Roman reconstruction of Greek art

In terms of the reconstruction of Greek art, I too have been curious as to the appearance of the original Greek works since some things must have been " lost in translation" as Roman copies were made. The more that I think about it, however, the more faith I have that the Roman copies closely reflect the originals because the romans did value their true beauty. In fact, Welch states that Greek sculptures were put on display to be admired by the Roman populace as a whole (39). In my opinion, it would be this admiration that would keep the Roman "copiers" honest in terms of remaking these works of arts. That is not to say definitively that the Romans did not put their own influence into the copies, but if the art was truly appreciated it seems logical that they Romans would keep the copies true to form.

Week 6: Malia Comparison of Arthur Evans and the Romans

From discussing the way that the Romans practically altered all of the original Greek sculptures that we see today as Greek, I couldn't help but emphasize the way that this is similar to how Arthur Evans rebuilt Knossos. I find it amazing that we look at both the Palace at Knossos and many Greek sculptures through the eyes of its reconstructors. I saw such a strong connection with the reconstructions done by both Arthur Evans and the Romans. It is amazing that we base everything we learn about Greek art on a Roman copy, and it really makes me wonder how different the original were from the copies we look at today. I think it would be extremely interesting if we had that chance to go back in time to compare the original and the reconstruction. Through this comparison we may be able to learn a little more about the Roman culture by analyzing to what degree of creditibility the copy was constructing and how close the two models are.

Week 6; Monica S.; Nodelman

I believe Nodelman encompasses the whole background and meaning of Roman portraiture in his essay How to Read a Roman Portrait, specifically in his statement, "The will to reach out actively into the world of on-going life and to accomplish specific purposes within it through psychological modifications imposed upon the observer is the central organizational principle of Roman art." He summarizes that Roman portraiture accomplished these impositions through veristic sculpture, Hellenistic-style art and late antique portraiture. Relevant to our lecture, Nodelman discusses veristic sculpture, including Unknown Republican from early 1st c. BCE, by describing this style as having "the intent to convey a clearly drawn and forceful polemical content" and to "call attention to their (aged men) long service to the state and their faithfulness to constitutional procedures." He also talks about the Augustus of Primaporta as reviving Greek Hellenistic portraiture with "his electrical gaze, through which the force of the personality is poured out, is a device borrowed from Hellenistic royal portraiture where it had denoted the heroized, superhuman stature of the kings." He also incorporates late antique portraiture like Gordian III from 238 CE and describes it like "an image informed by an awareness of, and full presence in, the concrete circumstances in which it is experience." Nodelman differentiates this style from the others by describing "the gaze of the great eyes, magnified now to tremendous scale turned frontally upon us with the full force of their attention, we encounter unqualified presence, no longer limited by empirical time, place or contingent experience," and as "absolute pure awareness, the principle itself, freed of all individualistic and subjectivistic determinations."

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. 

week 6 Tyler: the art historians lense

Though the importance of their methods cannot be devalued, the true focus should be on the preservation of art. Schliemann can be called a treasure hunter, and the world can question the integrity of his findings, but the focus should be on the fact that the world now has the opportunity to enjoy this art for generations to come. However, the techniques used by the British naturalist Arthur Evans should act as a model for the restoration of art because he was able to maintain the integrity of the surrounding environment, as well as provide the world with some amazing art.

Melissa Purner: Response to Schliemann and Evans

Like many other people in our class I was somewhat appalled by the fact that Evans took it upon himself to reconstruct his finds at Knossos on the island of Crete.  While he may have been regarded as more "professional" by the archeology community, I find the fact that he tampered with an ancient site to have tainted it to some degree.  For those who visit the location from now on will only being seeing somewhat of the original beauty and wonder of the site, the rest has been tampered with by modern hands.

While Schliemann may have been considered less of a professional I have much more respect for him due to the fact that he left the site he excavated just how it was.  The Turkish site of Hissarlik was excavated purely due to Schliemann's romantic idea of what he might find.  However, through his excavation he was able to draw much publicity to the science of archeology.