Kopf der Juno nach einem Gipsabguss 

Editor: This is Franz Pforr's "Head of Juno after a Plaster Cast," a drawing using chalk. There's something so serene and detached about the expression. What strikes you most when you look at it? Curator: I’m drawn to how it encapsulates Neoclassicism's fascination with ancient ideals while also highlighting the role of the “copy” in artistic training. But let’s think critically— Juno, the Roman equivalent of Hera, represents marriage and empire. By isolating her head, what aspects of female power are being erased or controlled here? The gaze is softened, made docile almost... how does this feed into the objectification of women, even within supposedly reverent artistic practices? Editor: I never considered that. I just saw it as a student practicing. Is the act of drawing from a cast inherently political? Curator: It becomes so when we start asking who gets to define beauty and power, and how those definitions are used to maintain societal structures. Pforr, as part of the Nazarene movement, aimed to revive spiritual purity in art. But that purity was often intertwined with very specific ideas about gender and nationhood. Editor: So, by idealizing this singular version of feminine beauty through Juno, is Pforr making a statement about the 'correct' image of women, whether intentional or not? Curator: Precisely. The absence of color, the smooth texture, the controlled lines... these stylistic choices create an image of womanhood that's idealized and ultimately unattainable, while simultaneously celebrating imperial patriarchy through this goddess figure. The plaster cast acts as an intermediary, reinforcing this distance. It invites us to think about how such ideals impacted the lives and representations of women beyond the canvas. Editor: I’ll definitely look at these classical portraits differently now. Thank you. Curator: Absolutely, critical engagement helps us resist the trap of passive consumption.