Context/Subject/Style
Betancourt
Johnson
Bolland
Benay & Rafanelli
Questions
Betancourt
Betancourt’s evaluation of sight and touch in “Why Sight is not Touch: Reconsidering the Tactility of Vision in Byzantium” results in the reappraisal of the two senses’ relationship; repositioning touch as a part of the cognitive process of perception and not as a haptic itinerant of visual perception. (21) This interconnected nature of the two senses can be seen within Bernini’s Daphne and Apollo. While the audience might be able to perceive the feeling of the sculpture group—the smooth, coldness of the marble—-based upon their previous experiences with the material, they must touch the figures in order to understand their feelings in totality. This is not to say that sight is less important than touch in such cognitive processes; instead both work together to create resonance within the act itself.
Johnson
In “Touch, Tactility, and the Reception of Sculpture in Early Modern Italy”, Johnson advocates for a reexamination of the hierarchy of the senses within our art historical understanding of sculpture in the early modern period; asserting that our modern biases towards ocularcentricity have unfairly shaped our understanding of early modern attitudes towards the senses. (62-63) This idea is furthered by the author’s discussion of tactility's paralleled importance to sight within the comprehension and appreciation of sculpture in early modern Italy. (64-65) The author identifies three distinct types of touch significant to sculpture that could be distinguished within this period: the devotional, talismanic touch reserved for religious devotees in their veneration of relics (66), the caressing touch of the collector whose tactile urges are driven by a need to possess (66), and the hand of the maker—a touch that is magically generative. (69) Bernini’s Apollo and Daphne would be the object of the collector’s possessive grasp— not only through the implicit tactility its formal qualities exhibit but through its subject matter. The story itself is a tale of possession; while Apollo is not able to claim Daphne as his bride, he is able to claim her post-transformation as the laurel wreath he is synonymous with.
Bolland
Bolland’s explorations into the Apollo and Daphne statue group in “Desideiro and Diletto: Vision, Touch, and the Poetics of Bernini’s Apollo and Daphne” reveals the thematic idea of transformation as a site for discussing the paradoxical “sight vs touch” debate in relation to both the work’s subject and the nature of its creation. The author posits that Bernini’s portrayal of Daphne’s metamorphosis and the story’s use of sight and touch is reflected upon ontological ways of knowing; as vision’s illusions give way to the realities that tactility confirms.(313) But just as sight presents an illusionary quality, the artist presents to us the ways in which touch may also deceive us. Utilizing paragone definitions of touch, the author asserts that Bernini confounds both within the context of sculpture; representing a confirming touch that misrepresents reality—-Apollo’s embrace of Daphne’s laurel form—-and an erotic touch left unsatisfied—the space between the figures solely occupied by their breath (322-323)
Benay and Rafanelli
In “The Decorum of Touch: Private Devotional Images of St. Mary Magdalene and the Noli me Tangere in Central and Northern Italy”, Benay and Rafanelli examine the conscious transformation of Mary Magdelene’s iconography by artists and patrons in the Noli me Tangere as a way to create a new virtuous and sensuous devotion for women in 16th century central and northern Italy. (149) Art theoreticians at the time believed in the “ability of visual artists to instill belief by rendering their subjects visible and convincing viewers of the corporeal reality of the subject, in turn inspiring love, fear or feelings of devotion,”—-meaning the works themselves acted visual confirmations of reality, alluding to a certain hierarchy of the senses that was both reinforced and questioned by the contemporary paragone debates. (154) Yet the subject of the three Noli me Tangere discussed within the chapter is predicated upon the sense of touch; or, better yet, the lack of touch. A lack that is echoed within Bernini’s Apollo and Daphne sculpture group. While the Noli me Tangere eschews the senses to create certainty, Bernini’s sculpture utilizes touch, or lack thereof, to sow uncertainty—-in reality and the stratified paragone debates.(169)
Questions
- Drawing upon Johson’s three types of touch, how does the type of touch displayed within the Apollo and Daphne group change as its context is altered from a private residence to a public gallery? How does the evolution of viewing practices from the Renaissance to the present affect the type of touch we assign to this object?
- Based upon contemporary belief in the influential power of the visual arts, how does intentionality in the viewing experience prime the audience of Apollo and Daphne to encounter love, fear, etc.?
- How does the viewer's prior knowledge of the story contribute to their sensuous experience of the viewer? Utilizing Corbin’s social semiotics, how would the viewer’s class and knowledge of the story affect their sensory experience with the statue group?
Context/Subject/Style
Created over a span of three years starting in 1622, Bernini’s life size, Baroque, marble sculpture Apollo and Daphne tells the mythological story of its titular figures. In Ovid’s Metamorphoses, the story of Apollo and Daphne acts as an origin myth for the god’s signature laurel wreath; beginning with a tiff between Apollo and Cupid, the plot is enacted when the winged god strikes Apollo with a golden arrow and Daphne, a nymph, with a leaden arrow—- leading the former to fall madly in love and the latter to flee from love. Thus ensues a chase, its ending resulting in Peneus, A river god and Daphne’s father, transforming Daphne into a tree to escape Apollo. Bernini’s detail-oriented reshaping of Daphne’s fingers into shrubbery cements the statue as a tangible representation of the Metamorphoses while his figures’ active poses and open mouths create a temporality in which the transformational act can be experienced infinitely; where strong emotions of fear and desire converge within the body of the viewer. Apollo and Daphne was one of four statue groups—- its companions being Aneas and Anchises (1618-1619), Pluto and Prosperina (1621-1622), and David (1623-1624)—- commissioned by Cardinal Scipione Borghese for his villa outside of Rome; its creation acting as both the beginning and end of the artist’s working relationship with the Cardinal Nephew, as the religious figure’s status would fall and never recover after the death of his uncle Pope Paul Ⅴ.
Object Annotation #3
Morgan Boudousquie
Created on October 10, 2025
Start designing with a free template
Discover more than 1500 professional designs like these:
View
Decisions and Behaviors in the Workplace
View
Tangram Game
View
Process Flow: Corporate Recruitment
View
Weekly Corporate Challenge
View
Wellbeing and Healthy Routines
View
Match the Verbs in Spanish: Present and Past
View
Planets Sorting Game
Explore all templates
Transcript
Context/Subject/Style
Betancourt
Johnson
Bolland
Benay & Rafanelli
Questions
Betancourt
Betancourt’s evaluation of sight and touch in “Why Sight is not Touch: Reconsidering the Tactility of Vision in Byzantium” results in the reappraisal of the two senses’ relationship; repositioning touch as a part of the cognitive process of perception and not as a haptic itinerant of visual perception. (21) This interconnected nature of the two senses can be seen within Bernini’s Daphne and Apollo. While the audience might be able to perceive the feeling of the sculpture group—the smooth, coldness of the marble—-based upon their previous experiences with the material, they must touch the figures in order to understand their feelings in totality. This is not to say that sight is less important than touch in such cognitive processes; instead both work together to create resonance within the act itself.
Johnson
In “Touch, Tactility, and the Reception of Sculpture in Early Modern Italy”, Johnson advocates for a reexamination of the hierarchy of the senses within our art historical understanding of sculpture in the early modern period; asserting that our modern biases towards ocularcentricity have unfairly shaped our understanding of early modern attitudes towards the senses. (62-63) This idea is furthered by the author’s discussion of tactility's paralleled importance to sight within the comprehension and appreciation of sculpture in early modern Italy. (64-65) The author identifies three distinct types of touch significant to sculpture that could be distinguished within this period: the devotional, talismanic touch reserved for religious devotees in their veneration of relics (66), the caressing touch of the collector whose tactile urges are driven by a need to possess (66), and the hand of the maker—a touch that is magically generative. (69) Bernini’s Apollo and Daphne would be the object of the collector’s possessive grasp— not only through the implicit tactility its formal qualities exhibit but through its subject matter. The story itself is a tale of possession; while Apollo is not able to claim Daphne as his bride, he is able to claim her post-transformation as the laurel wreath he is synonymous with.
Bolland
Bolland’s explorations into the Apollo and Daphne statue group in “Desideiro and Diletto: Vision, Touch, and the Poetics of Bernini’s Apollo and Daphne” reveals the thematic idea of transformation as a site for discussing the paradoxical “sight vs touch” debate in relation to both the work’s subject and the nature of its creation. The author posits that Bernini’s portrayal of Daphne’s metamorphosis and the story’s use of sight and touch is reflected upon ontological ways of knowing; as vision’s illusions give way to the realities that tactility confirms.(313) But just as sight presents an illusionary quality, the artist presents to us the ways in which touch may also deceive us. Utilizing paragone definitions of touch, the author asserts that Bernini confounds both within the context of sculpture; representing a confirming touch that misrepresents reality—-Apollo’s embrace of Daphne’s laurel form—-and an erotic touch left unsatisfied—the space between the figures solely occupied by their breath (322-323)
Benay and Rafanelli
In “The Decorum of Touch: Private Devotional Images of St. Mary Magdalene and the Noli me Tangere in Central and Northern Italy”, Benay and Rafanelli examine the conscious transformation of Mary Magdelene’s iconography by artists and patrons in the Noli me Tangere as a way to create a new virtuous and sensuous devotion for women in 16th century central and northern Italy. (149) Art theoreticians at the time believed in the “ability of visual artists to instill belief by rendering their subjects visible and convincing viewers of the corporeal reality of the subject, in turn inspiring love, fear or feelings of devotion,”—-meaning the works themselves acted visual confirmations of reality, alluding to a certain hierarchy of the senses that was both reinforced and questioned by the contemporary paragone debates. (154) Yet the subject of the three Noli me Tangere discussed within the chapter is predicated upon the sense of touch; or, better yet, the lack of touch. A lack that is echoed within Bernini’s Apollo and Daphne sculpture group. While the Noli me Tangere eschews the senses to create certainty, Bernini’s sculpture utilizes touch, or lack thereof, to sow uncertainty—-in reality and the stratified paragone debates.(169)
Questions
Context/Subject/Style
Created over a span of three years starting in 1622, Bernini’s life size, Baroque, marble sculpture Apollo and Daphne tells the mythological story of its titular figures. In Ovid’s Metamorphoses, the story of Apollo and Daphne acts as an origin myth for the god’s signature laurel wreath; beginning with a tiff between Apollo and Cupid, the plot is enacted when the winged god strikes Apollo with a golden arrow and Daphne, a nymph, with a leaden arrow—- leading the former to fall madly in love and the latter to flee from love. Thus ensues a chase, its ending resulting in Peneus, A river god and Daphne’s father, transforming Daphne into a tree to escape Apollo. Bernini’s detail-oriented reshaping of Daphne’s fingers into shrubbery cements the statue as a tangible representation of the Metamorphoses while his figures’ active poses and open mouths create a temporality in which the transformational act can be experienced infinitely; where strong emotions of fear and desire converge within the body of the viewer. Apollo and Daphne was one of four statue groups—- its companions being Aneas and Anchises (1618-1619), Pluto and Prosperina (1621-1622), and David (1623-1624)—- commissioned by Cardinal Scipione Borghese for his villa outside of Rome; its creation acting as both the beginning and end of the artist’s working relationship with the Cardinal Nephew, as the religious figure’s status would fall and never recover after the death of his uncle Pope Paul Ⅴ.