lingering suspicion that sculpture is less elevated, worthy, and intellectually
sophisticated than painting.
Since the establishment of art history as an academic discipline in the nineteenth
century, our knowledge of the history of European painting has advanced farther
and faster than is the case with sculpture. This may be because of some of the factors
mentioned above; but, in certain respects, the study of sculpture may be inherently
more difficult. For example, a photograph or slide used for study provides a better idea
of a painting or drawing than it does of a sculpture: the single flat image can capture
only one of the infinite possible views of a sculpture in the round. Also, the study of
sculpture requires an understanding of numerous techniques, including the modeling
of clay and wax; the carving of wood, ivory, and marble; the casting of terracotta and
plaster; the several methods of casting bronze; and the processes of patination, glazing,
and polychroming. Moreover, with certain types of sculpture, such as Renaissance
bronze statuettes, a sophisticated level of connoisseurship cannot be attained solely
by intense looking but requires handling the objects—a kind of access that, for works
in a museum, is generally very restricted.
Even with these difficulties, sculpture collections have continued to be created,
though it is difficult to explain the reasons and motives behind the formation of any
one collection. Ranging from the lofty aim of creating a beautiful ensemble to a crass
interest in financial investment, there is a gamut of human needs and impulses that
in some way are satisfied by bringing together a group of art works. Since the earliest
collections of precious objects were first formed, primarily out of religious, political,
and propagandistic motives, in temples, tombs, and the palaces of the powerful,
collecting art has generally been viewed as a worthy pursuit and an important element
in the development of culture. The prestige associated with it has, today, led to a
situation in which social status is frequently a major impetus behind the formation
of a collection and the kinds of works selected. In such an ambience, the object satisfies
criteria that the collector can securely identify as being socially acceptable; there is a
gravitation toward works that can be clearly identified and categorized, with inordinate
importance given to those that are signed and dated. The same cultural climate
encourages a tendency to collect in very limited, specialized areas, so that the greatest
possible control can be brought to bear on the selection of a new acquisition. Given
the current predominant cultural values, it is understandable why the areas of sculpture
collecting most popular today are nineteenth-century animalier bronzes and the works
of Edgar Degas and Auguste Rodin: unlike much earlier European sculpture, these
are almost invariably signed by the artist. (It may be worth noting the irony that the10 INTRODUCTION