preview

Roman Art Comparison Essay

Decent Essays

If one was to describe the Roman art, in my opinion the words realistic, and functional, would give it judgment; which perhaps would describe rather well the pragmatic Romans. Undoubtedly, both the painting and sculpture has its own purpose, and a unique place in society; the Renaissance master Leonardo da Vinci, has rather explicit opinion on the topic: “A sculptor says that his art is more worthy than painting because, fearing humidity, fire, heat, and cold less than painting, it is more eternal. The response to him is that such a thing does not make the sculptor more dignified because the permanence is born from the material and not from the artificer. This dignity can also belong to painting by painting with colored glazes on metal or terracotta…” (Da Vinci, n.a.). According to Leonardo, the sculpture is more eternal; it will last quite long time, the weather and the elements, will not …show more content…

In tempera the pigments were mixed with an adhesive and laid upon a dry surface. The paintings would be applied either to the internal or external walls of the buildings, where they would become an internal part of the structure. The Romans seldom placed any furniture against the walls, nor did they hang any pictures on the walls, so those paintings served as an elaborate decoration, and part of the architectural design. (Durant, 1972). As one can see, the painting arts were a domain of a skilled “interior decorators”, rather than artists in our sense of understanding; which should give one a clue to the function of art in the Roman society. One should not omit the fact that it was Romans who invented the landscape painting, and a crude form of a linear perspective; furthermore, to satisfy the huge demand for painting arts, the roman artists produced panel paintings, in encaustic and tempera, including their own "triumphal" history painting. (Roman art,

Get Access