Ancient Rome Arch of Constantine - Research Paper Example

Arch of Constantine The Arch of Constantine is a monumental arch built in Rome in the year 315 by the Roman Senate in commemoration of the victory over Maxentius, a Roman tyrant, by Constantine I. That year makes it the latest among the triumphal arches that still exist in Rome (Claridge, 2010). It is also the only one that made extensive use of spolia, which means reusing some major reliefs from imperial monuments of the second century. As a sculptural technique, relief means to rise, therefore, creating a sculptor in relief shows it as raised higher than the background plane. In political propaganda, the Arch of Constantine is also considered a tour de force, which is a representation of performance or achievement that attracts admiration and portrays great skills. In this sense, Constantine is represented by the arch as a living extension of a Roman emperor who was one of the most successful for their renowned good government and military victories (Claridge, 2010). By contrasting it with other art works in the same era, this paper will dissect the subject matter and inventive style of the Arch of Constantine. The historical inquiry into art is greatly facilitated by defining its artistic style (Kleiner, 2011). In art, style occurs in several forms, which include period style, regional style, and personal style. On the other hand, the subject matter encompasses the narrative the artist wishes to convey. This makes the subject the artwork itself. The distinguishing artistic manner of a specific era is defined through the period style. Usually, these are within distinct cultures, for example, late Byzantine or the Archaic Greek. Regional style is used by historians to describe style variations linked with geography. This means that the place a piece of art originates greatly influences its characteristics. A further implication is that different artworks created many years apart but from the same region are likely to be more similar than others of the same era but from different places (Kleiner, 2011). The distinctive preferences of individual architects or artists are defined by the personal style. Cited in art history surveys, the arch is a legendary example of the stylistic changes that took place in the fourth century and also the end of the traditional Greek standard of forms in the late Roman era. The Arch of Constantine may have heavily relied on recycling reliefs from earlier eras, but was essentially constructed with the Corinthian order architectural style of the fourth century C.E. There is a dramatic distinction between the styles of the recycled Imperial reliefs from monuments created for previous emperors (Jones, 2000). Below the principal arch in the passageway, there is a reused relief from Emperor Trajan’s era, and the roundels were originally created for Emperor Hadrian. Further, the rectangular reliefs located in the attic were reused from Emperor Aurelius’ era. This makes the Arch of Constantine a collection of imperial Roman sculpture mostly recycled from the first and second centuries. As argued by scholars, reusing reliefs from earlier monuments signified the decline of an artistic period (Costantino, 2010). However, a more significant observation in the reusing of reliefs would be the linking of Constantine to the past of the Roman Imperial, albeit the dramatic stylistic contrasts. Despite heavy recycling, there were sculptures specifically made for the Arch of Constantine during his era. Under each pair of roundel, there are one-meter high frieze scenes that commemorate the victories of Constantine’s armies as well as the scene where he is shown addressing the public. They have rather shallow relief, is reveals the personal style of the sculptor. Shallow relief means that only less than the depth’s 50 percent is shown, and there are also some undercut areas. When such Constantinian reliefs are compared with a Byzantine representation, it is seen that the Late Antique’s compositional standards are those from the Middle Ages. These differ from the Greco-Roman world’s standards. However, the similarities born by both the Arch of Constantine and the Arch of Carolingian Lorsch offers evidence of the exerted on later king’s by the Roman emperorship, particularly Constantine’s (Jones, 2000). Basing on the reason why triumphal arches were built, it is relatively straightforward to determine the subject matter of the Arch of Constantine. The Roman world always considered power to be an issue of presentation, therefore, in antiquity, its cultural currency was the construction, manipulation and exhibition of images (Moulton, 2013). Therefore, the fist and most obvious subject of the Arch of Constantine was that of serving as a triumphal arch; the commemoration of his victory over Maxentius. Art was power, at any rate, in the proliferation of the imperial office. In the Roman Empire, continuity was a key theme in art and images or representations of the emperors held and portrayed great power. Therefore, since the emperors could not be omnipresent, their statues were set up in law courts, theaters, public assemblies and market places as a sign of their presence and confirming what was taking place. The Arch of Constantine is essentially a representation of the modification of the conception of Imperial authority (Jones, 2000). Through the arch, the significance of Constantine cannot be underestimated easily in medieval art narratives. His backing and eventual conversion to Christianity played critical roles in making Christianity an integral component of imperial power and not only a marginal religion. A key theme can be seen in how Rome was Christianized and Christianity Romanized (Moulton, 2013). However, it is worthwhile noting that the arch, erected next the Colosseum in the neighborhood of old Rome’s formal center, does not have a reference to Christianity. Nevertheless, contemporary historians have documented that in a vision Constantine saw the night prior to the battle, he saw images that symbolized, in Greek, the first letters of the word Christ (Costantino, 2010). Other accounts opine that there was also a cross in the sky with words on it that urged him to use the sign to conquer. Since he emerged victorious in battle with a larger army than his own, the victory was attributed to the fact that he carried a symbol similar to the one he saw in his vision. The key subject communicated here is the ensuing end to persecution of Christians and its adoption by the emperor himself who also declared the region will tolerate the religion officially. Hence, the event that the Arch of Constantine celebrated was among the key turning points in the western world’s history. However, since the arch links him to the Imperial past of Rome, it justifies his power. Just like the Triumphal Arch that it is, it associates him with the custom of this form that dates back the 81 C.E Arch of Titus (Costantino, 2010). In its era, the Arch of Constantine was an archetypal monument in reusing previous centuries’ sculptures because of the respect for past emperors that it was intended to communicate. The center of the upper half of the arch has inscriptions on its sides. The inscriptions on the second half indicate that the arch was dedicated in the year 315, which was also Constantine’s tenth year in power. Historians have inferred that this depicts since he had ruled for 10 years, he still had 10 more to go, to give him a total of 20 years. The phrase instinctu divinitatis mentis, which translates into by divine inspiration, has been interpreted in various diverse ways from the era to modern times (Moulton, 2013). However, most of them agree that the phrase was consistent with Constantine’s religious policies later in his reign of promoting Christianity actively while, at the same time, letting official matters remain vague enough so that pagans could also be satisfied. Therefore, the monument’s subject matter fuses and communicates both religious and political messages of an era that changed the western world’s landscape. References Claridge, A. (2010). Rome. New York: Oxford University Press. Costantino, C. (2010). Roman forum, Palatine & Colosseum. Milan: Electa. Jones, M (2000). Genesis and mimesis: The design of the Arch of Constantine in Rome. The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, 59(1), 50–77. Kleiner, F. S. (2011). Gardner’s art through the ages: A global history, Volume I (13th ed.). Boston: Wadsworth. Moulton, C. (2013). Arches: Ancient Greece and Rome. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons Read More