Week 6-Sarkis: Nodelman response

Well this is my first official post, but i guess better late than never. I don't see any responses to the Nodelman and Welch reading, but I got the question in my email so here are my thoughts. I must say thought that I have not had time to read the Welch so I will try to respond on the Nodelman reading only. Nodelmans idea that Roman portraiture, and Roman art in general can be described as a system of signs is an accurate assesment, however I can't say i agree with everything in the article. what he means is that Roman portraiture was mainly done, in the time it was done, was essentially celebrating civic duty and distinction. These portraits were in fact, one of the first examples of statues directed towards the spectators alone. For example, the wrinkles on the faces of some of the statues show spectators of the age and long standing civic duty of the portraits, and this is seen in the example of the "unknown republican." The "look" and gaze on these portraits are symbolic of their importance and standing as civic officials, and all this the spectators at the time would have understood. In this respect, portraits at the time were made with an understanding that the viewer would have known and understood these symbolic gestures of the face, eyes, stare, gaze, and all other techniques employed. Also, I have read, (I don't remember where but would be happy to edit this post and cite my source) elsewhere that many roman sculptures' heads were created not according to body image. Essentially, an older mans head and face was placed on a young, muscular body. Again symbolic of the civic importance of the figure, showing his strength and power in the body, and an old and wise leader in the face. I however do not agree with one thing that Nodelman says, when he describes roman portraits reveal a "...an insisten pattern of recurrence of particular physical and characterological traits that all these ... portraits look very much alike." I would say that they do look very much alike, but this may be due to the artitstic style of the time, not necessarily the style of the artists but possibly it could be because of the way the "officials" wanted to be portraiyed, or wanted the commissioned portraits to be portrayed.