Art History - Greek and Roman Periods - Essay Example

Art History Both now and in the ancient past, artists often took their inspiration from the artwork of the past. This is true whether one is duplicating or building off of what had been done before or reacting against the same. By comparing works of art from the Greek to the Roman periods, it can be seen that, while the two cultures shared a great deal of fundamental beliefs, they approached art from two different perspectives. The Archaic Period in Greece (roughly identified as the years between 600-500 BC) was a period of intense transition from the ‘old’ world styles of flattened figures and animorphed images combining the figures of animals and humans in different ways for different meanings to the ‘new’ world styles which included more humanism in expression and optical experience reflected in the art forms. By the time of the Romans, there was a much greater emphasis and development of naturalistic expression of form, including natural bodily movements, weight and strain. A comparison of the Grande Ludovisi Sarcophagus (The Ludovisi Battle) and the Dying Warrior from the Temple of Aphaia reveal both the similarities of cultural beliefs as well as the differences of emphasis of expression. Both the Grande Ludovisi Sarcophagus and the Dying Warrior present similar images of death and dying using marble as a base material, but they remain sharply different because of the scale of the individual figures as well as several of the smaller visual elements involved in each. Although separated by approximately 700 years, both the earlier Dying Warrior statue and the Ludovisi Sarcophagus represent mastery of sculptural art in different dimensions. Both of these works of art are presented in marble and each detail some sense of battle. The Ludovisi Sarcophagus can be seen to have been carved from a single block of marble that measured at least nine feet wide by five feet high and four and a half feet deep (“Art of the Roman Empire”, 2005). Of only slightly smaller scale overall, the Dying Warrior from the east pediment of the Temple of Aphaia measures just over six feet long. However there has been a great deal of discussion regarding just what the statue is truly made of. While some scholars say it is marble, others have suggested the statue was first created in poros, the native rock of the island on which the temple stands (George, 2001). In addition, a great deal of detail about this statue can still only be guessed at as several segments of the statue are missing, particularly the knee joint of the upraised leg. Finally, the statue has been removed from its overall context, taken off its island home in the early 1800s, separated from the rest of its group and subjected to questionable restoration techniques that manifested themselves in strange details on other statues that had been included in the group (George, 2001). Despite the vast age differences in the two works of art, it does seem clear that both the Ludovisi Sarcophagus and the Dying Soldier were created as a means of depicting victory in battle utilizing the depictions of a number of different individuals, including the dying members of the fallen armies. While the Ludovisi Sarcophagus is believed to have been created to celebrate the Romans victory over the Goths in 215 AD, the Dying Soldier is thought to be part of a pediment scene depicting the Greeks fighting in one of their first wars against Troy, created sometime around 490 BC (Stratton, 2001). Although both works of art depict battle scenes, the context in which they are presented and the scale of the individual figures remain widely different. The Ludovisi Sarcophagus depicts a great number of individuals at a relatively small scale, covering the entire surface of the marble to such an extent that the background becomes almost nonexistent. “The dense carving of the relief and the extension to all four sides of the tomb of the battle scene, which teems so thickly with figures as to negate the background, are without precedent” (“Art of the Roman Empire”, 2005). The small figures are so interlaced within the context of the piece that it would be impossible to separate one from the whole even if one wished to try. These figures are not all depicted in their complete forms, several of them are coming up from behind others, such as the top half of the German that one of the Roman infantrymen holds by the beard in the left foreground while his bottom half is hidden behind yet another German who falls before him (Pennington, 2006). Art historians have suggested many of the finer details of these highly intricate figures were brought out to even greater depth through the application of gold leaf and paint to depict hair and clothing. By contrast, the Dying Soldier as an individual figure was easily separated from the remainder of his battle scene as each figure seems to have been carved separately prior to being placed on the temple pediment (Dubrulle, 2002). While he constituted one small portion of the battle scene, being separated from the group has not lessened his impact as the separation of one of the figures from the Ludovisi piece would have removed its meaning. Rather than detracting from his image, the separation of the Dying Warrior from the rest of his statue group has instead enabled viewers to focus on the more visual features of the solitary statue and appreciate the detail that conveys his dying moments. Although the visual elements of the Dying Warrior depict a much more fluid and flowing style than statues created just 20 years prior (Stratton, 2001), this figure retains some of the stiffness of the older period when compared directly with the figures depicted in the Ludovisi Sarcophagus. Stratton compared the Dying Warrior and the rest of his group of statues to the statues that were featured on the west pediment of the same temple, but had been created earlier. In this comparison, he says that the figures on the east pediment “act of their own free will, doing and suffering in the shadow of self-awareness” (2001). This difference and development from the stiff forms of the west pediment carved only 20 years before the Dying Warrior and the rest of his group is accomplished through small changes in line and pose. Looking at the Dying Warrior statue, it does seem to have a certain fluidity of motion, the legs are not stiffened in their pose but are instead still caught in the act of falling to the ground and the extended foot is lower even than the hip. The torso is twisted to face the ground even while the hips remain perpendicular to the ground, capturing the warrior in the moment of his fall. While this may not initially seem to be a natural movement because it is not a movement in which the body can be easily suspended for ‘freeze frame’ capture, it is nevertheless a natural movement as the body falls in response to gravity and other exterior forces, such as being struck down in battle. The warrior’s arm is braced as if to catch himself, indicating his body has not yet given up the fight just as his other arm continues to raise his shield, with a little help from the ground, as if the soldier intends to continue fighting. However, his downcast eyes and the grimace on his mouth indicate he is aware of the inevitable. He will not rise again from this fall and he knows it and his face communicates it to all who have seen him. As exquisite as these various features of the Dying Warrior are in conveying emotion, natural motion and representing an era of shifting artistic influences toward a more realistic portrayal, they are overshadowed when compared to the minute details including in the Ludovisi Sarcophagus. Just one small section of the sarcophagus is able to convey a world of expressions and emotions all at once. The previously mentioned Roman warrior, holding a German prisoner by the beard is a wonderful example of this. Throughout the sarcophagus, the Roman soldiers are consistently indicated by their clean-shaved faces. This makes it easier to see the greatness of expression captured in each tiny face – the fear, the pain, the triumph and the blood-lust. The Germans they fight against are all seen as bearded, making it easy to distinguish between the victors and the defeated. Although the faces of the losers are equally as small as those of the Romans and at least half-covered with hair in the form of shaggy haircuts and bushy beards, these faces remain every bit as expressive of the typical emotions of battle as those of the Romans. As the Roman soldier holds his prisoner, an enigmatic creasing of the forehead could be interpreted to indicate compassion and pity or anger and contempt. The cording along his forearm illustrates the strength that lies behind that grasp. The eyes and face of the German look up at his captor with a combination of hate, defiance, fear and pain. The actions do not look as posed as the Dying Warrior statue, instead seeming to have simply frozen in motion into the form presented now. While each sculpture presents itself as a masterpiece of human emotional expression, comparing them enables the strength and weaknesses of each to be seen. The larger scale of the Dying Warrior enables his pose and expressions to be studied more closely, allowing one to trace the line and detail of the figure, noting how the idea of motion is conveyed through his balance and mass. However, the smaller scale of the Ludovisi Sarcophagus does not automatically insinuate that the poses and facial expressions must be somehow less emotive. The complicated interweaving of the various figures in the Ludovisi make it impossible to separate one figure from the rest for individual study as was possible with the Dying Warrior, but the aspects of each character that remain visible work seamlessly with the rest to depict the same sense of triumph and defeat, grace and beauty, death and acceptance. In comparing these works of art, it becomes possible to make a few educated guesses regarding what was important in their culture. The development of detail and realistic expression denotes periods of peace in which such techniques could be developed and taught as well as a sense of pride in the individual, the human element of nature’s creation. The battle scenes indicate a strong hero culture in which physical feats of absolute victory over the enemy remained strong throughout the centuries in between while the talent and scale of the pieces in terms of pure size or in terms of fine detail indicate a culture in which great wealth was exchanged to commemorate the feats of the dead into the next world. Finally, these depictions help us to understand more about the historic events that took place during these different time periods as we understand which characters are highlighted, who comprises the enemy and how their meetings are portrayed. Works Cited “Art of the Roman Empire.” The Ancient World from the Roman Empire to the Fourth Crusade. (2005). A World History of Art. June 8, 2008 Dubrulle, Hugh. “Dying Warrior.” (image details). The Origins of the Western Tradition. (2002). Saint Anselm College. June 8, 2008 George, Roy. “Aphaea Temple.” The Museum of the Goddess Athena. (2001). June 8, 2008 Pennington, Ken. “The Grande Ludovisi Sarcophagus” (image details). The Church Throughout the Ages. (2006) The Catholic University of America. June 8, 2008 Stratton, Jerold. “The Temple of Aphaea at Aegina.” Fireblade Coffeehouse. (2001). Negative Space. June 8, 2008 Read More