Enfilade

From ArtHist.net, which includes the French version:

What Does a Sculpture Do to a Garden? What Does a Garden Do to a Sculpture?

Que fait une sculpture à un jardin? Que fait un jardin à une sculpture?, 17e–21e siècle

Musée Rodin, Paris, 6 June 2025

Proposals due by 31 March 2025

Edvard Munch, Le Penseur de Rodin dans le parc du Dr Max Linde à Lübeck, ca. 1907, oil on canvas, 143 × 98 cm (Paris: Musée Rodin).

Part of the 22nd edition of the Rendez-vous aux jardins taking place 6–8 June 2025 under the theme “Stone Gardens / Garden Stones,” the symposium is under the scientific direction of Emmanuelle Héran, Chief Curator and Head of Garden Collections at the Musée du Louvre. The event will be webcast live.

While closely linked since Antiquity, the relationship between sculpture and gardens was rekindled during the Renaissance. Rodin himself pondered this connection, as Paul Gsell recounts in Art: “Statues are usually placed in gardens to embellish them. For Rodin, gardens are here to adorn the statues. For him, Nature remains the supreme mistress, an infinite perfection.” And yet, works tracing the history of gardens often give little consideration to the statuary that inhabits them. Conversely, sculpture scholars rarely reflect on the unique setting of gardens, or on what a sculpture, in turn, can bring to a garden. In both fields, publications are frequently illustrated with tightly framed photographs of sculptures, isolating them as if displayed within a museum—or even entirely cut out from their surroundings. Yet, a garden is not a museum; it offers to three-dimensional works neither the neutrality of a ‘white cube’ nor even the illusion of a ‘green cube’ beneath an open sky.

Indeed, what could be more subject to change, more ephemeral, than a garden? As seasons pass, with the shifting hours of the day and the whims of the weather, the environment surrounding a sculpture is in constant flux. While there does exist a ‘museography’ for gardens—defined both as the art of displaying sculptures within them and as the composition of gardens incorporating sculpture—it has never been the subject of a comprehensive study. It is scarcely taught, neither to curators overseeing an ‘open-air sculpture museum’ nor to landscape architects and garden designers responsible for their creation and upkeep. In this regard, Louis Gevart’s dissertation broke new ground [1].

The question of meaning also arises. In royal and aristocratic parks and gardens, a sculptural ensemble may follow a coherent iconographic program, whose analysis reveals political intentions—such as the renowned Grande Commande of 1674 for Versailles. More often, however, groves and lawns host a disparate collection, whose coherence—if it ever existed—may have faded over time. The history of a collection displayed in a garden can mirror that of a museum. Yet it may also be entirely different, as the works placed in a garden are not necessarily commissioned pieces or first choices. Some may have arrived belatedly, by default, left outdoors for lack of a better option, or, when too damaged or vandalized, removed in haste.

It is thus possible that a restoration, conversion or ex nihilo creation project requires a landscape architect to address the difficult issue of sculptures. In the world of historical monuments, managing a set of statues does not always fall under the responsibility of the chief architect, but of a heritage curator. This separation of powers is worth examining: is it relevant or counterproductive? How can dialogue be established? The choice of materials, their adaptability and durability can all be considered. Site-specific works created in close collaboration with a garden can be cited, such as Giuseppe Penone and Pascal Cribier’s L’Arbre des voyelles in the Tuileries Gardens.

During the 20th century, sculpture parks and gardens—created with this intent—focused more on presenting a “living history of sculpture under construction” (Louis Gevart). Iconographic objectives may have been replaced by the production of a historical-stylistic narrative, without soliciting the help of a landscape architect. However, as the profound changes recently made to Middelheim Park in Antwerp and the recreation of entire programs at Stowe demonstrate, a return to iconographic coherence does seem to be taking place, in response to the public’s presumed expectations.

This symposium welcomes case studies of the same work in different sizes and materials, whose effect on a garden can be decisive for its composition or, on the contrary, become unremarkable. Think of copies of famous ancient sculptures—the Farnese Hercules, the Diana of Versailles—whose use, identified by Haskell and Penny in 1981 and recently revised, continues. Also welcome are examples of sculptures whose contribution to a garden does not appear to be essential, or of attempts that have proved inconclusive, or of bases that have been left empty or refilled. The crucial question remains that of the usefulness and relevance of a three-dimensional work within a garden environment. In other words, what does a sculpture do to a garden? And what does a garden do to a sculpture?

This call is addressed to art historians specializing in gardens or sculpture. It is also aimed at park and garden managers, heritage architects and landscape architects who have carried out preliminary studies or restoration work on historic gardens, so that they can share their thoughts and recent field practices, carried out in close collaboration with art historians and sculptors. It will focus on the following questions:
• What is the use of sculpture in a garden?
• Iconography: the search for coherence
• When the statue is missing / The empty base
• What materials are used in a garden?
• Landscape architects and sculptors / Site-specific works

Submissions—with a title, an abstract (1500–2000 characters), and a brief biographical note (500–1000 characters)—should be sent to colloques@musee-rodin.fr before 31 March 2025.

Research Committee
• Emmanuelle Héran, Chief Curator, Head of Garden Collections, musée du Louvre
• Amélie Simier, Chief Curator, Director, musée Rodin
• Véronique Mattiussi, Head of the Research Department, musée Rodin
• Franck Joubin, Researcher and Conference Coordinator, musée Rodin

[1] Louis Gevart, “La Sculpture et la terre. Histoire artistique et sociale du jardin de sculpture en Europe (1901–1968),” PhD thesis in art history, under the direction of Thierry Dufrêne, Université Paris Ouest La Défense, January 2017.

From ArtHist.net and NIKI:

Hirsute, Downy, Hairless:

Meanings and Forms of Body Hair in Early Modern Visual Culture

Nederlands Interuniversitair Kunsthistorisch Instituut, Florence, 24–25 October 2025

Organized by Mathilda Blanquet, Michael Kwakkelstein, and Mandy Richter

Proposals due by 1 April 2025

While long overlooked in art historical studies, over the past two decades body hair has emerged as a significant field of research, offering new perspectives on early modern visual culture. The presence or absence of body hair serves as an indicator of aesthetic (or artistic) preferences and prevailing social norms specific to certain periods and locations, revealing complex intersections between art and real life.

In profane art, the representation of male body hair tends to be quite common. It often points to idealized virility, strength, or even a natural state of being. However, its excess or misplacement might indicate mockery, degradation, or even alienation of the depicted subject. In comparison, female hirsuteness appears less frequently in artworks from the early modern period due to different canons of beauty associated with the female body. These rare instances of representation thus hold particular interest for this workshop.

In religious art, hair in general is of notable importance and this significance extends to body hair as well. Various iconographies of saints include these distinct features, raising questions not only about visual traditions in different cultural contexts but also querying particular hermeneutic meanings, such as notions of humanity, carnality, and spiritual transformation. In some cases, there could be a connection to preserved body hair relics of specific saints, which has never been part of a broader study thus far.

Technical challenges in representing hair are another point of interest. Artists and art theorists addressed these challenges across different media throughout the early modern period, as evidenced in theoretical treatises, anatomical studies, and workshop practices. Not only does this include the question of how to differentiate between human and animal hair but extends as well to artistic experiments in finding new and creative ways of treating or even avoiding body hair.

This two-day workshop aims to explore the multiple dimensions of body hair in visual culture through an interdisciplinary approach. Contributions may address, but are not limited to, the following themes:

1  Gender and Social Norms
• Male vs. female body hair in art
• Social and cultural implications of hair presence or absence
• Body hair as an indicator of social status and cultural norms

2  Religious and Symbolic Dimensions
• Hair in religious iconography
• Symbolic meanings in sacred versus profane contexts
• The role of body hair in representing humanity versus divinity

3  Artistic Theory and Practice
• Technical challenges in depicting body hair across different media
• Body hair in artistic treatises and anatomical studies
• Relationships between artistic theory and artistic practice

4  Cultural and Geographic Variations
• Comparative studies across European regions
• Cross-cultural perspectives on body hair representation

We welcome proposals from doctoral students, post-doctoral researchers, and established scholars. Papers may be presented in English or Italian. Please submit an abstract (300–500 words), a brief biographical note (150 words), your current institutional affiliation, and contact information to m.blanquet@udk-berlin.de and richter@khi.fi.it by 1 April 2025. Acceptance notifications should arrive by 15 April 2025.

Selected papers will be considered for publication in a peer-reviewed volume following the workshop. The workshop will be held at the Nederlands Interuniversitair Kunsthistorisch Instituut in Florence (NIKI). Accommodation and travel information will be provided to accepted participants. For any queries, please contact m.blanquet@hotmail.fr and richter@khi.fi.it.

Organizers
• Mathilda Blanquet, Universität der Künste in Berlin, Université Fédérale de Toulouse, Universität Hamburg
• Dr. Michael W. Kwakkelstein, Dutch University Institute for Art History in Florence (NIKI) – Utrecht University
• Dr. Mandy Richter, Kunsthistorisches Institut in Florenz – Max-Planck-Institut