A Report On The Colloquium Convened In Athens To Discuss The Authenticity Of The Getty Kouros

In May of 1992, in Athens, a meeting of experts convened to examine a Kouros belonging to The J. Getty Museum in Malibu California. The statue which the museum had purchased in 1983, had generated a world wide media storm due to the unsolved question of it's authenticity. Repected authorities disagreed; some said it was a Greek antiquity and others that it was a modern fake. The museum called for a colloquium and sent the statue to Athens to be examined by 19 experts in related fields. This article presents a brief summary of the 19 papers delivered at the colloquium. Here are the papers pro and con. You decide. Do you think the Getty Museum was taken for millions, or have they acquired a rare Greek antiquity?

Paper 1

By Marion True

Curator Of Antiquities

The J. Getty Museum

The Anamolies

Many anomolies are cited by the author. The Getty kouros doesn't fit into any of the currently recognized kouros styles, but rather seems to combine them into one.

The Material

The marble is confirmed to be from Thassos. The surface has been altered by calcium oxylate which may be the result of natural lichen growth or a deliberate application of oxalic acid, a common forger's device.

The Provenance

The Getty purchased the work from a dealer in Switzerland who claimed to have purchased it from a Dr. Jean Lauffenburger of Geneva. Photocopies of letters to Dr. Lauffenburger concerning the statue have been proven to be forgeries. The original documents have mysteriously dissappeared.

Conclusion

The Getty displays the work as an antiquity with the caveat that it may be a forgery.

Paper 2

BY Professor Brunilde Sismondo-Ridgway

Department Of Classical And Near Eastern Archaeology

Bryn Mawr College

Professor Sismondo-Rigeway presents a list of anatomical anomilies, yet provides an example of similar anomalies present in other authenticated Kouroi.She notes the abscence of paint on the Getty Kouros and points out that all other kouroi , with the possible exception of the Melos kouros, show traces of paint. She points out that the plinth never had a lead attachment to the base as other kouroi do, but adds that it may, perhaps have simply rested upon its base.

Conclusion

Professor Sismondo-Ridgway offers the opinion that the question of the authenticity of the Getty kouros cannot be resolved in less than 50 years.

Paper 3

Professor Evelyn B. Harrison

Institute Of Fine Arts

New York University

Professor Harrison describes the many details of the kouros which contradict the ancient Greek canon of male physical beauty. She notes the androgyny of the form and its homosexual implications. She comments on the abrasive finishing and wonders that it was ever meant to be painted.

Conclusion

Professor Harrison is inclined to dismiss the Getty kouros as a fake on aesthetic grounds.

Paper 4

Professor Bernard Holtzman

University Of Paris X

Professor Holtzman notes that the general style of the kouros is close to the Attic style and points out that though the use of Thassian marble in Attica is not an impossibility, it is most certainly anomolous. He suggests that in the light of the Getty kouros we may need to re examine our dependancy upon established systems of classification and posits a forensic investigation into the obious provenance fraud.

Conclusion

Professor Holtzman takes neither side in this debate, but rather suggests further investigation.

Paper 5

Professor Sir John Boardman

Lincoln Professor

Oxford

Professor Boardman seems to feel that the Getty kouros presents an occasion for examining our entire system for the classification of ancient Greek art. He seems to reject the old Gisela Richter system for classifying kouroi and calls for a re examination of the entire body of works.

Conclusion

Offers no opinion as to the authenticity of the Getty kouros.

Paper 6

Professor Vasilis Lambrinoudakis

Athens University

Professor Lambrinoudakis notes that the sculptor deliberately used a block of stone which was defective and points out that this is singular in the production of Kouroi.

Conclusion

Professor Lambrinoudakis agrees that we can neither call the work genuine or fake given the technology we possess today.

Paper 7

Professor Jean Mercade

University Of Paris I

Professor Mercade stresses the modernity of the form and points out that the overall arrangement of the planes is more appealing to contemporary tastes than to ancient ones.

Conclusion

Professor Mercade reserves judgment due to the lack of consensus among the physical scientists.

Paper 8

Dr. Georgios Donatas

President

The Archaeological Society Of Athens

Dr. Donatas offers a stylistic analysis which points out the eclectisim of the work and the resulting anachronisms.

Conclusion

Dr. Donatas rejects the authenticity on traditional stylistic and aesthetic grounds.

Paper 9

Professor, Dr.Helmut Kyrieleis

President

The German Archaeology Institute

Berlin

Dr. Kyrieleis points out that stylistic analysis itself, must be re examined in the light of The Getty Kouros and suggests that a forger would have the stylistic knowledge to avoid the anamolies here presented.

Conclusion

Dr. Kyrieleis does not offer a deffinate answer to the question.

Paper 10

Dr. Ismini Trianti

Curator Of Antiquities

Acropolis Museum

Dr. Trianti is concerned with the idiosyncracies of the work and the location of the atelier. She points out that the various stylistic elements cover a time span of more than 30 years in what we understand to be the evolution of the techniques associated with kouroi. Besides the various techniques used in the details, she adds the apparent evidence of 4 widely divurgent ateliers.

Conclusion

The work is a fogery based upon bits and pieces of ancient kouroi.

Paper 11

Professor Angelous Delivorrias

Director: Benaki Museum

Athens University

Professor Delavorrias discounts all the schools and ateliers of ancient Greece as possible sources of The getty Kouros on the basis of stylistic grounds and declares it to be a pastiche of many styles.

Conclusion

Professor Delavorrias reserves a deffinate answer.

Paper 12

Dr. Ilse Kleeman

German Archaeological Institute

Athens

Dr. Kleeman believes that her canon of overall form is of more importance than the more obvious Richter system which emphasises detail rather than form. Her evaluation is based upon the consistancy of body proportions in Greek sculpture. She affirms that The Getty Kouros displays the form of a 6th century BCE kouros and the details may be idiosyncratic.

Conclusion

Dr. Kleeman accepts The Getty Kouros as genuine.

Paper 13

Dr, Eleanor Guralnick

The University Of Chicago

Dr, Guralnick's paper takes an emminently rational approach which minimizes subjectivity. Her evaluation is based upon the consistancy of body proportions in Greek sculpture. She has taken scientific measurmants of the work and finds the proportions consistant with the canons of the period. She notes the idiosyncratic nature of all artists.

Conclusion

Dr. Guralnick favors the authenticity of The Getty Kouros.

Paper 14

Mr. Stelios Triantis

Sculptor

National Museum

Athens

Mr. Triantis examines The Getty Kouros with the technical knowledge of an experienced sculptor. He appears to discover the use of tools not believed to have been available in the 6th century BCE. Judging from the rough bottom cut of the plinth, he offers the opinion that the kouros was never intended to be attached to a base to be placed in a temple as a votive offering.

Conclusion

Mr. Triantis does not accept The Getty Kouros as authentic.

Paper 15

Mr. Peter Rockwell

Sculptor

Rome

Mr. Rockwell makes four strong points:

1. the figure was carved lying flat on the ground in the archaic technique.

2. No drills were used.

3. Projecting planes were isolated before detailing.

4. The figure was carved with an axe like chisel not used since the 16th century.

Conclusion

Mr. Rockwell believes The Getty Kouros to be genuine.

Paper 16

Mr. Jerry Podany

Head Of Antiquities Conservation

J. Paul Getty Museum

Mr. Podany outlines the exhaustive efforts of a team of scientists working at The Getty Museum to simulate the aging process upon the surface Of new Thassian marble. Their attempts to reproduce artificially the surface on the stone ot The Getty Kouros were not successful.

Conclsion

Mr. Podnay offers no opinion on the authenticity of The Getty Kouros.

Paper 17

Mr. Tony Kozelj

Ecole Francaise De Athene

Mr. Kozelj presents a history of quarring marble on the island of Thassos.

Conclusion

Mr. Kozelji offers no opinion.

Paper 18

Dr, Frank Preusser

Associate Director

The Getty Conservation Institute

Dr. Preusser presents a report on the scientific examination of the physical properties of The Getty Kouros conducted by The Getty Conservation Institute. He notes that it cannot be attributed to any of the existing quarries on the island in modern times. Despite extensive testing, it could not be proven that unnatural patination was present.

Conclsion

Dr. Preusser offers no opinion.

Paper 19

Professor Norbert S. Baer

Hagop Kervorkian Professor Of Conservation

New York, University

Professor Baer presents a discussion of modern capabilities in the dating of artifacts and offers the opinion that the science is not, as yet, exact.

Conclusion

Professor Baer offers no opinion as to the authenticity of The Getty Kouros.

Summary

The papers delivered at the colluquim reveal a difference of opinion between the physical scientists and the more conservative art historians. Most of the arguments against authenticity are based either upon aesthetic perceptions rooted in the Richter canon or subjective assessments. As Dr, Kyrieleis points out, current metods of authentication are as much on trial as The Getty Kouros.

In reading these opinions some important questions arise which remain unanswered. Is every work of ancient Greek art automatically to be considered a masterpiece which represents a school of creative thought? May not some works be considered to be entirely idiosyncratic, or even badly done? Is it not possible for more than one sculptor to have carved upon this stone over the course of some years? if it were unfinished and never placed in a temple, how otherwise might it have been used?

Professor Lambrinoudakis thinks it not possble that a sculptor would begin to work upon a stone with an obvious flaw, but do we know that the flaw was obvious from the first? We have examples which indicate that upon the discovery of a flaw, a sculptor abandoned his project. There is no reason to believe that such was not the case here. If the flaw was obvious, why was it not obvious to the stone cutters on Thassos and why was it not broken up and used to fill old mines or dumped into the sea as Mr. Kozelj tells us was the usual custom? It can only be concluded that the original carver knew, either from the start or quite early on that his work would be unsaleable as a religious votive or, indeed, as a forgery. Why did he continue to work on an unsaleable object? Perhaps this is an antiquity as many experts believe it to be. Perhaps it was never intended to serve the traditional function of a kouros and was therefore never finished in the ususal manner.

Stone is a difficult and expensive medium. unlike a graphic artist, a stone carver cannot practice with endless experimentation using cheap and disposable materials. A life size, or larger, sculpture lying unfinished and valueless on the floor of an atelier must certainly present an attractive opportunity to a sculptor, or indeed, several sculptors. Could this worthless stone have been used for experimentation? Dr, Trifanti identifies four different styles in the work. Professor Holtzman posits a term of more than thirty years in the stylistic development of the Kouros genre. Might several artists have had a hand in what Professor Delivorrias calls a pastiche?

If one consensus arrises in the colloquim, it is that the true age of The Getty Kouros cannot be stated with absolute certainty until advancement in the technology of the physical sciences allow indesputable evidence indicating when the surface was first exposed. Even with such evidence, we shall be presented with many questions about this most enigmatic work and indeed, the current metods of stylistic dating of ancient art.

Kallistos Alexanderos