A research programme based on empirical methods (3)

Another illustration: the Strasbourg Thinker plaster shows a left foot that is slightly different from the corresponding foot of other Thinker plasters in Paris, Béziers and Dresden. Still, the originality of the Strasbourg plaster is beyond doubt: Rodin himself attended the opening of the Strasbourg exhibition of 1907, and documents proof that the Strasbourg Thinker plaster was directly purchased from him. 

When we allow for such a variation, though, how should we evaluate differences between studio and foundry plasters, or between first-generation plasters and duplicates? How do we value an imperfect cast or a damaged plaster, when even generally accepted reference objects show differences among themselves, or display damage and repair?

And if we would precisely compare the various versions of a single subject, would it be possible then to differentiate between characteristics they all have in common and must have their origin the same prototype, and singular details that have their root in the peculiar casting of a single item, or later damage?

In order to create and empirical basis for such discussions, we plan to set up a database that contains high-resolution photos made after an standardized method, and morphological data that allow for an exact comparison in three dimensions. Before such a database could be created, however, appropriate methods of photography and spatial documentation had to be explored and corporate partners to be won for this project.

Here you can read more about the possible art-historical applications of our 3D documentation programme.