week 6: Jen Rohrs: Nodelman response

When reading about the symbolism in Roman portraits in the article by Nodelman i was struck most by his comment that "an insistent pattern of reoccurrence in the selection and handling of particular physical and characterological traits  that all these apperantly so individualized portraits finally look very much alike" (Nodelman, 12).  For a picture to be a portrait it must evoke the characteristics and memory of one particular person.  If it does not resemble only that one person then it can no longer be considered a portrait and it simply becomes a statue representation, like the statues of the Egyptian statues that used headdresses and hand positions to reflect their subject opposed to a visual representation of individualized features.  Even though, during the time of the Roman republic, the statues, such as the veristic portraits of the old republicans, were supposed to be portraits representing a single person, Nodelman remarks they they all look quite similar in the end.  I agree with this observation because while they may have attempted to draw out the wrinkles and old-age spots of one man, the convention of the time leaves each portrait with roughly the same general appearance.  Because these wrinkles and spots grew into symbols of patriotism and service to ones post in the republic, they were embellished and exaggerated to make the subject look as ancient and thus as patriotic as possible.  Much like the symbol of the fist in Egyptian times, these wrinkles, which when exaggerated hang on the same place on almost everyone's face, represented a higher position politically.  Therefore, it becomes difficult to call these portraits.  In my opinion, i think that to be called a portrait the piece of art should be free of all conventional symbolism. It should be an exact visual representation of the person.