Nero.

[The Augusta]

Wot - I don't think you need us anymore. You are answering your own question. You make some wonderful points in your last post. I also think Maty's response was wonderful, but I think you'll agree that we are all offering avenues in which you can expand the simple question posed in that practice exam paper.

 

So, there you are - it wasn't such a limiting question after all, was it?

 

And for our Ursus - yes - all arts-based students waffle in exams. Some of us have had Firsts for waffling I remember waffling for two hours about Marcus Agrippa's policy in the East back in 1985. What the examiners were looking for was proof that the student had researched the topic - what he or she had to say about it was immaterial. What mattered was that he/she backed up everything with examples from primary and secondary source material.

 

To Wot - your question about what an arts-based student is: the simplest way I can put it is that the science-based student would not think laterally around the question. The arts-based person, trained in constructing an argument and using the text/historical facts - whatever - fit that argument, is a different kettle of fish. The Arts subjects are always open to individual interpretation - I hope Maty agrees with me here. I would include history as an Arts-based subject, although some people may disagree. Let's call it Humanities. Even so, you are always free to expound your own theory - providing you back this up with the evidence. If you believe that Augustus was a transvestite, you can say so - as long as you give evidence that supports this claim (this is an extreme example, but I'm sure you'll see where I'm coming from)

 

Unlike our sainted Maty, it is a little while since I was in the world of Academia in a full-time capacity, but I'm sure the theme still fits. Put it this way - you could approach the exam question in many different ways, but the essential thing is that you construct your essay in such a cast-iron manner that you 'prove' your argument by using examples from the sources.

 

With such an 'open-ended' question as 'What an artist dies in me', I think you are free to set out your theme in the opening paragraph, and this can focus on whatever you like, as it is up to you to interpret that statement in whatever way you like. For example, are we to take it literallly? If so, discuss Nero's position in the world of the Arts. Are we to interpret it as Suetonius' words? If so, let's examine this particular account, and so on.

 

But I'm preaching to the converted. You are clearly an exceptional student (we all know that already) so I'm sure your Nero paper will be a credit to you.

[WotWotius]

Indeed. Did Nero even die? I can think of at least three so-called 'false Neros'.

 

Also, in the vein of what I mentioned above, one could, albeit tenuously, argue that Nero was more than just an artist - he was also art itself. While taking into account the baggage of his ancient stereotype, Roman authors could build upon this and mould 'their' Neros/Neroes/Nerones (...or whatever!) into something beneficial to their agendas: Suetonius touches upon Nero's eccentricities in order to tell a good story - the best example being the final chapters of his life of Nero; Tacitus uses Nero as means of exploring the political 'pretence' he himself experienced under Domitian; the unknown, probably Flavian, author of the Octavia, uses the murder of Nero's first wife to lament the injustice of old regime. My point being that the popular stereotype of Nero in the Ancient world offered a wide enough framework to create a rostrum for both entertainment and moralising.

 

The malleable nature of Nero is not, however, strictly confined to negative images. As already mentioned, the false Neros were a sure indication that some form of populist myth of Nero persisted at least until the reign of Domitian. Further, if we examine the literature of the time of Nero's accession, Nero is used a means of ushering a new 'golden age', far from the almost compost-like ancien r

[sylla]

Indeed. Did Nero even die? I can think of at least three so-called 'false Neros'.

 

Also, in the vein of what I mentioned above, one could, albeit tenuously, argue that Nero was more than just an artist - he was also art itself. While taking into account the baggage of his ancient stereotype, Roman authors could build upon this and mould 'their' Neros/Neroes/Nerones (...or whatever!) into something beneficial to their agendas: Suetonius touches upon Nero's eccentricities in order to tell a good story - the best example being the final chapters of his life of Nero; Tacitus uses Nero as means of exploring the political 'pretence' he himself experienced under Domitian; the unknown, probably Flavian, author of the Octavia, uses the murder of Nero's first wife to lament the injustice of old regime. My point being that the popular stereotype of Nero in the Ancient world offered a wide enough framework to create a rostrum for both entertainment and moralising.

 

The malleable nature of Nero is not, however, strictly confined to negative images. As already mentioned, the false Neros were a sure indication that some form of populist myth of Nero persisted at least until the reign of Domitian. Further, if we examine the literature of the time of Nero's accession, Nero is used a means of ushering a new 'golden age', far from the almost compost-like ancien r

Edited June 4, 2009 by sylla

[WotWotius]

Please let us see your finished work. I am curious to read it.

 

Unfortunatly, I feel I have to revise other areas, so I don't think that this will amount to a finished paper - at least not now, anyway. Maybe I shall write one in a month or so - who knows?

 

If anybody has anything else of interest to say about Nero, please feel free to chip in. The more novel, the better!

[caldrail]

Personally, I think the ethics of any artist is not directly related to the quality of their work.

Couldn't agree more. There isn't any relation at all. Ethics are after all the informal rules of behaviour, whereas quality of art is a somewhat subjective appraisal of ability in expression. The behaviour of an artist (and many of them are distinctly flakey, others extremely cunning) varies enormously, and since ethics are rarely imposed on artists, their own ethical codes vary along with their personalities and egos.

[WotWotius]

Personally, I think the ethics of any artist is not directly related to the quality of their work.

Couldn't agree more. There isn't any relation at all. Ethics are after all the informal rules of behaviour, whereas quality of art is a somewhat subjective appraisal of ability in expression. The behaviour of an artist (and many of them are distinctly flakey, others extremely cunning) varies enormously, and since ethics are rarely imposed on artists, their own ethical codes vary along with their personalities and egos.

 

Be that as it may, this is far from the manner in which the Romans perceived artists. Along with actors, freedmen and musicians, artists were very much considered a package deal of immorality and slothfulness. The very notional that an individual is associated with actors and musicians would conjure up all sorts of imagery within the mind of the Roman elite - indeed Pliny the Elder describes theatres 'havens for perverts' - and by association with such types, they too embodied the traits assigned to actors. But the issue went further than this: an entourage of artists was also considered to be part of the iconography of what the Roman dubbed lincentia. This was fairly complex concept, but could be boiled down to meaning an excess of freedom, which existed both alongside and in isolation of the notion of servitude - vice was, after all, considered to be a form of cyrpto-slavery.

 

While Roman artists could well have been perfectly nice individuals in their own right, this does not escape the issues that the Roman aristocracy, at least in principle, viewed such types at a distance.