update data table; minor copyedit

content/issues/5/casting-in-reverse/index.md

@@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ For about twenty years, from 1581 until around 1600, Antonio Susini (1558--1624)
 
 While contemporaneous accounts depict Susini as more of a promising protégé than an anonymous middleman, scholarship over the subsequent centuries tends only to value assistants and pupils when they are seen to surpass their teacher---a fate Susini, ostensibly, did not meet. Over the years, scholarship has simultaneously labeled him a "superior craftsman" and an "absolutely uncreative manufacturer" who, "so long as he stayed in Giovanni Bologna's studio, was neither a full-fledged technician nor sculptor."[^5] When Susini is remembered, it is as the harbinger of a particular style or finish in bronze---he brought to the genre of small-scale bronzes heightened polish, refined chasing, and a characteristically angular treatment of forms. Giambologna himself would regard Susini's casts as "the most beautiful things that they \[patrons\] can have from my hands," seeing the latter's labor, technical acumen, and, even, body as surrogates for his own.[^6] Indeed, to speak of "a Susini" bronze today is to directly comment upon a work's execution and finish; in a twist of phrase, his name has come to signify just as much a technical faculty as it does a person.
 
-In the field of Renaissance art where the primacy of design and the "Idea" reign, to prioritize execution goes against the grain. If Susini's production is tracked by his labor and technical acuity rather than the designs he created, how and where do we locate him today? Indeed, in the case of Susini, both an assimilable hand and anonymous execution suggest an artist that is simultaneously present and absent. How does framing Susini's position as an "invisible technician," or, even, "alter-ego," for example, open onto new ways of studying other assistants as vital fabricators and recuperating their nebulous positions between design and artifact?[^7] That is, how can the study of sculpture favor techniques "from below"? To tell the story of Susini as both independent laborer and cooperative assistant is to recuperate from the extant objects an otherwise absent or forgotten historical record. It is to grapple with invisibility as a necessary hurdle and charged heuristic.
+In the field of Renaissance art where the primacy of design and the "Idea" reign, to prioritize execution goes against the grain. If Susini's production is tracked by his labor and technical acuity rather than the designs he created, how and where do we locate him today? Indeed, in the case of Susini, both an assimilable hand and anonymous execution suggest an artist that is simultaneously present and absent. How does framing Susini's position as an "invisible technician," or, even, "alter-ego," for example, open onto new ways of studying assistants as vital fabricators and recuperating these makers' nebulous positions between design and artifact?[^7] That is, how can the study of sculpture favor techniques "from below"? To tell the story of Susini as both independent laborer and cooperative assistant is to recuperate from the extant objects an otherwise absent or forgotten historical record. It is to grapple with invisibility as a necessary hurdle and charged heuristic.
 
 Over the past eight months, I have explored how strategies in data curation and imaging technologies can, literally and metaphorically, help visualize these historical gaps. At the same time, I have apprenticed as a fabricator working with local foundries to understand the intricacies of casting, from wax to bronze, and to familiarize myself with Susini's embodied experience as a sculptor. In what follows, I share some early notes on what I have learned. First, I will consider how amassing and sorting art objects as data points can reveal unnoticed patterns and trends. Then, I will introduce my own experiments in wax modeling and casting. Putting oneself in the artist's shoes can not only fill the gaps in what we can know, but also complement digital reconstructions through an experiential and artifactual approach. Finally, I will share my preliminary experiments in 3D imaging, highlighting the challenges of using 3D scanning to capture reflective surfaces like bronze compared to photogrammetry. Here, I will consider 3D scanning as its own form of casting. Throughout, I wish to linger on the potential of seeing and using these technologies as surrogates for the historical process or object they themselves try to capture.
 
@@ -47,15 +47,19 @@ Of the words associated with the Renaissance bronze statuette, "reproduction" is
 
 Let's begin with a brief overview of the process and terms involved: In what is often referred to as "direct casting," the process begins with a model in wax around which an "investment" in clay or plaster is built. The wax is then "burnt" (melted) out, and into the cavity molten metal is poured---this will become the finished cast. Important here is that the original model is destroyed, and a unique cast produced. In "indirect casting," we begin with a model in any material (clay, wood, even metal) from which a "piece-mold" is made, a type of mold deconstructed in pieces so as not to damage the object it replicates. This piece-mold can then be used and reused to make multiple copies in wax, which are then cast in metal using the direct method above. Multiple versions of the same model can be produced in this way.
 
-In the sixteenth century, in and around the Giambologna workshop, the use of indirect casting and a demanding art market meant an increase in the production of small bronzes. In addition to hiring? Susini, Giambologna employed several other artists who were responsible for adapting and reproducing his designs. The great number of casts produced during these decades has fueled debates about authorship and dating, but also complicated attempts to assign and differentiate Susini's output. Exhibition catalogs exacerbate the issue, arbitrarily assigning or even muting his involvement. And yet, a study of Susini's practice cannot begin without a catalog of what he produced. The large number of works in his orbit, moreover, presents an extraordinary amount of raw data in need of explanation. In this pursuit, I turned to a simple spreadsheet. More than a list of the works to which Susini is attached, the aim of this document is a repository of each object's history with technical data describing their size, weight, and other characteristics. While the genre of "catalog" in art history is a mode of collation and explanation, this repository functions equally as an interactive database for sorting and (re)categorizing the objects.
+In the sixteenth century, in and around the Giambologna workshop, the use of indirect casting and a demanding art market meant an increase in the production of small bronzes. In addition to Susini, Giambologna employed several other artists who were responsible for adapting and reproducing his designs. The great number of casts produced during these decades has fueled debates about authorship and dating, but also complicated attempts to assign and differentiate Susini's output. Exhibition catalogs exacerbate the issue, arbitrarily assigning or even muting his involvement. And yet, a study of Susini's practice cannot begin without a catalog of what he produced. The large number of works in his orbit, moreover, presents an extraordinary amount of raw data in need of explanation. In this pursuit, I turned to a simple spreadsheet. More than a list of the works to which Susini is attached, the aim of this document is a repository of each object's history with technical data describing their size, weight, and other characteristics. While the genre of "catalog" in art history is a mode of collation and explanation, this repository functions equally as an interactive database for sorting and (re)categorizing the objects.
 
 {{<wrap class="interlude" id="fig2">}}
-{{<table caption="<b>Figure 2.</b> Selection of preliminary data fields and organization." class="side-scroll">}}
-| item | title    | date |
-| ---- | -------- | ---- |
-| 001  | Susini 1 | 1610 |
-| 002  | Susini 2 | 1611 |
-| 003  | Susini 3 | 1609 |
+{{<table caption="<b>Figure 2.</b> Curated selection of preliminary data fields and organization. These first two entries highlight the limited data available for works in private collections, notably in object size, as well as the need to systematize titles and subject. Entries three through five highlight the variation among objects of the same subject, from dimensions to alterations in the design. Entry six highlights some objects’ complex designations for authorship while entry seven sets the standard for an autograph (signed, dated) Susini." class="side-scroll">}}
+| | Unique ID | Location Known? (Y/N) | Location                        | Accession #       | Title                                 | Subject                          | Model | Length (cm) | Width (cm) | Height (cm) | Period                     | Start Date | End Date | Attributed Certatiny "Score" | Author/Artist                        | Founder         | Collaborators?               | Signature                                | Contested? | Source                           |
+|-| --------- | ----------------------| ------------------------------- | ----------------- | ------------------------------------- | -------------------------------- | ----- | ----------- | ---------- | ----------- | -------------------------- | ---------- | -------- | ---------------------------- | ------------------------------------ | --------------- | ---------------------------- | ---------------------------------------- | ---------- | ---------------------------------|
+|1| 241021-043| N                     | Private Collection              |                   | The Flying Mercury                    | flying Mercury                   |       |             |            | 17.4        | late sixteenth century     | 1575       | 1600     |                              | model by Willem Danielsz van Tetrode | Antonio Susini? |                              |                                          |            | Avery, et al., Giambologna, 1998 |
+|2| 241021-006| N                     | Private Collection              |                   | Mercury in Flight                     | flying Mercury                   |       |             |            | 64.8        | late sixteenth century     | 1575       | 1600     |                              | model by Giambologna                 | Antonio Susini? |                              |                                          |            | Avery, et al., Giambologna, 1998 |
+|3| 241021-012| Y                     | J. Paul Getty Museum            | 94.SB.11.1        | Lion Attacking a Horse                | Lion Attacking a Horse Type 1    | M-01  | 24          |            | 28          | first quarter 17th century | 1600       | 1625     |                              | Antonio Susini                       |                 | or Giovanni Francesco Susini |                                          |            |                                  |
+|4| 241021-032| Y                     | Detroit Institute of Arts       | 25.20             | Lion Attacking a Horse                | Lion Attacking a Horse Type 1    | M-02  | 25.4        |            | 30.5        | 1580-90                    | 1580       | 1590     |                              | Antonio Susini                       |                 |                              | ANTo. SVSINI \| FLORE. OPVS.             |            |                                  |
+|5| 241021-021| Y                     | Kunshistorisches Museum, Vienna | Kunstkammer, 6018 | Lion Attacking a Horse                | Lion Attacking a Horse Type 2    | M-03  | 38          | 26.5       | 33          | ca. 1600                   | 1590       | 1610     |                              | Antonio Susini                       |                 |                              |                                          |            |                                  |
+|6| 241021-014| Y                     | Kunshistorisches Museum, Vienna | Kunstkammer, 5893 | Venus Urania or Allegory of Astronomy |                                  |       |             |            | 38.8        | c. 1575                    | 1565       | 1585     |                              | Giambologna                          | Antonio Susini? | Antonio Susini               | GIO BOLONGE                              |            |                                  |
+|7| 241021-026| Y                     | Galleria Borghese               | CCXLIX            | Farnese Bull                          | Farnese Bull (after the antique) |       |             |            | 48          | 1613                       |            |          | 10                           | Anonio Susini                        |                 |                              | ANT.II SUSINII FLOR.I: OPUS/ A D MDCXIII | N          |                                  |
 {{</table>}}
 {{</wrap>}}
 
@@ -78,7 +82,7 @@ This database is in an early stage of development and much work remains to be do
 
 **Objects in Process**
 
-Describing the production of molds for casting in bronze, Sienese metallurgist Vannoccio Biringuccio advised his reader, "If you have not been the workman yourself, you must at least have been an active helper in this and in every other part in order to be able to follow everything without a fault."[^9] Still today Biringuccio's provocation rings true: You won't properly understand how something is done until you have tried it yourself. In the world of artistic technique and process, this is especially apt. If Susini's expertise lay in both ephemeral techniques and surface treatment, the only way to understand his labor, at least in part, is to reconstruct it oneself. Given that I am a trained painter, this idea is something of a given to me; but having more limited experience sculpting or casting, I entered a novice.
+Describing the production of molds for casting in bronze, Sienese metallurgist Vannoccio Biringuccio advised his reader, "If you have not been the workman yourself, you must at least have been an active helper in this and in every other part in order to be able to follow everything without a fault."[^9] Still today Biringuccio's provocation rings true: You won't properly understand how something is done until you have tried it yourself. In the world of artistic technique and process, this is especially apt. If Susini's expertise lay in both ephemeral techniques and surface treatment, the only way to understand his labor, at least in part, is to reconstruct it oneself. As a trained painter, I am very familiar with this idea; but having more limited experience sculpting or casting, I entered a novice.
 
 {{<pullquote left `You won't properly understand how something is done until you have tried it yourself.` >}}
 
@@ -200,7 +204,7 @@ Now we can return to Susini and the PUAM Cristo Morto. Though at this time I was
 ⩩-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------⟩
 {{</ wrap >}}
 
-Some areas are slightly less focused and the hands, in particular, are not well rendered.[^14] Despite this, the measurements are more or less commensurate with those I had taken in person, suggesting that the distortion of the object was not as great as expected. The surface texture and color are somewhat muted in this model, coming off closer to an ochre color than reflective gold, as it appears in person. Despite these inconsistencies between model and object, this method still offers a vivid, interactive view of the object's technical intricacies and state of conservation---its chased surface, patchy gilding, visible plugs and repairs---in three dimensions.[^15] Where the conditions of the tabletop scanner are better controlled---the object is a consistent distance from the camera---photogrammetry is a bit harder to regulate and more prone to human error. A dual-approach combining both 3D scanning and photogrammetry (one prioritizing shape, the other surface) would instead be optimal. I will continue to experiment with this combined approach by reconstructing the object---as would the caster himself---from the bottom up, giving both surface and structure equal regard.
+Some areas are slightly less focused and the hands, in particular, are not well rendered.[^14] Despite this, the measurements are more or less commensurate with those I had taken in person, suggesting that the distortion of the object was not as great as expected. The surface texture and color are somewhat muted in this model, coming off closer to an ochre color than reflective gold, as it appears in person. Despite these inconsistencies between model and object, the model still offers a vivid, interactive view of the object's technical intricacies and state of conservation---its chased surface, patchy gilding, visible plugs and repairs---in three dimensions.[^15] Where the conditions of the tabletop scanner are better controlled---the object is a consistent distance from the camera---photogrammetry is a bit harder to regulate and more prone to human error. A dual-approach combining both 3D scanning and photogrammetry (one prioritizing shape, the other surface) would instead be optimal. I will continue to experiment with this combined approach by reconstructing the object---as would the caster himself---from the bottom up, giving both surface and structure equal regard.
 
 **********