Roman Art

[The Augusta]

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?

 

This was a point I raised earlier in the thread, Caldrail, when I asked about the consumer (although this was in relation to the Caracalla bust). I often wonder if there was mass-production of cheap copies of important portraits and statues for the man-in-the-street to buy, to display in his vestibule to impress his friends and show his loyalty to the government. Or was art purely for the wealthy? We know that Agrippa took some measures to put great works of art on display for the common man to see. Did this foster a love of art among the populace?

[Germanicus]

What was the order - least to most expensive in terms of material ? I'm thinking that there may be a whole range of carved wooden statue/statuettes that didn't make the trip to the 21st Century ? Just speculating.

[The Augusta]

What was the order - least to most expensive in terms of material ? I'm thinking that there may be a whole range of carved wooden statue/statuettes that didn't make the trip to the 21st Century ? Just speculating.

 

I expect there was plaster and fired clay or some such less durable stuff that would not have lasted through the ages. Wood is certainly a possibility.

[caldrail]

 

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?

 

This was a point I raised earlier in the thread, Caldrail, when I asked about the consumer (although this was in relation to the Caracalla bust). I often wonder if there was mass-production of cheap copies of important portraits and statues for the man-in-the-street to buy, to display in his vestibule to impress his friends and show his loyalty to the government. Or was art purely for the wealthy? We know that Agrippa took some measures to put great works of art on display for the common man to see. Did this foster a love of art among the populace?

 

The reason I brought this up was because I find it difficult to associate love of art with the roman masses. My own personal view is that they may have obtained cruder works not as artwork per se, but as a symbol of loyalty or respect? A 'keep up with the joneses' sort of attitude? Lets be honest, the roman poor had a hard time keeping a roof over their heads never mind mounting an exhibition. Of course there were plenty of traders or lesser knights who would have liked to spice up their dwelling and give themselves an air of some prosperity. A small piece might have done the trick - I couldn't see them having a new mosaic laid unless they really did have some dosh to spare!

 

Talking of mosaics, I notice that patterns came ready prepared on sheets of paper. Just lay it place and wash the paper off. I also notice that in at least one british mosaic the pattern is poorly laid and the circular motif actually goes out of bounds! I bet the owner wasn't too chuffed when he noticed that.... They weren't cheap to lay however, and I can't think of any modest dwelling that has one. Mosiacs to my mind are not accurate representations of their subject. They are somewhat stylised - but they also contain a lot of visual clues for us these days. In the case of mosaics I have to say artistic license was expected, not just tolerated.