CJ-ONLINE Archives

June 2010

CJ-ONLINE@LISTS.UMN.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Reply To:
Classical Journal On-Line <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 2 Jun 2010 13:35:30 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (160 lines)
The Social History of Roman Art. By PETER STEWART. Cambridge and New York: 
Cambridge University Press, 2008. Pp. xvi + 200. Cloth, $99.95. ISBN
978–0-521–81632–8. Paper, $34.99. ISBN 978–0–521–01659–9.

Order this text for $31.19 from Amazon.com
using this link and benefit CAMWS and the Classical Journal:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect-home/classjourn-20

This and previously published CJ Online reviews are at
http://classicaljournal.org/reviews.php


CJ Online 2010.06.02

The study of Roman art has changed, says Stewart, in that it now deals more
with the role of art in ancient society. From wall-paintings to statues,
from coins to gravestones, this is a fresh look at Roman art. In five
chapters S. explains how Roman art has moved from a marginal to a
significant place that deserves serious attention. Chapter 1 deals with the
making of art; Chapter 2 with the role of domestic and funerary art;
Chapter 3 with portraiture and its role in social relationships; Chapter 4
with the popular theme of “the power of images” in imperial and
political representation and religion; Chapter 5 with the Hellenic heritage
of Roman imperial art and with alternative, non-classical traditions. S.
offers not only a survey but a discussion of some of the images and
approaches in current thinking about art in Roman society.

The first chapter concerns the absence of information about individual
artists and the nearly total lack of documentary evidence. Roman authors
pay almost no attention to contemporary artists, but just as Roman works of
art in all periods are modeled upon classical Greek models, so too Romans
look to Greek artists of the past. Indeed, the evidence for the names of
the artists of Roman art is chiefly Greek. Pliny the Elder virtually
disregards Roman artists but does mention a few of them alongside their
famous Greek predecessors. There are even inscriptions of Roman sculptors
called Myron and Phidias. An inscribed marble statue base from the Campus
Martius may belong to artists in imperial Rome called “Phidias and
sons.” But the overall point is that the patron, not the creative artist,
played the leading role in the development of art in Rome.

The chapter entitled “Identity and Status” examines why work on Roman
art is increasingly interested in “identity” and
“self-representation” with an emphasis on personal identity and social
status. The most profound mark of identity in the world of the Roman elite
was the private house and the art it contained. The Villa of the Papyri at
Herculaneum with its huge collection of bronze and marble sculptures is a
good example. But wall-paintings and other domestic decoration do not offer
the best indications of social or economic standing. The “Second-Style”
frescoes from the 40s BC from Oplontis offer fine examples of
wall-paintings evoking self-conscious illusions of luxury. The evidence
from Pompeii and Herculaneum is of such high quality that there has always
been a temptation to “read” houses for more specific messages about the
status, identity and personality of their owners. At the other end of the
social spectrum, remains of monuments from imperial Italy represent lower
social classes, including wealthy freedmen. Some of the “biographical
sarcophagi,” which originated with the senatorial aristocracy and can be
linked to the aristocratic equestrian order and wealthy freedmen from the
2nd to the 4th centuries AD, have scenes that either constitute a sort of
curriculum vitae of the deceased or depict Greek heroes as ideal models for
the dead person. This allegorical use of myth on sarcophagi displays
learning and a conspicuous nostalgia for the Greek past and the
appreciation of Greek culture within the Roman empire.

“Portraits in society” offers a look at the most familiar and often
misunderstood of Roman art-forms. Portraits, largely a Greek invention,
were used by the republican nobility to preserve the images of their
ancestors. The noblility also set up public, honorific statues to one other
authorized by the senate and as self-promotion. Portraits came to be used
by a broader social range in the imperial period. The most prestigious
portraits in the Roman empire were set up in prominent places like the
forum or agora, especially for public patronage or benefaction. Imperial
portraits were used in all kinds of contexts, and in many parts of the
empire (especially the eastern provinces) for the worship of the living
ruler himself.

“The power of images” examines the power and prestige of religious and
political images in Roman art. Both small- and large-scale imagery was
important for disseminating messages about late republican statesmen or
imperial rulers in the vast territories of the empire. The reliefs from the
Arch of Trajan at Beneventum are a fine example of this “billboard”
type of imperial advertisement; so too Trajan’s Column, relating his
successful campaigns against the Dacians, presents a sustained visual
commentary that was frequently emulated under subsequent rulers. The Ara
Pacis Augustae has a similar purpose with its resonant political imagery
found in Augustan public art and poetry. Such imagery focuses on the
“real” martial achievements of the emperor and on his religious and
civic deeds.

Art was used for a variety of religious purposes in the Roman world, and
the use of statues to represent the gods in human form was of central
importance. As cult images, statues stood for the absent gods and were not
considered gods themselves. Schematic depictions of cult statues in their
temples often appear on coins minted in Rome or in the Greek communities of
the empire. One of the most widespread categories of Roman art comprised
small votive reliefs with isolated images of gods with their regular
attributes. The mystery cults of Isis and Mithras used strong religious
iconography to promote their tenets. Christianity, however, is
art-historically and archaeologically invisible before about 200 AD.
 
Artistic production in the Roman world was thoroughly shaped by Greek
artistic traditions even if not actually by Greek artists. But Greek art
evolved into something rather different in the context of Roman society.
Mosaic, originally a Greek invention, demonstrates this well, since it
ultimately spread to every part of the empire as a typical aspect of Roman
artistic culture. So where and when does Greek art stop and Roman art
begin? By the 1st century AD, Roman culture was already saturated with
Greek art, with Pliny the Elder himself as our best source for ancient
Greek art history. Pausanias later wrote an educated traveler’s guidebook
to mainland Greece. The sanctuaries he surveyed are treated as religious
sites, but he also comments on the subjects and the antiquity of works of
art, their artists and the stories around them. In the Roman east,
non-classical styles were popular and the conventions of Greek and Roman
art made only slow headway. But art in Roman Britain often seems to be a
poor imitation of a Roman tradition itself derived from Greece. The demand
for artistic products (tombstones) from Britain and Germany may be a factor
here. Many Romano-British votive reliefs may look simple because of their
adherence to indigenous cult, not because they are failed attempts to
imitate classical art. Italy could even be influenced by provincial art.
For all the cultural diversity of the empire, its provinces and populations
had much in common. Art provided a common language of empire, not only for
those who made or bought the objects themselves but for those who used and
viewed them. Decorated villas and the image of the emperor on coins or in
statuary were familiar to the majority of the empire’s population.

The late empire saw the rise of a new elite. The art of the period could be
seen as “plebian” in a new context—produced by and responsive to
society. But the classical tradition of naturalistic art continued to
thrive. Many of the finest and most naturalistic Roman mosaics, in areas
such as North Africa, Cyprus and Syria, date to around the 4th century AD.
We also look to certain centers of production for domestic sculpture,
chiefly Aphrodisias. Hoards of late Roman silver and carved ivories also
date from this period. Imagery of pagan mythology, including the world of
Dionysus, often dominates Late Antique art. Even on a somewhat lower social
level of artistic imagery, such as the decorated textiles surviving from
Egypt, traditional mythical imagery is widespread. Such imagery remained
popular among Roman Christians and ensured the survival of Roman artistic
forms into the Middle Ages.

Though S.’s book is not a handbook or introduction, its social historical
approach offers a unique perspective into the form, use and reception of
Roman art. This is art not merely as it imitated classical Greek models but
also as it captivated the mind and spirit of provincial practitioners of
the less elite classes. The author has produced a valuable study that will
challenge long-established views of the subject.

PAUL PROPERZIO
Boston Latin Academy


If you have been forwarded this review, you may subscribe to the listserv
by sending an email to: [log in to unmask]
Leave the subject line blank, and in the first line of the message write:
SUBSCRIBE CJ-Online

You may remove yourself from the CJ-Online listserv by sending an email to:
[log in to unmask]
Leave the subject line blank, and in the first line of the message write:
UNSUBSCRIBE CJ-Online

ATOM RSS1 RSS2