Ancient sculptures bring on endless philosophical arguments regarding what is an appropriate form of restoration and what is not.

The question of where to draw the line is arbitrary but the problem persists because most sculptures from ancient times have large chunks missing and often are missing their heads because of deliberate vandalism by invading forces. The Lansdowne Athlete at the LACMA is an example of a sculpture that is missing many parts: the arms, the nose, and the top of the head. The sculpture is a Roman copy of an original by Lysippos made in either 1st century BC or 1st century AD. It is a marble statue of 75 inches in height. The figure is in the contrapposto stance common of the style at the time and is taking a step forward. It had parts in 18th century added to it which were later removed and kept in storage. The fragmented nature of the scultures did not appeal to the neoclassical tastes of 18th century. This sculpture, however, is a lucky example of restoration removal that is not up for much debate. The figure still has integrity even though it has a few of the listed missing parts. Its face, which is important, is more or less intact and the figure is standing upright with its impression of movement still visible. The missing arms, if restored would not add much to the sculpture and the addition of these parts will not be worth the loss of authenticity. The statue of Leda and the Swan at the Getty is a Roman copy of an earlier Greek statue made in 300 BC attributed to Timotheos. The subject matter involves Zeus disguised as a swan making love to the queen of Sparta. The statue is of marble created around 100 AD and is 52 inches in height. This sculpture has a head foreign to its body, allegedly of Venus. The restored head certainly does not depict the intended sexual nature of the sculpture. Its expression is rather neutral. If the head is removed, the statue will lose its impression on the common viewer and will become relatively useless to them. Perhaps knowledge is the best option and knowing that the head is foreign to the body will help the viewer who is interested enough imagine perhaps a more suitable head/face and at the same time the statue will not lose its integrity to the common viewer because of a missing head. The Lansdowne Herakles at the Getty Villa is a Roman copy created in 125 A.D. likely inspired by a Greek statue from the fourth century B.C. It is a marble statue standing at 75 inches. It depicts Herakles with a club over its shoulder and a lion skin in his right hand. The identity of the figure is drawn from these objects because Herakles was usually depicted with a club and the skin of the Nimean lion, and was actually the most frequently depicted figure from Greek mythology. The figure is in a gracious contrapposto stance and has better defined muscles than the Landsdowne athlete probably because of the vast legends of Herakless strength in Greek mythology. Currently the sculpture includes the 18th century restorations by Carlo Albacini. They were once removed and modern fills

replaced them in the 1970s but this was eventually reversed perhaps indicating that the 18th century restorations hold their own historical significance apart from the ancient statue. Perhaps the most enigmatic of the sculptures presented here is the kouros at the Getty Villa. The dolomitic marble statue stands at 81 inches. In its honest description it states that the Greek sculpture was either made in 530 B.C. or is a modern forgery. It is believed to have been not a representation of one particular person but the idea of youth itself. It is said to represent the ideals of the Aristocratic culture of Ancient Greece like arete which referred to everything morally pure and noble. One of the features of the sculpture that favor the hypothesis that it is authentic is in the proposed direction of motion of the figure. The left foot is making a step parallel to the axis of the right foot which indicates that the figure is moving towards the right. If the figure was moving directly forward then the left foot would face outward. It is said that all kouroi indicated a subtle direction because of where they were placed in the temple. Unlike the other Getty Vila sculptures noted here, the kouros is not in the contrapposto position. The statue instead is standing straight and its muscles are more define, the muscular lines are sharp, almost mathematical and less relaxed than the previous sculptures mentioned. The Wounded Youth sculpture at the Getty has almost every major body part missing. It is a Roman marble statue made around 100 A.D. and it stands at 57 inches tall. This life sized statue copies a series of statues carved in Greece in late 300 B.C. The statue stands apart from the rest of the Getty statues listed here by showing a wounded person in probably agonizing pain and the extreme depiction of motion. A restoration with an unrelated head attached to this sculpture would have been an awkward match considering the emotions the statue is supposed to convey. There seem to be no major restorations or additions to this statue and is a good example of the impression statues like this might leave on the viewer. A lot of questions arise regarding some of the restorations that are done on sculptures of ancient eras. The question is where to draw the line and when are restorations justified and when do they intrude on the originals authenticity and or simply not worth it. The Lansdowne athlete at the LACMA for example has its legs and face intact. It is missing its arms mostly. If the legs were missing as well then many viewers would feel that the completeness of the statue was lost. It would have been justified in this case to restore the legs or if 18th century restorations were made, to keep those restorations, rather than removing them. This is especially true in the case of legs of a statue because these body parts leave very small room for personal artistic improvisation, even less so if the

figure is in a contrapposto stance. If a sculpture can be cleansed of any additions and still keep most of its integrity and cohesiveness then these 18th and 20th century intrusions are largely unneeded but if all that is left of the statue is a body without any limbs and/or a head then the statue itself becomes rather unpresentable for a museum. If the question is whether to keep the 18th century restorations or the 20th century ones, most people would pick the 18th century because it offers a historical perspective. The series of restorations of a sculpture, though deteriorate from the original artists work, do provide the history and life of the sculpture.