If the relationship of Canova’s Venus and Adonis in Naples inspired authors to reflect on sculptural production, the completion and display of Triumphant Perseus (1787–1801) in Rome enabled viewers to rethink the relationship between ancient and modern sculpture. When exhibited in both his studio and the Museo Pio-Clementino, Canova’s Triumphant Perseus was juxtaposed with one of the Vatican’s treasures, the Apollo Belvedere. The comparison allowed viewers to think more deeply about artistic training, particularly how artists selected their subject matter, determined the figure’s composition, and positioned their works in relation to those of their predecessors. At the same time, these juxtapositions, and the focus they brought to the antique objects and their legacy, also established the modern definition of “imitation” as a negative term.

Imitation as Creative Practice

Sculptural practice, as we learned from Venus and Adonis, was often misunderstood by both critics and viewers who were ignorant of the complexities of the craft. Yet, if the technical and physical aspects of execution were confounding, so too was the process of invention itself. The conceptual process that lay behind artistic creation was often framed in terms of genius, with its concomitant emphasis on inspiration and spontaneity. What this emphasis on brilliance discounted, however, was the elaborate process of artistic training that was the true foundation for invention.