Roman copies of Greek art.

[Arthes]

Greetings,
I have noticed a considerable amount of early work, particularly sculptures that are 'Roman copies of Greek/Hellenistic originals'
I have been wondering just why the Roman copies have survived when the originals have not, did they destroy them afterwards?
Would the Romans have manipulated the copies to reflect their own ideas and conceptions rather than a straight copy of the original.
There are many statues and sculptures that seem to have heads and arms etc, that were amptutated at some point. I am beginning to wonder if the Romans built bionic men and women, remodelling the parts that were missing.....!
Alexander the Great as Helios and even Medusa....I have noticed that certain characteristics are shared, especially the head tilt and the eyes
[url:21vr30op]http://www.d.umn.edu/~ebrownin/phil1021/pics/helios.htm[/url]
Later works are almost certainly based on Alexander but are almost never referred to as 'Alexander'. The 9th century copy of the Helios minature from the Tables of (Claudius) Ptolemy of Alexandria
[url:21vr30op]http://www.voynich.nu/extra/img/helios.jpg[/url] also bears a strong resemblance to Alexander..
(from: http://www.voynich.nu/extra/vatg1291.html )
Any ideas from the experts out there...!
regards
Arthes

[Carlton Bach]

I doubt the Romans deliberately destroyed Greek sculpture - much. Their copies were not intended to supersede the origional, they were prestige markers for wealthy people to show that they appreciated canonical art. Their survival rate is explicable from two factors: The original artwork was frequently made of bronze, the material of choice for high-value Greek sculpture, but unfortunately akso a valuable metal. Copies, on the other hand, were usually marble, which can't be melted down (though it can be turned into lime, unfortunately...). There were also a larger number of copies, many of them kept in less exposed places, so that they stood the greater chance of being out of the way when history happened. Originals, on the other hand, were kept in places like Rome or Constantinople, or imperial or senatorial villas - high-valuie targets.

As to differences -art historians claim there is a systematic chanmge towards smoother shapes, blamder expression and a general sterility. I don't have that sense of art, so to me it all looks like sculpture. But occasionally I suspect this system is about as precise as Winckelmann's way of deciding what's 'GreeK', anyway. I don't think any deliberate changes to Greek art were made - the originals were still around after all, and someone would have pointed it out.

[TraderTrey9785]

I think one of the reasons why a lot of the originals are lost is because of the perilous journey of the Mediterranean. I know many wealthy Romans would transport sculptures and other works from Greece to their villas in Rome. Sometimes these sculptures would be lost at sea and unavailable for viewing until now. The textbook that I used for my History of Greece course was by Ian Morris and Barry Powell, and on the cover it has an example of a bronze Greek statue that was lost as sea in transit to Rome and only recently recovered. I think there are many more to be found as underwater archaeologists continue searching the depths for artifacts.

Just a thought, otherwise I can't imagine why there aren't more, but I agree that the materials were valuable and were used for other purposes (such as being melt down as stated above), but the dangers in transit are also probable.

Hope this helps!

[tlclark]

I doubt the Romans deliberately destroyed Greek sculpture - much. Their copies were not intended to supersede the origional, they were prestige markers for wealthy people to show that they appreciated canonical art. Their survival rate is explicable from two factors: The original artwork was frequently made of bronze, the material of choice for high-value Greek sculpture, but unfortunately akso a valuable metal. Copies, on the other hand, were usually marble, which can't be melted down (though it can be turned into lime, unfortunately...). There were also a larger number of copies, many of them kept in less exposed places, so that they stood the greater chance of being out of the way when history happened. Originals, on the other hand, were kept in places like Rome or Constantinople, or imperial or senatorial villas - high-valuie targets.

Ditto this excellent post. The famous Venus de Milo was in fact found on a lime kiln pile. Bronze was often too valuable to let go. The famous head of a hellenistic ruler from delos was supposedly attached to the torso, but it was the Greco-Turkish war when it was found, so the torso was melted down to make a canon.

Oy!

As to differences -art historians claim there is a systematic chanmge towards smoother shapes, blamder expression and a general sterility. I don't have that sense of art, so to me it all looks like sculpture. But occasionally I suspect this system is about as precise as Winckelmann's way of deciding what's 'GreeK', anyway. I don't think any deliberate changes to Greek art were made - the originals were still around after all, and someone would have pointed it out.

Winckelmann had a very scientific method for determining what was "Greek" and what was Roman. If he liked it, it was greek, if he didn't, it was Roman.

We know that there were many changes made by the Romans but most were not substantial. For example, the discobolos comes in left and right handed varieties. Romans altered or flipped poses to suit surroundings and added things like tree stumps to add support that was needed for bronze statues. Stylistically it's hard to say what was altered if anything.

Travis.

[tlclark]

Regarding Alexander traits in portraiture this is a Chicken and the egg kinda thing.

For example, Alexander emulates many dieties, Zeus, Ammon, Apollo, etc.

Likewise, Alexander is emulated by the Seleucids, Ptolemies and even Pompey the Great.

The image of Pompey from the Munich Glyptothek is all republican verism with this ridiculous alexander mop-top on it.

Travis