Talk:Roman art

Untitled

mmmmph. Working on expanding this article...along with the Roman Architecture and Roman Sculpture. Any help would be much, much appreciated. Please. I'm begging, here. Verloren Hoop 13:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

We really need some pictures of well-preserved Roman paintings! Ashibaka tock 01:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

French article quite good; doing some other Greco-Roman translations - will stick the appropriate parts on my list, will work on them at User:Bridesmill/Sandbox - should be up in a week or so.Bridesmill 17:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Stylistic Periods

As stated above, Roman Art is often divided into four distinct periods.

Republic

509 BCE-27 BCE

Early Empire

27 BCE-96 CE

High Empire

96-192 CE yes i have a coconut handcarved in the roman era i believe....it was captured from the germans in a castle in Italy by my grandfather during world war 2 and i was looking for a person with roman art experience...davidstarkeysc@aol.com

Late Empire

192-337 CE

Removed from article - what is source for this? What is it? only thing in article that was 'stated above' was Mau's 4 periods of painting.Bridesmill 00:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Mosaics?

Shouldn't a mosaic section be there? 84.222.238.92 (talk) 00:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Who is Piper?

There are several refs to him, but no book mentioned. Also Janson. Johnbod (talk) 10:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It appears to be David Piper, whose book appeared at ref #7 (now moved to the "sources" section). Rami R 14:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thks - I missed that somehow Johnbod (talk) 15:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Theodosius

Where can I find an article about Roman art in Theodosius' time? Like his obelisk base. 81.68.255.36 (talk) 23:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a search has already found Obelisk of Theodosius. Otherwise it is a weak area. Johnbod (talk) 01:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, unfortunetaly, that article doesn't quite cut it. It's strange, I only know the busts of Caesar etc. and Pompeiian frescos and then I know that Decius returns to the old Republican art. Then you'll see Constantine and Theodosius, Justinian with some really different mosaics. I mean, did they lose their appetite for busts or you know whatever. I suppose it's like you said, at least at wikipedia there are no articles describing the changes in art etc. Cheers 81.68.255.36 (talk) 22:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed move

I've long thought that this article should be moved to "Ancient Roman art," since obviously there's such as thing as non-ancient Roman art. But I now wonder whether the correct name would be Art of ancient Rome, like Pottery of ancient Greece. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support "Art of ancient Rome". — ^[dave] cardiff | _chestnut — 17:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Note: my support is transferable to Ancient Roman art, though I just as a matter of taste prefer topic + descriptor headwords of the sort that introduce the "of" formulations which Johnbod dislikes. I do think a move is warranted: though in classics we do say "Roman art", and often title introductory books on the subject that way, more specific titles seem a better way to go in the public square of Wikipedia. — ^[dave] cardiff | _chestnut — 22:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Humph! So you support us having (as we do) Art of the United Kingdom, rather than "British art"? But most of that series use the adjectives. Johnbod (talk) 00:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I know ... I'm an awful prig, suffering from syllablismus and topicfrontitis :) As long as "ancient" sneaks in there somewhere I should recover. I had no idea there were such things as either Art of the United Kingdom or British art, I much prefer the refined work of the American masters, like this sublime representation of Danae. (I should point out that it's awful and vulgar before anyone clicks.) — ^[dave] cardiff | _chestnut — 01:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support Ancient Roman art; I dislike the "of" formulations. Johnbod (talk) 20:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
• I'm not sure a move is necessary, since as Cynwolfe points out, "ancient" is already implied in the subject. I'm not exactly objecting, but I find the simpler title preferable. Kafka Liz (talk) 20:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I only mildly support a move, although we do use "Ancient" for most Roman uses. Johnbod (talk) 20:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, no, my point was that because there is abundantly such a thing as non-ancient Roman art, the article needs to reflect the scope of the article. My proposal was prompted by the recent addition (now removed) of "illuminated book manuscripts," I think it was, as an example of ancient Roman art. I'm not entirely comfortable with "of" formulations either, and one always gets into what "ancient Rome" was: the Urbs or the vast political entity. I'm not sure I'm in full command of WP usage of "of" vs. "in": it's not "Religion of ancient Rome," but Religion in ancient Rome; and not "ancient Roman religion" (that's a redirect), because the latter refers more specifically to the so-called "religion of Numa", or the archaic traditions and religious apparatus of Rome from the earliest period, and the article covers the practice of religion throughout the vast entity known as ancient Rome in all periods. There's also Sexuality in ancient Rome, again because it covers not just sexual attitudes and behaviors of people born as Roman citizens, but the collective sexuality of the entity "ancient Rome." These titles and the discussion thereof all occurred before I participated in any of the articles. I'm fine with "Ancient Roman art"—even if we don't know whether art as a product of ancient Roman culture was actually made by people who were ethnically Roman. In classics we say "Roman art" because we already know we're dwelling in the ancient world. By comparison, the article is Ancient Greek art, but the lede refers to "the arts of ancient Greece," so one must ultimately shrug. Really I should refrain from worrying about "Roman art" until we do something about the appalling state of Latin literature. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually there were ancient Roman illuminated manuscripts, though the few survivors, like the Heracles Papyrus (3rd century), Chronography of 354 (a later copy), Vergilius Romanus, Vergilius Vaticanus, Ambrosian Iliad, etc might best be called "Late Antique". But I think there is ample documentary evidence that the form was not new then. Johnbod (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean "illuminated" or "Illustrated"? I thought "illumination" referred to a specific technique. Technical works, such as those of Vitruvius, had diagrams and so on, but if editions of Ovid pre-codex were regularly provided with full-color illuminations, then this is just something I don't know and haven't seen discussed in the standard histories of Latin literature. I don't really see it as a defining form of ancient Roman art that merits attention in the first paragraph of the article. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

A) No, it doesn't, in normal usage, and B) several of these manuscripts are in full colour etc. It was obviously expensive & only for the rich, and no examples survive, but AFAIK there is no reason to think that some degree of illustration was not routine in luxury copies of literature, as well as medical books and, for example, Jewish religious manuscripts - there is much speculative discussion of these latter types as lost models for later manuscripts. No doubt such speculation takes literary historians out of their comfort zone. See for example pp 246-7 of Henig, Martin (ed), A Handbook of Roman Art, Phaidon, 1983, ISBN 0714822140 Whether it deserves mentioning in the first para I don't know, but the form would certainly be covered in a better article, where numerous other forms of art might also be mentioned in the lead. But in true WP style we are discussing what to call a crappy article rather than improving it. Johnbod (talk) 15:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm familiar with the mss. you refer to; whether they are defining works of "Roman art" is another matter, because as you point out they belong to late antiquity. Literary historians regularly discuss Latin literature, particularly Augustan literature, in relation to wall painting and to popular entertainments such as mima, so I'm pretty sure that if there were a meaningful tradition of "book" illustration they could reference, they wouldn't refrain from including it. So the snotty remark is perhaps not based on actual knowledge of how contemporary classicists discuss literary culture in Rome. Right about the crappy article, though. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, in my experience illustrated papyrus rolls start to show up in reasonable numbers in the second century AD, though if the Artemidorus papyrus is taken at its face, the phenomenon must have already been known in the Augustan period. Unfortunately most of our illustrations have survived without the associated text, if there was any, and so a surprising number haven't even been published. Most are monochrome, but a few incorporate reds and yellows; in papyri a greater color palette can be found in the early herbals, which will unsurprisingly bring in green. Every once in a while one surprises me, like Cupid and Psyche in PSI VIII 919. I haven't seen anything like full, color illumination on anything before vellum, which makes practical sense. — ^[dave] cardiff | _chestnut — 15:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

That's a lovely link. My point would be that there's plenty of Roman art extant, and it's misleading in the intro to imply that physical books are a major part of what the ancient Romans thought of as "art", compared to public sculpture and the ubiquity of painting, not to mention architecture, though it has its own article. Ordinary Romans saw these kinds of art daily, and art was an important part of their identity as a people—purposefully so in the case of art dedicated for public viewing in the Republic, and art designed for Imperial ideology and the creation of a "Roman" identity throughout the empire. Not to mention the artistry of small objects, such as mirrors and vessels, that were also part of that broader cultural identity through trade. Sorry to get vehement, but Johnbod and I have had a discussion before where I felt he didn't sufficiently recognize that "ancient Roman" can be either an ethnic label, meaning someone from a Roman gens, or a political designation, meaning someone who is a Roman citizen living anywhere in the Empire, and therefore also a Greek, Gaul, Jew, Carthaginian or any number of ethnic designations. There is always potential ambiguity in the phrase "ancient Roman" as to whether one means somebody who traced their ancestry back to the tribes of Romulus, or a "Roman citizen" in general. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

It would be a matter of context. How the phrase is used. The phase alone means little unless used properly with other information.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Well I can't speak to all that, but the only papyrus I've seen approaching an illustrated edition of a literary (non-technical) work is a 2nd-century roll that might have included monochrome line-drawings of dramatis personae from Menander. I don't recall Pliny or Gellius saying anything on this topic, but might be wrong, and, in any event, my zeal for discussing papyri is contributing to our losing sight of the move proposal. — ^[dave] cardiff | _chestnut — 16:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I have no recollection of the discussion you mention, though it seems likely you misrepresent my position. Pliny mentions Varro for one as a patron of illuminated books - see the Intro to Weitzmann, Kurt. Late Antique and Early Christian Book Illumination. Chatto & Windus, London (New York: George Braziller) 1977. The only difficulty in discussing it is that we can only guess what it looked like until a late period. Your comments would also apply to the Middle Ages, where illuminated manuscripts were equally rarely, if ever, seen by most people, yet are universally accepted as highly "defining" of the art of the period. Johnbod (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Yest there is such a thing as non-ancient Roman art, but there would only be confusion if the terminology used for that thing is confused with the art of the Roman Empire period? We don't (surprisingly - are the terms outmoded or what?) have articles titled "Venetian Art" or "Florentine Art", so it seems there is probably not a "Roman art" term for the art of Renaissance Rome and so no confusion exists to be fixed. Meowy 14:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• No, I see I misread your original post, my mistake! I'm going to hold off commenting on the manuscript aspect of this discussion until I've read the entire thread (more carefully this time), but I'm still inclined to the opinion that a move is not really necessary, though not something I object to. Kafka Liz (talk) 00:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Is a move going to happen here, or should we remove the template from the article?  ^davidiad_.: 21:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Kafka Liz. I don't think a move is needed but won't object if it is done.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Illumination and illustration

[Segregating this topic from the move proposal, if no one objects]

That's what I get for claiming to know Pliny at all. It's right near the beginning, 35.11, and Weitzmann is kind enough to rub salt in wound by calling it "famous". The passage is:

M. Varro benignissimo invento insertis voluminum suorum fecunditati <etia>m septingentorum inlustrium aliquo modo imaginibus, non passus intercidere figuras aut vetustatem aevi contra homines valere, inventor muneris etiam dis invidiosi, quando inmortalitatem non solum dedit, verum etiam in omnes terras misit, ut praesentes esse ubique c<e>u di possent. et hoc quidem alienis ille praestitit.

What does Weitzmann say about aliquo modo? I haven't looked at any of his stuff in at least two years and remember mass speculation for the earlier periods. — ^[dave] cardiff | _chestnut — 21:44, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

He says of the passage as a whole (& it's a bit of a leap for sure) "This suggests the mass production of ambitiously illustrated literary texts and an active market for them in pre-Christian times" (which is NB more than could be said for the medieval period, just as the Quedinburg fragment would appear to come from a far more richly illustrated text than any later manuscript bible). I don't know if you mean Weitzmann or Pliny but "mass speculation" is pretty inevitable in any discussion of high-end early Roman art. Johnbod (talk) 22:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

When people hear "illuminated manuscripts," whether it's correct or not, they think of the richly colored medieval examples in bound books, and the attendant monastic culture, which is a misleading picture to have in mind in a consideration of Roman papyrus illustration. That's really all I meant to say, before I let that remark about literary historians being ignoramuses push my buttons. (Usually I'm defending art historians as more frequent _targets of this charge.) Varro's book had imagines of famous people, and was widely disseminated, but again, we know little else about these portraits, though perhaps a little more about how sufficient copies of the book could be produced to send in omnes (!) terras. The Romans had illustrated sex manuals, too, and portable paintings (tabellae), of which our knowledge is also limited because of the vagaries of survival, resulting in an art historical emphasis on wall painting because we have a much better idea of "what it looked like". A fairly important thing in talking about art. So surely due weight in an art historical article would require the intro to mention the wall painting of Pompeii and Herculaneum as important sources of our knowledge of Roman painting before worrying about illustrations in papyrus. I've belabored this simple point far too much here, so apologies. Nor do I care that much about the article title, since after all it's easier for me to link to Roman art, as I do almost daily, than to a longer but more accurate title. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what you're saying here - we shouldn't disturb people's misconceptions? Was I wrong then to point out elsewhere (as a quote) that "by 1300 most monks bought their books in shops"? Johnbod (talk) 22:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Architecture

While we are at it we should follow normal practice and remove the section on architecture, merging to the amazingly weak Roman architecture. Or rename the article Roman art and architecture (or whatever...). Johnbod (talk) 02:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)