A Look At Roman Imperial Portraiture

SHELDON
NODELMAN
 from
 E.
D’Ambra,
ed.,
Roman
Art
in
Context.
NY:
Prentice
Hall.
1993
pp.
10‐20
 Like all works of art. the portrait is a system of signs; it is often an ideogram of “public’ meanings condensed into the image of a human face. Roman portrait sculpture from the Republic through the late Empire-the second century BCE. to the sixth CE -constitutes what is surely the most remarkable body of portrait art ever created. Its shifting montage of abstractions from human appearance and character forms a language in which the history of a whole society can be read. Beginning in the first century B.C., Roman artists invented a new kind of portraiture, as unlike that of the great tradition of Greek

The history of their architecture runs virtually in step with the history of their empire to an extent. As the Empire expanded so did the architecture, and as Romans became more magnificent their architecture followed. Roman architecture began as a form of worship. The first Roman architects were the ancient priests and dwellers who made areas of sacrifice and worship for their gods. At first, their homes were simple huts but as they grew smarter and more aware of their surroundings, making the building more complex than ever. So, like many arts, Roman architecture’s roots are embedded in the worshiping paid in religion. The Romans were, of course, not the first to practice many of their building philosophies. However, they built like no other society before them. Their methods showed and proved, efficiency and sophistication to construct a whole new look. With the rise of the Romans and the everlasting hail of Caesar after Caesar and Emperor after Emperor, Roman architecture expanded and influenced building over the world. Unlike the Empire, though, Roman design did not die at the hands of the Germanic’s, or rather at the hands of self-destruction; it continued to expand and play a part in every major style throughout history. Even through its empire’s own defeat, architecture has stood as an everlasting symbol of what Rome once was, and what the rest of the world is today. , Roman architecture cannot be looked at as a small period or cultural event, for it lives on today through the

The fact that aristocrats living under Augustus emulated his new style of youthfulness makes sense, they were directly influenced and concerned with pleasing Augustus to gain favor and prestige. However, the fact that the ‘common’ people made up of slaves and ex-slaves also went out of their way to imitate this new style (with personal twists) shows that Augustus was able to spread the whole concept of a new Rome farther than he suspected. The people of the working class also began to favor the new way of being depicted in art with them also looking perfectly coiffed and polished like the aristocracy and specifically the founders of this new asceticism, Augustus, and Livia. In areas of architecture and design Augustus’s own tastes bled through to the total Roman populace with them doing away with the lavishness seen in the late republic for a more stoic and conservative

The sculpture was “originally cast using the lost-wax technique, with the horse and rider cast in multiple pieces and then soldered together after casting” (Becker 2). The artist was able to create the appearance of motion in this work of art. The horse that Marcus Aurelius sits upon is a superb example of “dynamism captured in the sculptural medium” (Becker 2). The position of the horse’s forelegs, the right is raised and bent at the knee while the left is firmly planted on the ground, as well as the musculature of the horse’s body being modeled carefully, and the head of the horse slightly turned to the right with its mouth partially opened results in a talented interpretation of motion (Becker 2). Marcus sits astride the horse, with his left hand positioned to guide reins that are no longer present (Adams 231). Appearing on the left hand is the senatorial ring (Becker 5). Capturing the speaker characteristic, that partially defined who Marcus Aurelius was, the artist extended the right arm away from the body in the “conventional gesture of an orator” (Adams 231). Signifying his status as a philosopher, his beard imitates the Greek style by covering his cheeks and upper lip while being longer at the chin region and divided down the center (Becker 4). The artist sculpted an oval shaped face with a distinctive arc over the forehead. Using heavy

In 20 C.E., made in what is now the ruins of the Roman Empire. At first glance, he looks just as Doryphoros, another well-known male statue. Both men appear to be stuck in a contrapposto pose, seeming as if in motion. Take note of his right leg, placed firmly forward while his left leg is bent, indicating knee movement, and the heel has come off the ground slightly. However, Augustus is unique due to the way he is standing, what he’s wearing and who and what he represents. His facial features are almost perfect; almost youthful in a way that a person would want their ruler to be. Moving further down, we reach the most important feature of the statue. Augustus’s breast plate has relief sculpture with an intended meaning; Augustus has the Gods on his side, he is a strong military leader, and a bringer of the Pax Romana, the years of peace throughout the Roman

Cornelius has the Vermeer painting in question and asks Richard what he thinks of it. Cornelius has a certain connection to the painting because of how important it was to his father. He wanted to get rid of it though, because of how his father obtained the painting. Cornelius described the painting techniques to Richard: Look at the direction of the brush strokes, those tiny grooves of the brush hairs. They have their lighted and their shaded side. Look elsewhere. You'll find overlapping layers of paint no thicker than silk thread that give a minute difference in shade. That's what makes it a Vermeer." , showing that Cornelius values the techniques vermeer used and that his painting had the same

Once emperor, Augustus used structures, statues and other forms of artwork to convey himself as powerful. Similar to today’s leaders, emperors were not frequently seen by the

Roman sculpture turned towards the celebration of Roman victory and homage to the gods and Emperor. Like the Greeks, the Roman artists moved towards the realism aspect of sculpture. Many of the pieces are beautifully crafted and look startling real. In contrast with the Greeks, the Romans focused more on the reality and eschewed the use of idealism

Augustus’s victories in battle already proved his experiences as a leader and at age thirty two it would be impossible for him to spread a realistic portrait of his wrinkled face. So Augustus changed the style of the Veristic portraiture and made it idealized. This shift of style creates a contrast between the old Republican style and the new Roman Empire style. The Republic’s art showed aged men that has experienced the hardships of life, but Augustus’s new portraits showed a youthful, powerful leader that moves away from the old time of war and sadness into a time of protecting the empire and a time of peace. The emotional appeal that is received from each portrait is contrasted too; the Republic seems old and weak compared to the new young and strong Augustus. The Verism artwork showed the past Rome, but Augustus starts off his rule with a change of the empire so this change of style is necessary to give his citizens the truth he wants them to

Re-made and re-carved works have been around for hundreds of years as artists take inspiration from whom the original was recreated. In Roman art history, certain artists would re-make Roman portraits to honor those before them. However, this was not always the case as individuals would destroy and damage art as a damnation of memory. What determined our understanding of the specific work depended on why the remade or re-carved work was created. These re-made and re-carved artworks revealed a deeper meaning about the individual, culture and the society for whom the original was recreated.

Columns, as noted, were a prominent feature of Roman architecture, which was drawn from the Greeks. Although Rome did not copy Greek columns exactly, “Greek influence is evident in the use of columns,”18 nevertheless, which is to be expected since Romans greatly admired Greek columns.19 Rome also adopted the Greek's mortar and ashlars.20 Additionally, since Greeks believed “that beauty lies in mathematical harmony,” Greek influence is seen in Imperial temples which contained set, mathematical ratios of design. As noted, when Rome began producing sculpture, they began producing Hellenistic-influenced idealistic sculptures.21 The reversion to older Greek forms is not a surprise if one considers Rome's admiration for Greek sculpture. Such admiration of Greek sculpture is evidenced by Rome's copying of Greek sculptures, such as the Venus di Milo.22

These transcripts taught the designers unique techniques for painting and how to obtain a desired effect through simple brush strokes. Carefully adhering to these lost principles, painters rediscovered the process of more lifelike imagery, causing many portraits to seem almost real. Many times, these realistic pictures would be commissioned by the wealthy elite as a symbol of status and success. Famous examples of portraits include Mona Lisa, Arnolfini Wedding, and the Ambassadors. The Renaissance exact and realistic style is most accurately portrayed through the knowledge of classical documents and beautiful

Early imperial art began with the creation of the Roman Empire by Augustus. Augustus revived classical art, he wanted art to once again reflect that of the Greeks. This included constructing new monuments in the style similar to those one could find in Athens. During this time period but under the next emperor, Flavian, architects used concrete as a medium and took it to its full potential by building the Colosseum. In terms of artwork, the town of Pompeii demonstrated the use of the Third and Fourth mural styles in their homes. The Third style is seen as very elegant with precise execution. The Fourth style is more complex and larger than that of the Third and includes more framed images. The next period to follow is known as the High Empire.

In 27 BC Augustus began his political career with a “new policy which embodied a national and Roman spirit” (Galinksy, 1996, 225) and “represented new heights in creativity and sophistication” (Galinksy, 1996, 225). Augustus created a new political propaganda campaign that used art and architecture to promote and enhance his regime. The most fundamental message can be regarded as to establish the legitimacy of his rule and to portray him as the natural successor of Rome, as this is consistently presented throughout the visual programme. Yet factors such as the restoration of the Republic, reviving the old religion, nationalism and militaristic triumph can also be seen to be communicated prominently through art and architecture.

I have decided to do my collage based on appearance during the renaissance and modern time to show how the two time periods connect and how they differ. The image of Kim Kardashian in a waist trainer and the renaissance corset, both were/are used to shape a female's body so that it looks like an hourglass. An hourglass body was considered more appealing to men. The next images that I will like to point out are the eyebrow images. One shows an image with thin eyebrows and the other one has thicker eyebrows. During the Renaissance, thin eyebrows seem to be considered more attractive, but now thick eyebrows are considered more attractive. The next comparison that I will be making is the image of a woman's face during the Renaissance and a bottle