Roman Art

[caldrail]

At the suggestion of the Augusta, lets have a discussion of roman art. In particular I'd like to read other peoples impressions of whether roman artists acurrately portrayed people or to what extent they used imagination. Ancient artwork is often flowery as a rule with little realism, but then we see things like trajans column that hint at how things really were. In particular, how real are those preserved frescoes at pompeii? Does that depict real life or a victorian-style erotic ideal? The floor is yours...

[The Augusta]

At the suggestion of the Augusta, lets have a discussion of roman art. In particular I'd like to read other peoples impressions of whether roman artists acurrately portrayed people or to what extent they used imagination. Ancient artwork is often flowery as a rule with little realism, but then we see things like trajans column that hint at how things really were. In particular, how real are those preserved frescoes at pompeii? Does that depict real life or a victorian-style erotic ideal? The floor is yours...

 

I think there are two issues here, Caldrail. The art of the Republican period tended to be more realistic, with the Republicans' taste for verismo, whereas the portraiture of the Imperial period was far more idealised, incorporating Hellenic influences, and other artifical devices to convey the new propaganda. I am not sure that Trajan's column is free of this latter influence either. Naturally, the emperor commissioned it to glorify his Dacian campaigns amongst other things, so the monument was still an object of propaganda.

 

On the thread 'Neglected Areas', MPC sensibly suggested that I provide some links to the artwork, so I am going to spend a little time doing that today. We can then get this thread going with the help of some famous (and perhaps not so famous) images. But as a little aside, I have always been impressed (from an artistic point of view) with the famous bust of Caracalla in the Museo Nazionale in Naples, which, although it was executed during the imperial period, seems to me to convey a high degree of realism. The character of the man is conveyed brilliantly without any idealism. The great frowning brow and deep-set eyes, and the almost aggressive snarl. I have always thought that this was one of the most impressive portraits of the Roman world. Accuracy? Well, this is a man you wouldn't mess with

Bust of the Emperor Caracalla in the Museo Nazionale, Napoli - image reproduced on the Wikipedia site

Edited November 18, 2006 by The Augusta

[DecimusCaesar]

Great picture! He does look rather mean and moody in that portrait, it sort of reflects his true personality in a way. I always believed that Roman sculptures from the late Republic- early Empire era as being realistic while sculptures from the later era (300-400) are more stylised:

 

Portrait of Late Roman Emperor, possibly Gratian:

 

 

Portrait of Marcus Tullius Cicero:

 

 

You can notice the obvious differance in quality. I always thought that the less realistic busts of the later era were stylised on purpose (the giant eyes, elongated heads etc) and that this was a christian influence. Is this true, or were the busts of the later era strange looking because they badly sculpted. Perhaps there is another differant reason altogether.

 

Strangely enough, portraits (like those found on tombs in Egypt) of both the early and later eras are rather realistic.

 

Egyptian woman

 

Young Woman.

 

Middle aged Woman.

[WotWotius]

On the thread 'Neglected Areas', MPC sensibly suggested that I provide some links to the artwork, so I am going to spend a little time doing that today. We can then get this thread going with the help of some famous (and perhaps not so famous) images. But as a little aside, I have always been impressed (from an artistic point of view) with the famous bust of Caracalla in the Museo Nazionale in Naples, which, although it was executed during the imperial period, seems to me to convey a high degree of realism. The character of the man is conveyed brilliantly without any idealism. The great frowning brow and deep-set eyes, and the almost aggressive snarl. I have always thought that this was one of the most impressive portraits of the Roman world. Accuracy? Well, this is a man you wouldn't mess with

Bust of the Emperor Caracalla in the Museo Nazionale, Napoli - image reproduced on the Wikipedia site

 

This bust may not be entirely 'accurate'. Caracalla enjoyed being feared; therefore, the sculptor of the above bust may have been under strict orders to make the emperor seem as menacing as possible by exaggerating certain feature (deeply-set eyes etc.).

[phil25]

I think the artificiality of the "Caracalla" bust is suggested by the pronounced "X" between the eyes which connects forehead and cheeks, and the sudden twist/turn of the head, which is seen in many derivative busts of this emperor. The aim is clearly to inspire awe/fear and to provide immediacy. It is thus an artistic contrivance. the degree of resemblance to the emperor himself is likely to have been reasonable, but heightened, IMHO.

 

Beware of the apparent "realism" of the Egyptian coffin portraits too. I used to get excited about the character which they seemed to show - personalities seemed to jump out of the frame.

 

But my reading indicates that these were pretty much "form" paintings. A young man in the family died - you bought a "young man" portrait. Simple as that. the quality depended on the price you paid. the faces are "types" not individual.

 

In the early empire we know that Gaius (Caligula) was balding early, but his portrait heads show him with plentiful hair. Augustus - even in the Prima Porta statue - is never shown as ageing. (As astonishing as Bilbo Baggin's prolonged preservation.) There is some realism in portraits of Claudius - sticky out ears etc - but he is often shown as heroic and god-like.

 

Trajan appears to have aged in sculpture as in life - there are various "old" heads. nerva is usually shown as distinguished and lined, but noble. He might have been craggy and doddery - would we ever guess from his statues or refliefs?

 

Titus again is pudgily athletic - probably he was fat, or fleshy. But as semi-divine ruler, he is made to look as though armour suits him (he had been a soldier, so perhaps muscle ran to fat once the wars were over?). Nero's thick neck and fleshy face are hinted at, decorously - but no sign of the acne we are told of.

 

Like Queen Elizabeth I, I believe Emperors and pincipes had "types" modelled at various times which contained certain individual features - the arrangement of locks of hair, the proportions, the size of nose/cin whatever. These were then copied and dispatched around the empire for local craftsment to copy. Thus many of the busts we see now were probably carved by men who had never seen their subject in life - simply reproduced using proportions and details.

 

That said, I think we have a view of what each of the main individuals looked like and would recognise them if we went back in time. But we might have some surprises too.

 

Phil

[caldrail]

I note with interest the bust of caracalla. As to whether its a good likeness I can't say, but the fierce expression is important. I think caracalla wanted to be seen as fierce, it suited his demeanour. He was a soldiers man after all, not some ponsy politician

 

Also, I agree that the portraits do show their subjects with some realism. The artwork isn't perfect however and so far I haven't seen a painting that convinces me of total accuracy. Were the great masters of the renaissance more accurate? They too used some artisitc license and I think the roman portraits would be done to flatter their subjects (alive or dead) for either the subject or their family/friends.

 

So far I find roman art as suggestive. Its rendered as close as it needs to be, in order that you recognise the subject. So unlike a modern feature film, trajans column doesn't need to be 100% accurate to convey the story. Busts on the other hand seem to have accuracy demanded of them. It seems to be a concept of recognition and respect that goes beyond painted art. Marble has a permancy about it that painted works can't emulate - is a permanent record of someone therefore not the real reason for accurate art in roman eyes?

[phil25]

Busts on the other hand seem to have accuracy demanded of them.

 

Caldrail, I am confused as to whether this is your comment, or a statement about how "busts" were regarded in Roman times. Please clarify.

 

Phil

[WotWotius]

Augustus - even in the Prima Porta statue - is never shown as ageing. (As astonishing as Bilbo Baggin's prolonged preservation.) There is some realism in portraits of Claudius - sticky out ears etc - but he is often shown as heroic and god-like.

 

Yes, the only way we can really differentiate between the later Augustan busts from the earlier ones is the fact that later busts seem look more sorrowful: maybe the weight of the Empire's affairs was beginning to take its toll on Augustus.

[The Augusta]

Some very interesting comments - especially on the idealism of portraiture. However, when it comes to the emperors/principes themselves, we have to take into account the consumer of this art. For instance, many ordinary men in the street in the capital as well as the provinces would probably spend their lives never even seeing their ruler in person - or perhaps at a very great distance during public festivals, etc. Statuary and portrait busts placed in strategic public places would be the only 'contact' the masses had with the ruler. For consumers such as these, an idealised version of the emperor would be accepted, together with its various visual messages. But what of the men of government who knew the emperors personally. A bust of, say, Caracalla, had to be readily recognisable, and must have had at least a hint of his true looks. I was interested in Wot's and Caldrail's comments about the artificiality of Caracalla's 'fierceness' carved into the portrait. This is worthy of discussion in itself. While emperors like Augustus, and even Tiberius, chose to have themselves depicted as semi-divine, serene and benevolent beings - at least in their portraits for the masses - why would Caracalla wish to have himself portrayed as a fierce, intractable ruler? This is fascinating, but we can only answer the question if we know for whom this particular bust was produced? Do Wot, Caldrail or Phil know the provenance of this bust? Do we know where it was first discovered? Was it a public portrait from the provinces? If it was a bust meant to be for the general masses, then it does tell us a great deal about how Caracalla wished to be perceived. Or were there other portraits of him that were 'gentler', and he reserved this fierce one to remind the higher orders just who was in charge?

 

As for the image posted by Decimus of Gratian? - you must all forgive my woeful ignorance here. Was Gratian a Byzantine emperor? I know aboslutely nothing about the period (something I hope to put right in the future), but I have seen the odd example of Byzantine art and this head seems to have the same stamp about it.

 

Quick edit to add: Would you say, then, that even facial flaws (e.g. Caracalla's bulbous nose) were artistic contrivances?

Edited November 19, 2006 by The Augusta

[WotWotius]

Also, I agree that the portraits do show their subjects with some realism. The artwork isn't perfect however and so far I haven't seen a painting that convinces me of total accuracy. Were the great masters of the renaissance more accurate? They too used some artisitc license and I think the roman portraits would be done to flatter their subjects (alive or dead) for either the subject or their family/friends.

 

This was not always the case during the Imperial period. For instance, the bust of the 'no nonsense', middle-class Emperor Vespasian, seem to mirror his dislike of flattery: 'warts and all' may be an apt way of describing them. Though having said that, the intensity of his expressions may have been put there to promote the image of a determined ruler ready sort out the problems that Rome faced (...or maybe I am reading too much into it?).

 

The image below may reinforce my point.

Edited November 19, 2006 by WotWotius

[The Augusta]

Those are great images, Wot. I would agree too, that they immediately seem more lifelike and 'accessible' if I can use that word. The head on the left in particular, looks like someone who may walk around the corner at any moment. I noticed on the right-hand head that deep frowning brow seen in the later bust of Caracalla. Phil, above, made a point that this was an artistic device - and it may well be that artists of the Severan period looked back to the more lifelike portraits of Vespasian for inspiration. To make a full assessment of whether, as you suggest, the intensity of expression was yet another artistic device, we would perhaps need to see a wide range of portraits from the age to compare the emperor with them, before we could arrive at a conclusion. I'll hunt about for more Flavian art.

 

Strangely enough, I am re-skimming/re-reading Grant's History of Rome again at the moment, as my bedtime reading. He has just discussed that very bust of Caracalla above, and it is his opinion that the portraiture of the Severan age almost foreshadowed the Baroque movement in 17th art and sculpture. I can certainly see what he means. If we think of the rich textures and colours of a Caravaggio or Carracci painting, for instance, there are certainly the same elements present: heavily worked features; an obsession with detail; all to create an almost larger-than-life image. Even the heavy use of chiaroscuro seems to be present in the Caracalla bust, although I realise that lighting helps us here. Grant also endorses Caldrail's argument that Caracalla and the men of the Severan age wished to be seen as militaristic and fierce. Compare this with the Augustus of Prima Porta, for instance, where even though the emperor is shown in a cuirass, addressing his troops, he wears a serene and peaceful expression - consistent with his propaganda.

 

In the early empire we know that Gaius (Caligula) was balding early, but his portrait heads show him with plentiful hair. Augustus - even in the Prima Porta statue - is never shown as ageing. (As astonishing as Bilbo Baggin's prolonged preservation.) There is some realism in portraits of Claudius - sticky out ears etc - but he is often shown as heroic and god-like.

 

Phil, there is a statue of Augustus as Pontifex Maximus at the age of about 50, in which he does actually look middle-aged, but I can't find it on the internet to point to the link. I'll do some scouring.... But, you are right of course. Fifty was about the limit. It would be nice if we had a portrait of him in his 70s. There are several statues of Livia at an advanced age, and Tiberius.

Edited November 20, 2006 by The Augusta

[Germanicus]

The Caracella bust as you mention was probably created to look so aggressive as the potential for an attempted coup was ever present.

 

Another thing to consider is that all these busts were probably painted. Which in some instances could change the whole effect of the work.

 

 

The above is based on pigment traces on the prima porta Augustus.

 

I think Romans in both the Republican and Imperial periods had an obvious love of realism, a hellenistic influence, but then I also think that idealism played a part in both periods as well. I think the Roman tendency to emphasise facial quirks, age lines and like features are often deemed "realistic" in our own time, as our idealism, and idea of beauty and virtue is not the same as the Romans. A Roman republican Patrician wanted to appear older, wiser, stern, intelligent and militarily capable, a paragon of experience, strength and wisdom. Augustus on the other hand wanted to appear God like, as did many of his successors. Vespasian possibly wanted to hark back to those republican ideals, and emphasise solid, wise rulership by the father of the people, rather than some distant, god like figure.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I think the Roman tendency to emphasise facial quirks, age lines and like features are often deemed "realistic" in our own time, as our idealism, and idea of beauty and virtue is not the same as the Romans. A Roman republican Patrician wanted to appear older, wiser, stern, intelligent and militarily capable, a paragon of experience, strength and wisdom. Augustus on the other hand wanted to appear God like, as did many of his successors. Vespasian possibly wanted to hark back to those republican ideals, and emphasise solid, wise rulership by the father of the people, rather than some distant, god like figure.

 

You took the words right out of my mouth. I agree entirely: Verism was a style, not a verisimilitude.

[The Augusta]

You took the words right out of my mouth. I agree entirely: Verism was a style, not a verisimilitude.

 

I am going to remember that one, Cato! I think you should put in 'Saying of the Day'

[caldrail]

Busts on the other hand seem to have accuracy demanded of them.

 

Caldrail, I am confused as to whether this is your comment, or a statement about how "busts" were regarded in Roman times. Please clarify.

 

Phil

 

My comment Phil. I do agree however that an 'image' is also required from the artist. Caracalla we've all pointed at. Caligula was apparently sensitive about his hair thinning and I'm not suprised in the slightest that his bust shows full hair - the artist wasn't stupid!

 

Interesting to note the painted statue - I hadn't realised they did that. I knew they painted tombstones but a statue? Whilst I doubt every bust was lovingly hand-painted too it does show that colour was very important in roman eyes.

 

There's another aspect to this that comes to mind. I remember a visit to the cirencester museum (corinium) a couple of years ago. What struck me about the artifacts on display was the dual nature of them. Most were functional and crude. Mass produced in all likelihood. Some however were of a much finer quality and quite impressive in their elegant simplicity. Hand made for discerning customers I'd expect. Does this apply to roman art? Is there evidence of 'wealthy' and 'poor' artwork?

Edited November 21, 2006 by caldrail