Any of you guys good at recognizing statues

[RTHolmes]

the statue is a different size, the steps are completely different, the plinth is completely different, and there was no building like the one in the background before, during or after the war. this photo is not of the Teatro Massimo.

the woman on lion is a good spot though, any idea who it is?

[Chalenge]

The opera house and the street beside it were remodelled in the 1990s. The building to the northwest was knocked down in the 1990s to increase parking for the opera. The best evidence that this is the site is that this is exactly where the army unit mentioned was stationed.

38° 7'14.21"N   13°21'28.23"E if you want to see it from Google Earth.

[RTHolmes]

what about the steps? they havent changed since the 1890s. or the plinth? or the size of the statue?

[megadud]

close but no. you are more then welcome to think it is the one though. 

[Midway]

Not the same statue.  Look at the tail in the OP, it is horizontal and stays straight in line with the lion's back for some length.   In your picture the tail immediately slopes downward.

[mtnman]

Honestly, I have no idea about the location, and whether or not they may have swapped statues at some point to protect one...

The statue in the photograph is obviously not one of the ones currently at the Teatro Massimo though.

For what it's worth, I'm quite convinced that the object on the lion in the OP's photo isn't a woman at all.  

It's definitely not a woman similar to the ones at the Teatro Massimo.  The one at the Teatro that most closely resembles the OP's photo is the one where the woman is blowing a horn (the other one is on the wrong side of the lion).  The woman with a horn has a gown or pad that drapes down the side of the lion.  This gown isn't present on the OP's photo.  Also, her hips are completely wrong to match his photo.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/goldenhen/1432475345/lightbox/

Maybe there's a chance the OP's photo has been reversed??  If so, the second lion statue at would jump out as a possibility...  But then, the lion would be facing the wrong direction, the tail is wrong, etc...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/12334578@N02/1431090205/lightbox/

It's not one of these two lions.

I'm also noticing other facets of the sculpture that I find interesting (I do have a degree in art, and have a lot of art history under my belt...).  For one, the facial rendering and musculature in the OP's lion along with the way the mane is rendered differ enough from the lions at Massimo to convince me it isn't even the same artist, maybe not even from the same region or "school of thought" as the artist who rendered the Massimo lions.  I personally don't find the one in the OP's photo as appealing as the lions at Massimo.  I think the head looks too big, and the body too short lengthwise.  

Also, I'm suspicious of the object on the back of the lion.  Why is the soldier being photographed in front of the lion?  What was his (or the photographer's) train of thought??  The "goal" was obviously to show the two of them together (both are subjects), so why not show the entire statue?  Why leave one of the key facets of the statue out?  If there was a woman on the statue, I would think we'd see more of her in the photo.  Maybe the photo is cropped.

Maybe it's a duffel bag. Or at least it's not a person's "rump" that we're seeing.  Maybe a leg, with the knee at the lower right?

[ink]

Honestly, I have no idea about the location, and whether or not they may have swapped statues at some point to protect one...

The statue in the photograph is obviously not one of the ones currently at the Teatro Massimo though.

For what it's worth, I'm quite convinced that the object on the lion in the OP's photo isn't a woman at all.  

It's definitely not a woman similar to the ones at the Teatro Massimo.  The one at the Teatro that most closely resembles the OP's photo is the one where the woman is blowing a horn (the other one is on the wrong side of the lion).  The woman with a horn has a gown or pad that drapes down the side of the lion.  This gown isn't present on the OP's photo.  Also, her hips are completely wrong to match his photo.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/goldenhen/1432475345/lightbox/

Maybe there's a chance the OP's photo has been reversed??  If so, the second lion statue at would jump out as a possibility...  But then, the lion would be facing the wrong direction, the tail is wrong, etc...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/12334578@N02/1431090205/lightbox/

It's not one of these two lions.

I'm also noticing other facets of the sculpture that I find interesting (I do have a degree in art, and have a lot of art history under my belt...).  For one, the facial rendering and musculature in the OP's lion along with the way the mane is rendered differ enough from the lions at Massimo to convince me it isn't even the same artist, maybe not even from the same region or "school of thought" as the artist who rendered the Massimo lions.  I personally don't find the one in the OP's photo as appealing as the lions at Massimo.  I think the head looks too big, and the body too short lengthwise.  

Also, I'm suspicious of the object on the back of the lion.  Why is the soldier being photographed in front of the lion?  What was his (or the photographer's) train of thought??  The "goal" was obviously to show the two of them together (both are subjects), so why not show the entire statue?  Why leave one of the key facets of the statue out?  If there was a woman on the statue, I would think we'd see more of her in the photo.  Maybe the photo is cropped.

Maybe it's a duffel bag. Or at least it's not a person's "rump" that we're seeing.  Maybe a leg, with the knee at the lower right?

now that you mention it, what is on top of the Lion in the OP's pic...is not part of the statue.....definitely not.

[RTHolmes]

looks like sidesaddle to me, which suggests a woman. classical women were rather ... um ... fuller in the figure than todays fashion.

[zack1234]

Riding horses is odd

[ink]

looks like sidesaddle to me, which suggests a woman. classical women were rather ... um ... fuller in the figure than todays fashion.

(Image removed from quote.)

na...its not part of the statue.....totally different...it is some kind of fabric....

[RTHolmes]

yes its supposed to look like fabric, although in a stylised, sculpted kinda way ...

[ink]

yes its supposed to look like fabric, although in a stylised, sculpted kinda way ...

na..... it has none of the age to it.....it would have the same consistency(color) of the material if it was a part of the statue.....

there is no Age to it apart from the photo itself.


 

 

[RTHolmes]

I dont see it, we'll have to disagree on that one.

[1pLUs44]

i'm curious now, mind if i share it on a bigger sight?

You are more than welcome to sir. 

[mtnman]

looks like sidesaddle to me, which suggests a woman. classical women were rather ... um ... fuller in the figure than todays fashion.

(Image removed from quote.)

Look at the angles and anatomy, and I think you'll see where this doesn't work (Google some side saddle images for more clarity, you can find a rider in the same position as the supposed rider on the lion).

When riding side saddle, the rider's forward knee is almost always higher than her pelvis; sometimes nearly level with it, but seldom lower than it.  It is is arguably lower, the angle is very slight.

That would mean the "lion rider" would have to be facing backwards, so what we see as potentially her knee would actually be her buttock.  If it is her buttock that angles down and to the left, she's also nearly falling off of the lion.  In order to get her left cheek that low she'd need to be facing backward,leaning way over, and sticking her rump out (towards us).  Very odd.

Now, look at the folds, and try to envision how they'd occur.  They wouldn't occur "naturally" at all.  They almost have to be forced.

I'm not positive it isn't part of the statue, and that it isn't a rider, but I highly doubt it.  I can't wait to see it positively identified.