Getty images are artifacts with origin from the ancient Greece-a period when male glamor and boyish charm was the order; thus, this kind of passion orchestrated Getty Kouros’ design. It is currently situated in Malibu California and believed to have originated during the archaic period in Greece. Lapatin’s focus, in his article, delves much on the realism dilemma, and according to him, the Kouros is modern. The authenticity of this particular Kouros, portrait of a man, has been the center of controversial debates, continually provoking discussions between various scientists and art historians. In this particular case, Lapatin (2000) advances a unique perspective, offering insight into the possible lack of authenticity of the artifact.
According to Lapatin (2000), the issue of Getty Kouros’ legitimacy is still a mystery as it remains in question. No one has ever put forward genuine evidence to prove that the current artifact is the actual Kouro. One major problem faced in art industry is that “forgery can be indicated by any number of errors or inconsistencies, authenticity, the philosophers tell us, cannot be proven” making it impossible to ascertain Kouros (Lapatin, 2000, p.44). Arts, science, and history have been used to explain whether they are fake or genuine, but the statue has persisted to be problematic. Each one of the evidence has been contradicting the other in one way or another, and as a result, it has been difficult to ascertain the truth.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
As evidence to ascertain his stand, Lapatin argues that styles, history, and iconography collectively ascertain that the statutes are modern. To prove this, the author proposes that the carbon-14 tests, an apparatus for the testing of age of ancient archeological artifacts, offers a “validity that has been long accepted” by people to believe that some of them are modern, and not ancient as believed by some people (Lapatin, 2000, p.50). As far as scientific testing is concerned, people would quickly believe that the outcome is true-so is the author. Together with the design problems embedded in the artifact, the author was then compelled to take the side that the artifact is indeed modern. Furthermore, a convincing appeal has been made to the readers, specifically, where the author denotes that careful assessment shows that the way they are made does not seem to match the tools used in ancient times. In fact, the analysis shows that they “were sculpted by power tools rather than hand tools, and were unquestionably subjected to artificial “aging” by the application of acid poultices,” (Lapatin, 2000, p.50). Notably, the use of modern tools and aging chemicals in this case is evidence of occurrence of forgery.
In another evidence to prove the standpoint of the author, a proof he considers as the most positive, the Getty Kouros’ head and Roman torso appears to be red herrings, and coincides to similar fashion to “rumors that the Kouros was carved in the same atelier, or earlier in the century, by assistance to Rodin or Dossena’ (Lapatin, 200, p.50). The dilemma, according to the author, seems genuine and logical. However, “rumors” as stated, can be elusive and may mislead readers. However, his analysis of Kouros’ red herring comparison is convincing and proves his viewpoint. However much each scientific, stylistic, historical, materials, and technique evidence tries to authenticate forgery or authenticity, the conclusion still stands to be a problem as each one of them would take a contrary position to another; therefore, befuddling the reader on what ground to base the supposition.
Furthermore, Lapatin appeals to readers with the use of other renowned art historians who casts suspicion with the use of features. The anatomical features depicted of Getty Kouros indicates discrepancies worth questioning. However, the evidence of an image to establish the assessment truth about the art is non-existent; thus, lack of valid comparison apparatus. For example, some argue that its ears are not aligned evenly-evidence of the use of separate schema or lack of it. Some flaws concerning the unfinished anatomy prove that whoever was working on it willingly abandoned the job in order not to produce a flawed artifact. Some analysts have even signified the use of marble, a material believed to be from Thasos Island, and a date when its use is quite unexpected, to be robust evidence of forgery.
From Lapatin’s perspective, it is evident that lack of authentic evidence to ascertain Kouros show that art as a discipline lacks believable proofs to existence and roots of specific artifacts. It places art enthusiasts in a position of a dilemma in entirety, as finding concrete proof on the provenance of certain artworks cannot be enabled, either by origin or design. Further, the author notes that this would encourage imperfect understanding of artifacts, limitation to perspectives, and biases.
The Getty Kouros is no doubt a central dilemma issue. Historians and scientists possess varied evidence to prove ether it is fake or genuine with use of divergent perspectives. Lapatin seemingly has a standpoint that it is fake, especially citing the evidence of the carbon-14 test. Also, errors and design inconsistencies, comparisons with some artifacts such as the Roman torso, discrepancies in anatomical features, the material used in general architect, and fact that some would talk of the entire divergent perspective and its history as damning ascertain the dilemma surrounding Getty Kouros.
References
Lapatin, Kenneth. “Proof: The Case of the Getty Kouros.” Notes in the History of Art, 20.1 (2000), pp. 43-53.
