3 ms·

What’s the consensus on whether Roman statues were intended to be realistic, or perhaps were idealizations, or even whether the statue makers had the ability to

by jl6 6y ago

What’s the consensus on whether Roman statues were intended to be realistic, or perhaps were idealizations, or even whether the statue makers had the ability to truly capture realistic features rather than work to a “type”? “Lely's painting style was, as was usual at the time, intended to flatter the sitter. Royalty in particular expected portraits to show them in the best possible light, if not to be outright fanciful. Lely's painting of Charles II shows what was expected of a painting of a head of state in the 17th century. It emphasizes the shapely royal calves - a prized fashion feature at that time.” https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/warts-and-all.html https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/warts-and-all.html

Bayart 6y ago
There's not one Roman style and there were wild variations across different eras. I'll skip the archaic and early Republican stuff because it's either too rough or derivative to be called specifically « Roman ». Late Republican busts are assumed to be very realistic. My understanding is that they're largely derived from mortuary masks made for the cult of ancestors that was prevalent at the time. It's obviously impossible to say how accurate they were without direct comparison to remains, but busts from that era show aging and « ugly » traits prominently. The Imperial era with its state-sponsored cult of personality started the trend towards idealism. Defects were smoothed out, people represented at their best and efforts were made to have them impersonate attitudes and virtues. The busts of the Pax Romana remain highly individualized and it's easy to tell a character from another, even though they always looks somewhat too good. It started getting weird with the Third Century Crisis, the Empire breaking up and the Tetrarchy. Portraiture became abstracted to the point it was more about representing the office that the person occupying it. Look up the sculpture of the Tetrarchs that's in Venice or the Colossus of Constantine, they're well known examples. Being a good fit for Christianity, that's the style that continued into the Middle Ages, and the reason why people assume that artists became terrible in « the Dark Ages ».
usrusr 6y ago
> What’s the consensus on whether Roman statues were intended to be realistic Would be a pity when people don't recognize you as the emperor when for some reason you are disconnected from your usual chain of command. Could those depictions have played a role that we would today describe as biometric fallback authentication? In that case they wouldn't want to overdo it with the idealization. Also, looking at it from a completely different angle: many Roman busts simply don't look very flattering at all, and to me those of emperors don't seem like a big exception.

by jl6 6y ago

Bayart 6y ago

There's not one Roman style and there were wild variations across different eras. I'll skip the archaic and early Republican stuff because it's either too rough or derivative to be called specifically « Roman ». Late Republican busts are assumed to be very realistic. My understanding is that they're largely derived from mortuary masks made for the cult of ancestors that was prevalent at the time. It's obviously impossible to say how accurate they were without direct comparison to remains, but busts from that era show aging and « ugly » traits prominently. The Imperial era with its state-sponsored cult of personality started the trend towards idealism. Defects were smoothed out, people represented at their best and efforts were made to have them impersonate attitudes and virtues. The busts of the Pax Romana remain highly individualized and it's easy to tell a character from another, even though they always looks somewhat too good. It started getting weird with the Third Century Crisis, the Empire breaking up and the Tetrarchy. Portraiture became abstracted to the point it was more about representing the office that the person occupying it. Look up the sculpture of the Tetrarchs that's in Venice or the Colossus of Constantine, they're well known examples. Being a good fit for Christianity, that's the style that continued into the Middle Ages, and the reason why people assume that artists became terrible in « the Dark Ages ».

usrusr 6y ago

> What’s the consensus on whether Roman statues were intended to be realistic Would be a pity when people don't recognize you as the emperor when for some reason you are disconnected from your usual chain of command. Could those depictions have played a role that we would today describe as biometric fallback authentication? In that case they wouldn't want to overdo it with the idealization. Also, looking at it from a completely different angle: many Roman busts simply don't look very flattering at all, and to me those of emperors don't seem like a big exception.