The variety of locations at which Gerber’s casts were exhibited at the fair contributed to the importance of the casts in Germany’s celebration of its national identity. Gerber’s casts were on view in the German State Building, Palace of Education, Palace of Varied Industries, and, most prominently, in the Palace of Liberal Arts (Gerber 1904: 9, 18). Germany was, in fact, the centre of the plaster cast movement in Europe and thus it is logical that it would promote this strength with one of its most successful cast makers (Nichols 2006: 117).[4] The rise of nationalism during the 19th century fostered an ideal environment for museums and cast makers alike to promote their national heritage and to push for national art production (Frederiksen and Marchand 2010: 7). In considering their context in a building specifically dedicated to Germany and their commission by the state, it becomes clear that the casts in the German State Building were especially evocative of this nationalism and celebrated the nation through their subject matter: they represented leaders, scholars, musicians, orators, champions of liberty, and scientists who appropriately illustrated the achievements of the German people (Fig. 1). Gerber’s plaster busts of notable Germans, such as Winckelmann and Goethe, placed in the German Educational Exhibit, promoted the importance of Germany in the fields of art history and classical studies (Fig.  2; Gerber 1904: 8). Thus, the context of these casts demanded a nationalistic spirit advancing the nation of Germany and the German educational system.

The casts also championed Germany through their materiality and manufacture since they embodied exquisite craftsmanship and archaeological accuracy as claimed by Gerber himself in his catalogue (1904: 21-23). At the very centre of the German University Exhibit stood Gerber’s cast of Athena Lemnia, which served as the axis around which the other exhibits rotated. Its central position represents the great importance of classics and antiquity in general to the university exhibit (1904: 23-40). Also, the original statue from which the cast of Athena Lemnia was taken was in fact a reconstruction, pieced together by the German archaeologist and art historian, Adolf Furtwängler. [5] Again, displaying this cast of Furtwängler’s reconstruction boasted of German scholarship and lent legitimacy to the statue. Therefore, the cast of Athena Lemnia highlighted interests in promoting German involvement not only in classical archaeology but also in art history.

The ways in which August Gerber focused on the materiality and, specifically, the colour of the casts, contributed to their perception as accurate art objects and enhanced their educational value. Although plaster casts traditionally remained white in order to facilitate comparison, Gerber went against this trend, stating that his were toned, bronzed, or painted in accordance with the original to ensure that the viewer received a correct impression of the work (Gerber 1904: 8).[6] Gerber believed that colour would lead to a better understanding of classical art: “All these casts ... enable one to understand the different kinds of classical art, as white casts cannot possibly do” (Gerber 1904: 17). This assertion would explain why Gerber put so much effort into ensuring that he portrayed the original colours of works of art. In fact, in regard to his bronze-coloured casts, Gerber claimed, “the artistic imitation is so perfect that any one without touching the sculpture would believe it to be nothing less than real metal” (Gerber 1904: 17). In this concern with reception, Gerber revealed that he was interested not only in dictating that the viewers see his casts as works of accurate art but also in ensuring the didactic role of his casts.

Perhaps the most significant demonstration of colour as a tool of accuracy is demonstrated by the way in which Gerber chose to produce the cast of Athena Lemnia, essentially creating a new work of art (Fig. 2). Although the original sculpture was made of marble, Gerber coloured it as antique bronze, referring to the original Greek, bronze Athena of Lemnos that Phidias was believed to have made instead of the Roman copy as reconstructed by Furtwängler (Gerber 1904: 8). In this way, Gerber suggested that his cast was even more accurate than the sculpture from which it was moulded. His bronze would evoke the ultimate original copy of Phidias, changing the meaning of the cast through temporal references. During this period, plaster casts were not always coloured. In fact, it was thought that colour might divert from the actual form of the sculpture. Therefore, art educators and teachers generally preferred the whiteness of the casts (Van Rheeden 2001: 220-21). This preference suggests that Gerber was not falling in with a trend to colour the casts but was colouring them in order to promote his vision of referring to the statue from which the mould came.

The way in which Gerber coloured Athena Lemnia was not a singular example as is noted by the way in which he addressed colour in his 1904 catalogue of his exhibit. Gerber listed the works, not necessarily by their original material, but by the “material” in which he coloured them. For example, he also championed the original Greek medium and not the surviving Roman marble copy in his listing for the Apoxyomenos, which is as follows: “Statue APOXYOMENOS, Vatican, Rome, bronze” (Gerber 1904: 11) (Fig. 3). In this way, Gerber continually suggested that his plaster copies were more original than the original copy of the statue on which it was based.

One of the primary aims of the firm of August Gerber was to supply plaster casts for educative purposes, an aim that was supported by their display within the German Educational Exhibit. Here, the exhibitions of casts, reflecting the influence of both Gerber and the government, demonstrate fluidity in function. These exhibits were very select and designed with the purpose to exhibit items with which North American educators had limited familiarity (Gerber 1904: 5). Furthermore, Gerber was perhaps more interested in disseminating his casts and in their educative and nationalistic values than in financial gains since he provided his casts free of charge to the German State Building. However, this is the only venue in which it can be proven that he definitively donated the casts, and his motivations behind the donation might simply reflect a desire to advertise.

Gerber’s plaster casts displayed in the German University Exhibit of the Palace of Education were in accordance with the German educational exhibit’s mission to educate visitors about the accomplishments of the Empire’s universities. Since the section of the exhibit of the universities was limited, the exhibitors decided to “include things belonging to the last ten years and arousing more than a local interest” (1904: iii, vi-vii, 45). Gerber considered his casts instructive, stating that both students and the general public would be interested in “collections of artistic casts made up in this manner” (Gerber 1904: 17). These casts included busts of noted Germans and the Athena Lemnia statue and would thus be instructive in the history of German scholarship.

Gerber’s casts were promoted instead as aesthetic artworks in the Classical Gymnasium Exhibit devoted to the German school based primarily on the classical literature of the ancient Greeks and Romans (Bahlsen 1904: 6). The casts were described as “artistic wall decorations” and comprised ancient and medieval statues as well as an assortment of classical and modern busts of noted writers and philosophers (Bahlsen 1904: iv-v). The purpose of the wall decorations was “to educate the taste and esthetic feeling of young people rather than to influence their intellects or enlarge their knowledge” (Bahlsen 1904: v). So while these plaster casts had a didactic function, it was not to teach students the history of art as in the university exhibit but rather to promote taste, much like plaster casts were to civilize the general public. Gerber even claimed that his prices did not reflect that of a monopoly, but rather could be afforded by rich and poor institutions alike, allowing for all to cultivate artistic sense and good taste (Gerber 1910: 11). This claim highlights the role that casts played in the world at large as a tool to refine and cultivate taste in educative settings.

However, Gerber’s exhibits in the Palace of Education were not the only ones that revealed his didactic interests. Gerber’s attitude toward his exhibits in the Palace of Liberal Arts indicate that they served as accurate objects to educate the public in the history of art—not just in aesthetic appreciation. In the Palace of Liberal Arts the casts were grouped into Sculptures of Antique Art, Sculptures of the Italian Middle Age, Sculptures of the German Middle Age and Sculptures of Modern Art, following the typical classification systems used in textbooks of ancient sculpture and art at the time, such as the sculptures in the Portico of the Fine Arts Palace representing the great periods of art. This presentation as works of art, rather than as ornamental elements in an environment, and classification according to culture and chronology, would suggest that they were being treated as if genuine objects in a museum and would therefore necessitate their viewing as legitimate artworks. Indeed, their very presence in the Palace of Liberal Arts, celebrating artistic achievements, required the casts to be viewed as such.

August Gerber’s casts at the fair demonstrate how important context and environment can be when determining the agenda and artistic quality of the collection. Even within Gerber’s largely didactic collection of casts, meaning was nuanced in relation to their different locations at the fair. Casts in the German Building promoted nationalism; in the Palace of Education they promulgated the importance of learning; and the casts located in the Palace of Liberal Arts demanded treatment as works of art.

According to the secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, G. Brown Goode, the USNM became involved in expositions in order to educate American visitors and impress foreign ones and he stated that “all of this is accepted without complaint, because though the Museum undoubtedly loses much more than it gains on such occasions, the opportunity for popular education is too important to be neglected” (SIA, Record Unit [RU] 55, box 19, folder 9). Numerous agencies, including the Louisiana Purchase Exposition, the Division of Anthropology and the USNM, dictated the subject and theme of the exhibit. The plaster casts fell in line with the educative themes of the exposition and its mission to educate visitors about the pinnacle of humankind’s achievements by promoting Mesoamerican and North American Indian works as art.

The Department of Anthropology’s exhibit within the USNM also adhered to the goals of the Division of Anthropology, an entity at the fair that was located on the opposite side of the fairgrounds from the U.S. Government Building. William J. McGee, the chair of the Division of Anthropology, asserted that these exhibits should trace the course of human progress (Parezo and Fowler 2007: 49). By including both indigenous and European works, the exhibit undoubtedly achieved this goal.

The classical plaster casts, arranged according to culture, were only one segment of the Department of Anthropology’s exhibit in the USNM’s space in the U.S. Government building (Fig. 4). The remaining portion of the exhibit included Mesoamerican and North American Indian artifacts and plaster casts.[7] During preparations for the fair, one of the organizers described the exhibit’s goals as “covering the entire range of arts and manufactures of the Native American peoples, so selected as to illustrate their artistic or esthetic development; the specimens chosen in each case to be the best examples of their kind” (NAA, Holmes to F. W. True, December 16, 1902, outgoing correspondence, BAE, 1902). The director of the Department of Anthropology, William Henry Holmes, stated of the exhibit: “I hope to make this extremely attractive, since it will bring together examples of the best work, the finest carvings, paintings, sculptures, etc., found in America” (SIA, RU 70, box 62, folder 16, November 16, 1902, letter from Holmes to F. W. True). Therefore, selecting only the best and most aesthetically pleasing works of indigenous art advanced the art of the Americas as well as inherently presented an evolutionary model in comparison with the casts.

The classical plaster casts ultimately evoked a comparison with the indigenous works of the Americas. The final anthropology exhibit as described by the USNM was as follows: “The theme was to show the aesthetic achievements of the Native American peoples. In conjunction with this was shown some of the works of art of ancient civilizations of the old world” (SIA, RU 70, box 70, folder 3). In this comparative context then, it was critical that the plaster casts were seen as works of art that then worked to promote the indigenous arts of the Americas to a similar status. Despite the fact that the plaster casts as a whole were divided from the Mesoamerican and North American artifacts by means of a narrow walkway, they were still connected to one another through their materiality. In addition to plaster casts of indigenous sculpture, there were also plaster architectural models that were especially commissioned for this exhibit and would have been clearly visible from the classical plaster cast section. This section included models of the Temple Xochicalco, the Temple Hall of the Columns, the Temple of the Cross, the House of the Governor in Uxmal and the Castillo and presented the most comprehensive display of Native American architecture seen in a public exhibition (SIA, RU 70, box 70, folder 1: Report on Exhibits of the Department of Anthropology and the Bureau of American Ethnology, 1905). Even more blatant was the incorporation of two pieces of indigenous pottery on top of the screens dividing the classical plaster casts (Fig. 4). Therefore, regardless of the fact that the casts and indigenous artifacts were not intermingled, they were clearly intended to reference one another.

Although archaeological and ethnographic materials often coexisted with the rationale that classical study was incomplete without including more medieval studies, and thus encouraged an evolutionary model, I would argue for their primacy as artworks. In fact, it was necessary that the plaster casts be regarded as accurate artworks in order to present the Mesoamerican and North American ethnographic materials and artifacts, some of them the very same medium of plaster, as aesthetically valuable artworks (Beard 1993: 4).[8]

The classical plaster casts that were specifically chosen and organized by Adler and Casanowicz demonstrate concerns with accuracy. The fact that they obtained “original casts” directly from museums and distinguished cast makers suggested that they were high-quality casts and thus made certain that they were historically accurate works of art. [9] The cast of the head of the Diskobolos is unique in this collection of plaster casts because its original label survives, describing the work as a “cast of a marble copy in the Lancalotti Palace, Rome.” This label suggests that Adler was making the viewer aware of its reproductive status and was not as concerned with its originality, demonstrating the tensions that exist in plaster casts. Since Adler sought to promote Native American art through its correlation to canonical works, only the casts’ reference to the original was important. Its association with the original enhanced the status of the American artifacts displayed in conjunction with it, essentially reclassifying these ethnographic objects as works of art.

Anomalously included with the Egyptian casts was an “original” Roman portrait. Adler pushed for the purchase of this portrait because, according to a letter he wrote, this was a sort of painting that was “not known to exist … until a few years ago, when a collection was found in Upper Egypt.” He continues,

this collection is the only one known and is probably 2000 years old. I was very anxious to have a specimen of this lost art in the exhibi- tion, as being something rare and unique and illustrating one important phase in the history of the arts. (SIA, RU 70, box 61, Adler to Ravenel, Aug. 4, 1904)

The importance of this portrait is further attested by the fact that Adler originally wished to purchase two encaustic portraits, but was only able to afford to purchase one (SIA, RU 70, box 71, folder 4; MSC, accession record no. 43048). Although this piece stands out because it was the only non-plaster cast material exhibited, I would argue that its medium was acceptable because its value as a work of art far exceeded the need for it to be sculptural in form. As Adler stated, this was a recently discovered art form, at least to the USNM, and thus it placed the Department of Anthropology within the current developments of the art world, again emphasizing the importance of aesthetics. I would suggest that the portrait, out of all the “real” classical artifacts the USNM was in possession of at this time, was purchased and displayed because of its status as a newly discovered art form, which indicated that the plaster casts were also chosen for their artistic merit and educational functions. The plaster casts might also be regarded as genuine artistic works despite the fact that the encaustic portrait displayed alongside the reproductions blatantly questioned their legitimacy. In this context, then, the plaster casts and encaustic portrait lent each other artistic accuracy and signified the difficulty of attaching any fixed meaning to the plaster casts.

A series of Roman reliefs from the Arch of Trajan at Benevento symbolize the USNM’s struggle to promote the objects in their exhibits as both works of art and of empire. The casts were acquired from The American School of Classical Studies in Rome and were not originally slotted for the exhibit. When first investigating plaster casts, H.  Langley, the secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, wished to instead obtain a cast section of the Column of Trajan for the centre of the Rotunda, adjacent to the department’s exhibit. Not only was the column symbolic of the height of ancient art in Rome, but it also spoke to the height of the Roman Empire and Roman imperial power. In a letter, Langley wrote, “I want to have it in evidence that the Museum exists for art as well as for science, and such a thing as this column is a most suggestive reminder” (MSC, accession record No. 42866). The Column of Trajan, then, was intended to promote the USNM as an art institution as well as a place of natural history and science. In addition, Langley asserted that while world fairs commonly used European art to show an evolution of humankind, this particular exhibit was more concerned with the idea of “art” than evolution. Since the museum was unable to acquire the piece, the Smithsonian Institution decided to commission a local plaster artist to make a Goddess of Liberty instead for the rotunda.[10]

Nonetheless, the USNM purchased another piece of architectural sculpture from the reign of Trajan for the amount of $316, the greatest amount the department spent on a single group of casts from the same monument, signifying the enormous importance of the reliefs (MSC, Accession record 42866, LPX Order #459). By displaying these reliefs, the USNM promoted a comparison with the indigenous American objects in the exhibit that incidentally also highlighted the tensions between the evolutionary model and the objects as works of art. This comparison was further facilitated by the fact that the Arch of Trajan relief panels spoke highly to empire, emphasized especially by the ways in which the plaster casts were divided into cultural empires. The cast relief of the personification of Mesopotamia on bended knee before Trajan is particularly jarring since this scene of submission, in relation to the indigenous plaster casts displayed nearby, implies that the Department of Anthropology was referencing empire-building. This may indirectly relate to the empire-building of the Mesoamerican cultures whose art, including casts of deities and rulers, was displayed nearby, thus drawing a comparison between the two (SIA, RU 70, box 79, folder 1, Report of the Department of Anthropology, 1905 by Holmes, 31). If the cast of Mesopotamia was an allusion to empire-building, the relief would then also resonate with the greater exposition at St. Louis itself, since it was in celebration of the acquisition of the Louisiana Purchase and the possibility of an American empire. The fact that they chose another victory monument from the reign of Trajan signifies the USNM’s interests in connecting old and new world archaeology through empire and the displaying of art with themes of conquest.

The plaster casts present at the USNM’s exhibit at the Louisiana Purchase Exposition were utilized to represent the primary concern of the Department of Anthropology in displaying ideal ancient works of art, embodying some of the greatest civilizations of the past, in order to promote indigenous objects as valid works of art. The department’s primary interests are further evidenced by the fact that at the following and smaller 1905 Lewis and Clark Centennial in Portland, Holmes chose only to send the Mayan plaster model temples, which were considered the most striking objects from the exhibit (SIA, RU 70, box 65, folder 10; SIA, RU 70, box 70, folder 3). The long-validated standing of the classical casts displayed in this exhibit served to augment the status of the anthropological collections and place them also within the realm of acceptable art. In order for this to be accomplished, it was critical that the plaster casts were seen as genuine works of art themselves. It was this specific context within indigenous art and artifacts that mandated that these casts be viewed as artworks. This exhibit reveals the ability of plaster casts to accrue multiple levels of significance: asserting the casts as artworks, promoting indigenous, ethnographic materials as works of art, paralleling the idea of evolution in the Americas and Europe, and stressing the similarity of empire-building. By exhibiting these plaster casts at the 1904 Louisiana Purchase Exposition, the USNM was appealing to the public for this change in the discourse of Mesoamerican and North American art.

The ways in which context dictates meaning is well illustrated by the fate of the casts from the 1904 world fair exhibit of the United States National Museum, now called the National Museum of Natural History (NMNH). The plaster casts have remained with the NMNH since their exhibition at the fair despite the diffusion of the USNM into different divisions within the Smithsonian Institution. Although the casts have remained in the collections, they appear to have never been utilized as they were at the fair, only being exhibited again once more in 1922 under the direction of Casanowicz.

Despite the fact that many collections faced storage, neglect, and destruction during the first three quarters of the 20th century, the fates of some plaster casts were spared with the revival of casts that began in the 1970s and 1980s and continues still today (Stone 1987: 33). The resurgence really began to take shape after the publication of Taste and the Antique: The Lure of Classical Sculpture 1500-1900 by Haskell and Penny in 1981 that brought further attention to the rise in popularity of plaster casts that began in the late 15th century (Nichols 2006: 119). Following this renewal in interest, museums and universities began once more to utilize their cast collections.[17] They were deemed valuable to both university and public museums as didactic tools to teach the history of art, mythology, and drawing.

This type of revival is noted with the plaster casts of August Gerber that ended up at the State Normal School, now Southeast Missouri State University. In 1975, the casts were again put in the public eye by a front-page article in the Southeast Missourian. The article bemoaned the fate and destruction of some of the plaster casts. Perhaps, then, it is not surprising that in the following year, what thirty-eight casts remained from the collection were gathered, restored, and then transferred to the Southeast Missouri Regional Museum by the director at the time, James Parker. The casts remained in the museum until it relocated and the decision was made not to include the casts since the new museum would focus on the archaeology, history, and fine arts of the southeast Missouri region (Southeast State Missouri University 2007). In 2007, The class of 1957 raised $100,000 dollars in order to have the casts restored and moved to the new Aleen Vogel Wehking Alumni Center, where they now line the walls of an auditorium area (Fig. 6).

This exhibit of the plaster casts in the Alumni Center has interesting implications in terms of the reception of the objects. While no longer in an authoritative museum setting that lends the objects authenticity, the casts are still promoted as significant. While most of the casts are on the perimeter of the space and delimited by a velvet rope that serves as a boundary for visitors, the plaster busts that occupy the stage of the auditorium effectively place the casts in an authoritative role and position of prestige within the space. In this auditorium environment, the function of the casts is to provide an appropriate aura for a reception space rather than any sort of overarching didactic purpose as they had previously commanded in the university or museum setting.

It is important to note that the collection of classical plaster casts at the NMNH of the Smithsonian Institution currently remains in storage. It is perhaps unusual that a museum of natural history would even have such a large collection of plaster casts—around 150 total, including casts that were also displayed at the 1893 World’s Columbian Exposition. The plaster casts are large items and take up a great amount of space in storage facilities, so it is intriguing that they still persist in a natural history museum with no curator in classical archaeology and few formal connections to the field of art history. I posit that this collection has survived the neglect and destruction often sustained by casts in art museum and university settings in the midcentury because they were in a natural history museum where they essentially remained hidden in plain view, on the whole spared from being physically destroyed.

The context of a museum of natural history provided an environment more embracing of reproduction than an art museum. While there are other artworks from the classical world in storage along with the plaster casts, only several are on exhibit in the Western Cultures Hall. In a natural history museum, “real” objects and reproductions are regarded on a more equal level. In the discipline of anthropology, reproductions are not always viewed with the same stigma as they might be in an art museum. In fact, taxidermy, an exhibition practice originating from international expositions and regularly featured in museums of natural history, is a process of replication that echoed the function of plaster casts as they stood for the experience of the authentic and were meant to be didactic (Wonders 1989: 131-42). A simple keyword search of “cast” in the NMNH artifact database comes back with about 2,500 results. Perhaps, then, the plaster casts of antique subjects in the NMNH are valued as authentic objects within the context of other reproductions in a natural history museum and have thus been retained.