Roman copies of Greek art.

[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.