evolution of architecture, sculpture?

[caesar novus]

I wonder if architecture and sculpture styles changed significantly during empire days.

 

For example, I really resonate to Roman sculpture which is supposedly copies of Greek ones (which I don't resonate to and seem "mannered" rather than natural). So I wonder did the Romans pick up where Greece left off and evolve a slightly different style?

 

I gather their love affair with Greek sculpture and architecture came from their conquest of Siracuse... maybe that colony had a unique style that the Romans picked up and didn't evolve? I realize there is a big pitfall to my uniqueness theory in that perhaps many Roman sculptures were done by Greeks.

 

Another oddity was that a detailed re-creation of the Baths of Caracula (shown on history channel?) made it look startlingly Byzantine, especially in it's exterior structure. I'm wondering if this late date building is part of an overall evolution which was preceeded by Hadrian "pumpkin-domed" villa, or if styles were relatively static during peak empire days (not counting technology changes, such as for water). A poor reproduction below:

 

Edited July 10, 2009 by caesar novus

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

I realize there is a big pitfall to my uniqueness theory in that perhaps many Roman sculptures were done by Greeks.

 

One of the greatest architects of the 2nd century was a Greek called Apollodorus, commissioned by Trajan, he was responsible for his forum, column, baths and market among other things.

[Klingan]

I gather their love affair with Greek sculpture and architecture came from their conquest of Siracuse... maybe that colony had a unique style that the Romans picked up and didn't evolve? I realize there is a big pitfall to my uniqueness theory in that perhaps many Roman sculptures were done by Greeks.

 

Don't forget that the taste for Greek art came not only from Syracuse, but all over the Greek world during the long conquest of it (from the conquest of the southern Italian cities to Sullas campaigns in the east).

 

Another oddity was that a detailed re-creation of the Baths of Caracula (shown on history channel?) made it look startlingly Byzantine, especially in it's exterior structure. I'm wondering if this late date building is part of an overall evolution which was preceeded by Hadrian "pumpkin-domed" villa, or if styles were relatively static during peak empire days (not counting technology changes, such as for water). A poor reproduction below:

 

Changes in architecture and art are already in motion, slowly, by this time. Consider that some even argue that Roman history should end with Marcus Aurelius (Even if I believe that is very premature), others say Alexander Severus (while some say Diocletianus, Constantine, Romulus Augustus etc). Anyway my point is that this is a period that tend to spark thoughts of change towards the middle ages and byzantine period. I'm not trying to say that the baths of Caracalla were byzantine in style when first constructed, but they may very well have been moving in that direction so to speak.

[sylla]

Consider that some even argue that Roman history should end with Marcus Aurelius (Even if I believe that is very premature), others say Alexander Severus (while some say Diocletianus, Constantine, Romulus Augustus etc).

Maybe; but the Romans themselves argued something quite different:

 

"Oh!" you say, "You mean Byzantium! That's not the Roman Empire! That's some horrible medieval thing!" That certainly would have been news to Constantine, or to Zeno, or to Justinian (527-565), or even to Basil II in the 11th century (963-1025). "Byzantium," although the name of the original Greek city where Constantinople was founded, and often used for the City (as by Procopius), was not a word that was ever used to refer to the Empire, or to anything about it, by its rulers, its inhabitants, or even its enemies. The emperor was always of the "Romans," Rh

Edited July 14, 2009 by sylla