Apollo The Python Slayer Analysis

In 2004, the Cleveland Museum of Art purchased Apollo the Python-Slayer (figure one) which they believe to be the only surviving piece from the Greek sculptor Praxiteles. After the purchase, questions arose regarding the authenticity of the museum’s claims as well as the murky history of how this piece was procured and how it was found in Germany in the 1980’s. Scholars agree that Apollo is ancient, but are irresolute of the label the sculpture should don. Two arguments sprung from the display of this sculpture; one opinion is for the continuation of attributing the sculpture to Praxiteles due to most evidence supporting the museum’s statements. The second opinion is that there is inadequate evidence to conclusively claim that Praxiteles is …show more content…
The museum’s website records that “In 2007, Agence France-Presse reported that unnamed Greek officials stated that the Apollo was fished out of the sea between Greece and Italy. Greece never presented evidence, but in response to the country’s claims that the work was stolen, the Louvre canceled plans to exhibit the Cleveland sculpture in an exhibition.” The symposium and exhibit in the Louvre, which would have yielded many scholarly and professional essays, never occurred. Technical studies of Apollo have confirmed that the sculpture has never been in salt water, and that the surface corrosion and irregularities of the sculpture can be attributed to the little care it has had over the many years of being underground and then mishandled during World War II. The museum explained the hiatus of Apollo and why it just recently scratched the surface of the art world: …show more content…
Lie, a leading conservation expert and director of the Straus Center for Conservation and Technical Studies at Harvard University, reported that the inlaid right eye, copper lips, and nipples are consistent with classical Greek bronze statues, and “[s]uch details indicate the care of manufacture, and offer a rare opportunity to view the original appearance of a high-quality classical bronze statue.” Northover of Oxford’s Department of Materials analyzed the left hand and forearm, the right upper arm, and the base of Apollo. Northover testified that the first two pieces were from a date within the classical time period, and that the base had been added after the bronze was casted, but no later than the Renaissance. Northover was sent five more pieces to analyze, including the lizard; he concluded that the lizard was made at the same time as the rest of Apollo. Northover also wrote an addendum a year later at the museum’s request; he believes Apollo to have possibly been involved in a fire, broken by falling structures, then buried. Pernicka, director of the Curt-Engelhorn-Zenreum Aechäometrie at the University of Tübingen, and Christman, chief conservator of the Cleveland Museum of Art, further studied the base and concluded that the lead in the lead based solder used to join Apollo to the base was produced a little less than 100 years ago, and is therefore not