04-03-2014, 10:34 AM
Ancient art is much more difficult to understand than one may think. Every piece of ancient art was subject to several "filters" while it was made. The most important ones are:
1. cognitive abilities of the maker
2. haptic abilities of the maker
3. tradition and convention
4. current style / taste
5. materials available
You can see that very good in Pompeii. For example, the famous Alexander mosaic, which was most probably made after a famous painting, was transported from somewhere in Greece, where it may well have been in use for a while, to Pompeii, where it was implemented in the floor of the "House of the Faun". This was so as to satisfy the taste of the owner, who was apparently quite a philhellene. This phenomenon can be seen all over Italy, especially during the late republic, where the local elites copied modes of representation from Hellenistic rulers. A excellent read here is Paul Zanker´s "Augustus und die Macht der Bilder " / "Augustus and the Power of Images". Ancient art was very strongly influenced by convention, so you may find depictions of the "Three Graces" from the 3rd c. BC which are basically identical to ones from the 3rd c. AD, and differ only in the techniques used to make them. Certain images were liked more than others. You may find identical scenes in different quality from different houses in Pompeii. One example is Theseus killing the Minotaur:
[attachment=9491]IMG_9994.jpeg[/attachment]
[attachment=9492]IMG_9996.jpeg[/attachment]
[attachment=9493]IMG_9997.jpeg[/attachment]
You will see that the basic setup is quite identical. Theseus and the Minotaur, people in the back, bones lying around in the front. Even the clothing colors etc. are usually identical. See this scene with musicians, painting and mosaic:
[attachment=9494]IMG_0001.jpeg[/attachment]
[attachment=9495]IMG_0003.jpeg[/attachment]
The paintings mostly show mythological scenes. These are often set together from different myths on one wall as to convey a certain theme which they share, e.g. mortality, or tragical suffering etc. This is very often done with a lot of cross-referencing which would only have been noticeable by educated people, which knew all the myths etc. You can actually also read an account of this behavior in Petronius cena trimalchionis. Normally the lower classes adapt such behaviour, which is also visible in Pompeii, and normally without actually understanding it completely. So many of the wall-paintings are / were interpreted by modern historians and archaeologists without regarding all this context. Some scenes which show mythological scenes in a wider context of a wall / room dealing with a certain topic were taken out of their context and interpreted as showing e.g. Roman soldiers. Famous here is the man in the white tunic with yellow cloak and a staff, which is actually a copy of a painting from a mythological cycle of "Oedipus and the Sphinx" and almost certainly goes back to a Hellenistic original.
[attachment=9496]IMG_9937.jpeg[/attachment]
But this is the case with most other of these depictions as well.
There are a lot of "every-day drawings" however, depicting a certain event which took place right in the tavern where it was found etc. These are on a different level, and may show actual people from that place and time. They are more on a "dipinto"- or "graffito"- level, as far as their interpretation goes. It should be absolutely clear to everyone who tries to interpret these paintings as sources, that they never are "photos" and that their interpretation is very difficult, and that such interpretation requires a minute application of source-criticism: Where was the paining found? What other paintings were there on the same wall, and what "program" had the room? Are there hints that such a painting exists elsewhere, and if, in which context is it there? etc... An other good example for this is the "Apulo-Corinthian helmet", as I have explained several times on this forum. You may find certain objects in art long after the were actually used. This explains e.g. statues of Mars from the 2nd C. AD still wearing a "regular" corinthian helmet from the 5th century BC
. ;-)
1. cognitive abilities of the maker
2. haptic abilities of the maker
3. tradition and convention
4. current style / taste
5. materials available
You can see that very good in Pompeii. For example, the famous Alexander mosaic, which was most probably made after a famous painting, was transported from somewhere in Greece, where it may well have been in use for a while, to Pompeii, where it was implemented in the floor of the "House of the Faun". This was so as to satisfy the taste of the owner, who was apparently quite a philhellene. This phenomenon can be seen all over Italy, especially during the late republic, where the local elites copied modes of representation from Hellenistic rulers. A excellent read here is Paul Zanker´s "Augustus und die Macht der Bilder " / "Augustus and the Power of Images". Ancient art was very strongly influenced by convention, so you may find depictions of the "Three Graces" from the 3rd c. BC which are basically identical to ones from the 3rd c. AD, and differ only in the techniques used to make them. Certain images were liked more than others. You may find identical scenes in different quality from different houses in Pompeii. One example is Theseus killing the Minotaur:
[attachment=9491]IMG_9994.jpeg[/attachment]
[attachment=9492]IMG_9996.jpeg[/attachment]
[attachment=9493]IMG_9997.jpeg[/attachment]
You will see that the basic setup is quite identical. Theseus and the Minotaur, people in the back, bones lying around in the front. Even the clothing colors etc. are usually identical. See this scene with musicians, painting and mosaic:
[attachment=9494]IMG_0001.jpeg[/attachment]
[attachment=9495]IMG_0003.jpeg[/attachment]
The paintings mostly show mythological scenes. These are often set together from different myths on one wall as to convey a certain theme which they share, e.g. mortality, or tragical suffering etc. This is very often done with a lot of cross-referencing which would only have been noticeable by educated people, which knew all the myths etc. You can actually also read an account of this behavior in Petronius cena trimalchionis. Normally the lower classes adapt such behaviour, which is also visible in Pompeii, and normally without actually understanding it completely. So many of the wall-paintings are / were interpreted by modern historians and archaeologists without regarding all this context. Some scenes which show mythological scenes in a wider context of a wall / room dealing with a certain topic were taken out of their context and interpreted as showing e.g. Roman soldiers. Famous here is the man in the white tunic with yellow cloak and a staff, which is actually a copy of a painting from a mythological cycle of "Oedipus and the Sphinx" and almost certainly goes back to a Hellenistic original.
[attachment=9496]IMG_9937.jpeg[/attachment]
But this is the case with most other of these depictions as well.
There are a lot of "every-day drawings" however, depicting a certain event which took place right in the tavern where it was found etc. These are on a different level, and may show actual people from that place and time. They are more on a "dipinto"- or "graffito"- level, as far as their interpretation goes. It should be absolutely clear to everyone who tries to interpret these paintings as sources, that they never are "photos" and that their interpretation is very difficult, and that such interpretation requires a minute application of source-criticism: Where was the paining found? What other paintings were there on the same wall, and what "program" had the room? Are there hints that such a painting exists elsewhere, and if, in which context is it there? etc... An other good example for this is the "Apulo-Corinthian helmet", as I have explained several times on this forum. You may find certain objects in art long after the were actually used. This explains e.g. statues of Mars from the 2nd C. AD still wearing a "regular" corinthian helmet from the 5th century BC
. ;-)
Christian K.
No reconstruendum => No reconstruction.
Ut desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas.
No reconstruendum => No reconstruction.
Ut desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas.
