the loss of the Medici Venus, a famous work of ancient art which had been returned to Italy in 1815, after the defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo. As a result, in order to boost the value of its new acquisition, it was decided to ignore the plinth, with its inscription identifying Alexandros of Antioch as the sculptor, so as to allow the statue to be attributed instead to Praxiteles (c.375-335 BCE), one of the greatest sculptors of the Classical era.

In order to accomplish this, the authorities launched a major propaganda campaign promoting the significance of the work, which they craftily dated to Praxiteles' Classical era (480-323 BCE) - an action which did much to delay the emergence of an accurate scholarly assessment of the sculpture. Since then, the Venus de Milo has been dated to the later Hellenistic period (323-27 BCE) and attributed to the less well-known stone sculptor Alexandros of Antioch. Characteristics and Analysis of the Venus de Milo The statue is made from Parian marble and stands some 6 feet 8 inches tall, without its plinth. It is thought to portray Aphrodite, the ancient Greek goddess of physical love and beauty. (The Roman equivalent is the goddess Venus.) According to restoration experts, the sculpture was carved from essentially two blocks of Parian marble, and is made up of several parts which were sculpted separately before being fixed with vertical pegs. Tragically, the statue's arms and original base, or plinth, have been lost almost since the work's arrival in Paris, in 1820.

This was partly due to errors of identification, because when the statue was originally reassembled, the accompanying fragments of the left hand and arm were not believed to belong to it due to their altogether 'rougher' appearance. Today, however, experts are confident that these additional pieces were part of the original statue, despite the variation in finish, since it was common practice at the time to devote less effort to less visible parts of a sculpture. (The arm involved, being above eye-level, would typically be invisible to the casual spectator.) Sculpture reconstruction experts calculate that the separately carved right arm of the Venus de Milo lay across the torso with the right hand resting on the raised left knee, thus clasping the drapery wrapped around the hips and legs. The left arm, meanwhile, was holding up the apple at about eye level. Scholars remain divided as to whether the goddess was looking at the apple she was holding, or gazing into the distance. In its original state, the sculpture would have been tinted with colour pigments , to create a more lifelike appearance, then decorated with bracelet, earrings, and headband, before being placed in a niche inside a temple or gymnasium.

Today, however, no trace any paint remains, while the only signs of any metal jewellery are the fixture holes. Hellenistic Sculpture Although influenced by elements taken from High Classical Greek Sculpture (c.450-400 BCE) as well as Late Classical Greek Sculpture (c.400-323 BCE) - the aloofness and impassivity of the head, for instance, derives from the 5th century BCE - the Venus de Milo makes use of creative innovations from the 3rd-1st century BCE, known as Hellenism. First, note the contrast between the smooth nude flesh of the torso and the ruffled texture of the drapery covering the legs. Second, note the the spiral composition - that is, the slight turn of the body - from the hips to the shoulder - combined with the outward thrust of the right hip, resulting in a fascinating S-shaped pose. Thirdly, note the relatively small size of the torso. Finally, there is an inescapable hint of erotic tension caused by the drapery which threatens to slip off entirely. These four stylistic features were all developed during the late Hellenistic period.

Hence, overall, the work is seen as a subtle combination of earlier and later styles. Mythology According to most experts, the Venus de Milo depicts the mythological Greek goddess Aphrodite, and the story of the Judgment of Paris. In this tale, a young Trojan prince, Paris, was given a golden apple by the goddess of Discord and told to award it to the most beautiful of the three candidates: Aphrodite, Athena and Hera. Aphrodite won the beauty contest by bribing Paris with the love of the most beautiful mortal woman - Helen of Sparta - and was awarded the apple. Enduring Beauty and Mystery During the 19th-century, the Venus de Milo was often eulogized by a number of art critics as one of the great treasures of Greek art : one representing the epitome of female beauty and aesthetics - not least, because of its remarkable fusion of grandeur and grace. Although times and tastes change - limbless Greek statues are not venerated with quite such enthusiasm in the 21st century - the goddess retains much of its mystery.

Although she is believed to represent Aphrodite, because of her sensual, feminine curves, she might alternatively be the sea goddess Amphitrite, who was worshipped on the island of Milo at the time. Indeed, according to the Louvre, given its resemblance to the Aphrodite of Capua (National Archeological Museum, Naples), it may even be a Roman replica of an original Greek sculpture from the late 4th century. Hellenistic sculptures like the Venus de Milo can be seen in some of the best art museums and sculpture gardens around the world, notably the Louvre in Paris, the Capodimonte Museum Naples , the Vatican Museums in Rome, and the J Paul Getty Centre in Los Angeles. Greek Sculptors For biographical details about other sculptors from ancient Greece, and their achievements in plastic art of the day, see the following: Leading sculptor of the High Classical period.  Myron (Active 480-444 BCE) Famous for his masterpiece, The Discus-Thrower.  Polykleitos (5th century BCE) Classical sculptor noted for the Kanon of Polykleitos.

 Callimachus (Active 432-408 BCE) Imaginative 5th-century plastic artist and architect.  Skopas (Active 395-350 BCE) Venus de Milo Venus de Milo Expanded Definition Ruben Dario, in his poem ï¿½I Seek a Formï¿½, refers to the impossible embrace of the Venus de Milo: ï¿½ï¿½in the impossible embrace of the Venus de Miloï¿½ (4). This is indeed ironic because According to the Britannica Encyclopedia, Venus De Milo is an ancient statue of Aphrodite , now in Paris at the Louvre Museum. Carved by a sculptor of Antioch on the Maeander River in about 150 bc, it was found on the Aegean island of Melos in 1820. The general composition derives from a 4th-century Corinthian statue. The action and modernized drapery give the Venus great nobility. The statue is a conspicuous example of the Hellenistic sculptural traditionï¿½s academic traits and close reliance on older masterpieces.

The irony falls with the state in which the Venus de Milo stands; it has no arms! An embrace by Venus de Milo would indeed be impossible without arms. Works Cited Dario, Ruben. ï¿½I Seek a Form.ï¿½ The Norton Anthology of World Literature. Ed. Sarah Lawall and Maynard Mack. 2nd ed. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2002. 1717-18. ï¿½Venus de Milo.ï¿½ Submitted by Zach Auerbach Phrase: ï¿½ï¿½in the impossible embrace of the Venus of Milo.ï¿½ The poem ï¿½I Seek a Formï¿½, by Ruben Dario is a writerï¿½s own frustration at the fact that he cannot express into words the beauty of the objects that surround him. He sees magnificence all around him (ï¿½The white peristyle is decorated with green palmsï¿½ (5)) but the author canï¿½t seem to word each ï¿½bud of a thought that wants to be a roseï¿½ (2).

This last phrase describes the authorï¿½s dilemma: there is so much beauty that could potentially be a rose, but due to his difficulty to word it, the beauty remains a closed bud. After this, he explains that this beauty is heralded, or foreshadowed, to him in a kiss that is placed on him ï¿½in the impossible embrace of the Venus of Miloï¿½ (4). Although the reader is not familiar with what the Venus of Milo is, it can be inferred that it is some type of God that seems almost unreachable, just like the type of beauty Dario tries to express in his poems that seems so difficult to put into paper. The Venus of Milo automatically is thought of as a woman, one who is unobtainable to man and whose kiss is longed for. Ideology might come into play too, as she can also be thought of as some type of god worshiped by men. I think the main point in this phrase in the context of the poem is that this god-like figureï¿½s kiss is impossible to have, and it is a metaphor for how it is extremely difficult for the author to grasp what they are thinking.

Submitted by The Impossible Embrace of the Venus de Milo Analysis of a Word or Phrase In ï¿½I Seek a Formï¿½,ï¿½ Ruben Dario is describing something he wants tremendously, but no matter what he cannot have. It is exemplified in the lines, ï¿½I seek a form that my style cannot discover,- a bud of thought that wants to be a rose;- it is heralded by a kiss that is placed on my lips- in the impossible embrace of the Venus de Milo.ï¿½ Before the full meaning can be understood, one must realize what the passage, ï¿½in the impossible embrace of the Venus de Milo,ï¿½ speaks of and alludes to. The Venus de Milo is a statue of the goddess Venus with the arms missing, found on the island of Melos. Thus, it is impossible to be embraced by this particular Venus, because she/it has no arms to embrace with. This symbolizes the futility of finding or getting what he wants. Works Cited Lawall, Sarah, ed. The Norton Anthology of World Literature. Vol. F. New York: Norton & Company, 2002. 1718.

Cultural Significance The Venus de Milo is a famous statue found in 1820 on the isle of Melos, its arms broken off. It is a sculpture of the Hellenistic period made in the image of Aphrodite, goddess of love. ï¿½Venusï¿½ is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as ï¿½the ancient Roman goddess of beauty and love (esp. sensual love), or the corresponding Greek goddess Aphrodite.ï¿½ In mythology Aphrodite arose from the sea after Cronus castrated his father Uranus, and was brought to the island of Cpyrus. She is called the daughter of Zeus and Dione by Homer and is often accompanied by the three Graces. (Lindemans 1997). According to the Encyclopedia Mythica, ï¿½Aphrodite was originally an old-Asian goddess, similar to the Mesopotamian Ishtar and the Syro-Palestinian goddess Ashtart. Her attributes are a.o. the dolphin, the dove, the swan, the pomegranate and the lime tree,ï¿½ (Lindemans 1997).

ï¿½venus.ï¿½ The Oxford English Dictionary. 2008. OED Online. Oxford University Press. t=1&max_to_show=10&sort_type=alpha&result_place=2&search_id=RInk-MxoqmV- 8855&hilite=50276132 Lawall, Sarah and Maynard Mack. The Norton Anthology of World Literature. 2nd ed. Vol. F. 2001. "Aphrodite." Encyclopedia Mythica. 2008. Encyclopedia Mythica Online. 22 Apr. 2008 < >. Marble Sculpture: Characteristics, Types, History Marble Sculpture The Kiss (1885-95) Auguste Rodin Marble Sculpture (c.600 BCE - present) Contents Venus de Milo (c.130-100 BCE) Marble Statue, Musee du Louvre. Greek sculpture.

Introduction Probably the most popular material used in sculpture , marble's translucency and durability has made it the medium of choice for all the greatest sculptors , including Greek artists like Phidias, Myron, Polykleitos, and Praxiteles, as well as their successors Donatello, Michelangelo, Bernini, Canova, and Rodin. Marble has been used equally for relief sculpture and friezes, as well as the free-standing statue . In fact, ever since the invention of metal tools during the Bronze Age, marble stone has been highly prized by sculptors and architects alike. During the Renaissance, Michelangelo (1475-1564) famously described stone sculpture as the slow release of a form as it emerged out of the block. He said that it was his role as an artist to liberate the human form trapped inside the block by gradually chipping away at the stone surface.

Famous examples of marble sculpture include masterpieces like: the Parthenon Reliefs (446-430 BCE), The Apollo Belvedere (330 BCE), Venus de Milo (100 BCE), Trajan's Column reliefs (113 CE), David by Michelangelo (1501-4), Giambologna's Rape of the Sabine Women (1581-3), Canova's Apollo Crowning Himself (1781), Rodin's The Kiss (1888-9) and Daniel Chester French's Statue of Lincoln (1922). Characteristics of Marble as a Sculptural Material The stone we call marble is a metamorphic rock (mostly composed of calcite, a type of calcium carbonate) formed as a result of changes brought about in the structure of sedimentary or igneous rocks by extreme pressure or heat. Sculptors like marble because, while relatively soft and easy to work when first quarried, it becomes extremely hard and dense with age, and is also available in a variety of shades and patterns. White marbles are especially prized for fine art sculpture because of their relative isotropy and homogeneity, and resistance to shattering.

In addition, the low refractory index of refraction of calcite permits light to penetrate into the stone (as it does the human skin), resulting in the typical "waxy" look which gives the stone a human appearance. Marble can also be highly polished, making it ideal for decorative work. Compared to the next best alternative stone, limestone, marble possesses a much finer grain, which makes it much easier for the sculptor to render minute detail. Marble is also more weather resistant. There are drawbacks, however. Marble is rarer, therefore more expensive than several other types of rock used in stone sculpture. It is also extremely heavy, making transportation difficult. Also, compared to bronze, marble has a lower tensile strength and is vulnerable to cracking when extended (ballet-style) poses are attempted. It is significantly less weather-resistant than granite, and does not handle well as it absorbs skin oils, causing staining. What Are the Main Types of Marble? The most popular types of marble stone employed in sculpture are Pentelic, Parian and Carrara marble. During Classical Antiquity, the most famous type was the close-grained, golden-toned Pentelic variety, quarried at Mount Pentelicon in Attica.

The fragments of High Classical Greek sculpture obtained by the Earl of Elgin from the Parthenon in Athens, in 1801-3, known as the Elgin Marbles, were carved in Pentelic. Another popular variety was Parian marble, a coarser-grained but translucent white stone obtained from the Aegean islands of Naxos and Paros. This type was used to create the renowned Mausoleum at Halicarnassus. A third type, used for the masterpiece Apollo Belvedere (c.330 BCE), was the pure white Carrara marble, found at Carrara and Pietra Santa in Tuscany. It was a popular material in Italian Renaissance sculpture and the favourite of the Florentine artist Michelangelo. Marble differs from one variety to another, usually because of colour, texture, weathering, and chemical composition. Although famous for its pure white surface, this look was actually avoided by Greek sculptors because it made it difficult to see the gentle curves of a body's muscles. The most typical colour seen in Greek sculpture is actually an off-white. See also: How to Appreciate Sculpture . For later works, please see: How to Appreciate Modern Sculpture .

How to Carve a Sculpture out of Marble? The creation of a large-scale marble statue, which on average took a Greek sculptor roughly 12 months to complete - involves a number of steps: Step 1. First, the artist typically makes a small maquette in wax or clay, over an armature or frame. From this initial model, a full-size model is developed, into which tacks are inserted at key reference points. A measuring frame is then placed over the model which records the locations of the tacks. Step 2. The locations of the tacks are then transferred to the raw marble block, in a process known as pointing. Step 3. Now begins the traditional "hammer and point work" - the basic technique used in all stone sculpture, since the time of Daedalic Greek sculpture , in 650 BCE. This involves knocking off sizeable chunks of unwanted stone, using a mallet and either a long point chisel, or a wedge-shaped pitching chisel. Step 4. Once the general shape of the statue has emerged from the block, the carver uses other tools to create the precise characteristics of the figure, including toothed or claw chisels, rasps, and rifflers.

Of course 20th-century sculptors now have an armoury of power tools, including stone-cutters, drills and other instruments, at their disposal. Step 5. After the carving is completed, the rough surface of the statue must be finished off. This can be done by abrading the surface with another stone called emery, or else sandpaper. Power tools can also be used to polish the marble. All this abrading and polishing brings out the colour of the stone, and adds a sheen known as a patina. Sometimes, tin and iron oxides or sealing compounds are applied to the surface to give it a highly reflective glowing exterior. Finishing Off From the era of Early Classical Greek sculpture onwards (480-450), no statue was complete until it was painted and decorated. Such painting was a specialist task performed by expert painter. Colour schemes varied, but as a general rule, statues or reliefs that were located high up and whose details were less visible to observers - like the Parthenon frieze - were decorated with brighter, more non-naturalistic colour pigments : hair, for instance, might be painted orange.

Whereas those sculptures positioned nearer to the ground - like those on the Alexander Sarcophagus - were painted with more realistic colours. Sometimes the skin was painted, sometimes not; but eyes, eyebrows, eyelids, and eyelashes were invariably coloured, as was the hair. In the case of important figurative sculptures, eyes might be inset with coloured enamel or glass, while copper might be applied to the nipples of the chest. For more details, see: Classical Colour Palette . Problem of Copying Clay Models Successful sculptors were rarely involved in all the 5 steps outlined above. Usually, all they did was to create the initial clay/wax model, after which they relied on their workshop assistants to copy the clay design onto the marble. This procedure worked well during the era of early Greek sculpture (c.650-500 BCE), when the rigid Egyptian-style kore and kouros figures were designed according to an unvarying system of proportions, which was easily copyable from clay to marble. But as the shape of statues became more complex and naturalistic, the system of proportions was rendered obsolete and the whole process of replicating the original clay design in marble became more difficult.

In due course, a grid system was adopted, which lasted beyond the era of Hellenistic Greek sculpture , whereby a number of "points" on the original clay model would be measured, then multiplied in size according to the rate of enlargement. These new measurements would then be marked on the marble block, and carefully followed during the carving process. The scheme remained problematical, however, and led frequently to marble statues being produced that were noticeably inferior to the clay originals. History of Marble Sculpture Prior to Classical Antiquity, stone sculpture was generally made from limestone, sandstone, gypsum, alabaster, jade or clay. Only from the era of Greek Archaic sculpture (c.650-480 BCE) onwards, was marble used on a regular basis - initially to make the standing nude male (kouros) and the standing draped female (kore). During Classical Greek sculpture (c.480-323), which witnessed the glorious reliefs of the Parthenon, bronze sculpture became equally important. Marble was also important in Roman sculpture - especially Roman relief sculpture .

The discovery and proximity of marble stone quarries (for Pentelic, Carrara and Parian varieties of the stone) was also an important factor in its use for sculptural purposes, as was its cost: two reasons why it was not generally used to decorate the hundreds of cathedrals, abbeys and churches that were built during the era of Romanesque and Gothic sculpture . On the other hand, Renaissance sculptors had more money to spend, thus Michelangelo used marble to create his masterpiece David (1501-4, Galleria dell'Accademia, Florence), as well as his Pieta (1497-9) for St Peter's Basilica . It is worth remembering that most original Greek bronzes were melted down or lost, but also, that the Romans made numerous marble copies of bronzes they knew about. As a result, Greek and Roman sculpture became strongly associated with marble, which was another reason why Renaissance artists - fired with a desire to rejuvenate the art of Classical Antiquity - preferred it to ordinary stone.

Furthermore, after the Renaissance, marble remained the material of choice for all exponents of classicism , from Bernini and Algardi from the era of 17th century Baroque sculpture , to Antonio Canova and Bertel Thorvaldsen of the school of Neoclassical sculpture (1750-1850). The superiority of marble was propagated throughout all the European academies of art, until the beginning of the 20th century. Famous Marble Statues and Reliefs Famous marble statuary and friezes can be seen in a number of the world's best art museums and sculpture gardens. Masterpieces include: Neolithic Marble Sculptures - Female Figurine (c.4250 BCE) Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. - Female Figurine (c.3500) National Archeological Museum, Cagliari. - Cycladic Figurine (c.2600 BCE) Goulandris Museum of Cycladic Art, Athens. Archaic Greek Marble Sculpture - Kleobis and Biton (610-580 BCE) Archeological Museum of Delphi.

- Sounion Kouros (600) National Archeological Museum of Athens. - Kouros (c.600) Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. - Moschophoros or Calf-bearer (c.570) Acropolis Museum, Athens. - "Peplos Kore" (530) Acropolis Museum, Athens. - The Anavysos Kouros (525) National Archeological Museum of Athens. - "Kritios Boy" (480) Acropolis Museum, Athens. Classical Greek Marble Sculpture - Leda and the Swan (500-450) Capitoline Museum. By Timotheus. - The Farnese Heracles (5th Century) Archeological Museum, Naples. - The Tyrannicides Hamodius Aristogeiton (477) Naples. By Critios. - "The Apollo Parnopius" (450) State Museum, Kassel. By Phidias . - Parthenon Reliefs/statuary (446-430), Museums in Athens, London, Paris.

- Wounded Amazon (440-430) Capitoline Museum. By Polykleitos . - Temple of Apollo Epikourios, East Frieze (420) British Museum. - Aphrodite of Knidos (350-40) Museo Pio Clementino. By Praxiteles . - Hermes tying his Sandal (4th century) Louvre, Paris. By Lysippos . - Mausoleum of Harlicarnassus, Amazon Frieze (350), British Museum. - Apollo Belvedere (330) Museo Pio Clementino. By Leochares . Hellenistic Greek Marble Sculpture - Dying Gaul (240) Bronze copy, Capitoline Museum. By Epigonus. - The Barberini Faun (220) Glyptothek, Munich. - Nike of Samothrace (220-190) Louvre, Paris. - "The Farnese Bull" (2nd Century) Naples. By Apollonius of Tralles. - The Three Graces (2nd Century) Louvre.

- Pergamon Altar Frieze (166-156), Pergamon Museum, Berlin. - "The Medici Venus" (150-100) Uffizi, Florence. By unknown artist. - Venus de Milo (100) Louvre. By Andros of Antioch. - Borghese Gladiator (100 BCE) Louvre, Paris. Roman Marbles - Ara Pacis Augustae Frieze (13-9 BCE), Ara Pacis Museum, Rome. - Statue of Claudius as Jupiter (41-54 CE) Vatican Museums. - Trajan's Column (113 CE) Relief Sculpture, Rome. - Arch of Constantine (c.312 CE), Rome. - Colossal Head of Constantine (c.320 CE) Capitoline Museum. Renaissance Marble Sculpture - Fonte Gaia (1414-19) Palazzo Pubblico, Siena. By Jacopo della Quercia . - Il Zuccone (142335) Florence. By Donatello .

- Pieta (1497-9) Saint Peters Basilica. By Michelangelo. - David (1501-4) Galleria dell'Accademia, Florence. By Michelangelo. - Dying Slave (1513-16) Louvre. By Michelangelo. - Tomb of Pope Julius II (1505-45) Rome. By Michelangelo. Mannerist/Baroque Marbles - The Rape of the Sabine (1581-3) Florence. By Giambologna . - Pluto and Proserpina (1621-2) Galleria Borghese, Rome. By Bernini . - Apollo and Daphne (1622-5) Galleria Borghese, Rome. By Bernini. - Tomb of Pope Leo XI (1634-44) St Peter's Rome. By Algardi. - The Ecstasy of Saint Teresa (1647-52) Capella Cornaro. By Bernini. - Milo of Crotona (1671-82) Louvre. By Pierre Puget .

Neoclassical Marble Sculpture - Apollo (1715) State Art Collection, Dresden. By Balthasar Permoser . - "The Marly Horse" (1739-45) Louvre. By Guillaume Coustou. - Venus (1773) J Paul Getty Museum, LA. By Joseph Nollekens . - Portrait of Voltaire, seated (1781) Paris. By Jean-Antoine Houdon . - Apollo Crowning Himself (1781) Getty Museum, LA. By Antonio Canova. - Psyche Awakened by Eros (1787-93) Louvre. By Antonio Canova . - Jason with the Golden Fleece (1803-28) Copenhagen. By Bertel Thorvaldsen . Modern Marble Sculpture - Tarcisius, Christian Martyr (1868) Musee d'Orsay. By Falguiere. - Despair (1869) Musee d'Orsay. By Jean-Joseph Perraud. - The Kiss (1888-9) Paris. By Auguste Rodin .

- Statue of Lincoln (1922) Lincoln Memorial. By Daniel Chester French . - Bird in Space (1925-31) Kunsthaus, Zurich. By Constantin Brancusi . - Female Torso (1953) Museum Ludwig, Cologne. By Hans Arp .  For more about marble sculpture, see: Visual Arts Encyclopedia . ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SCULPTURE 1000+ images about Venus de Milo on Pinterest | Sculpture, Giclee print and Lego Tokujin Yoshioka memory sculpture Look at the crystalized books later on my board too ^-^ See More The Art History ARTicles Works of Art The Disarming Beauty of Venus de Milo Venus de Milo is one of the most well-known examples of ancient Greek sculpture in the world today and is often thought to be the most beautiful. The statue is believed to be a depiction of Venus, the Greek goddess of love and beauty but is also sometimes called Aphrodite of Melos, referring to the corresponding goddess of Roman mythology.

Slightly over six feet tall and composed of highly prized white parian marble, Venus de Milo stands in a gracefully curved pose with her weight resting upon one leg, clothed only by a loose drape about her hips that falls to the ground. Although Venus de Milo appears to be a mixture of styles from the Greek Classical period, it has been dated at about 130 BC, indicating it was created in the Hellenistic period, more than a hundred years later. The statue is generally thought to be the work of Alexandros of Antioch, based upon an inscription on the missing piece of what may have been its original pedestal. Venus de Milo was discovered accidentally in 1820 by a Greek peasant named Yourgos on the Aegean island of Melos in an underground cavern near the ruins of an ancient theatre. Yourgos kept the sculpture to himself for a while in his barn but eventually it was discovered by Turkish authorities and confiscated. The French ambassador to Turkey bought the statue and after it was repaired, presented it in 1821 to King Louis XVIII of France. Subsequently the King had the sculpture placed in the Louvre Museum in Paris where it has remained on display to this day.

When the statue was discovered, it was badly damaged and broken into two parts. Found along with the statue were a pedestal, a piece of an upper left arm, and a left hand holding an apple. It is unclear if these fragments belonged to the statue and they have since been lost. While in King Louis' possession, attempts were made to create a design to replace the missing arms. Arms which held apples, lamps, garments and mirrors were proposed as well as arms that held nothing at all. Despite these efforts, it was decided not to replace the arms after all, leaving the statue in the state of completion in which it was found. Despite her missing arms, Venus de Milo is thought by most to represent the ideal of feminine beauty if not in today�s world, then certainly in the time in which she was created. The great fame of the statue, however, is not solely the result of its beauty but can be attributed at least in part to the efforts of the French to publicize the attributes of Venus de Milo to compensate for the loss of the another sculpture that was considered to be one of the finest and most beautiful works of classical antiquity.

The loss was of the renowned Medici Venus, seized by Napoleon from the Uffizi Gallery in Florence in 1802 but later returned to the Italians.

Question: What sort of art work is the "Venus de Milo"?
Answer: Sculpture