Using a term drawn from economic anthropology I would like to describe an attempt to trace in time and space the roots of the technical, stylistic and iconographic know-how that gave form to Roman painting. Considering the fragmentary nature of the evidence at our disposal, the argumentation set forth here cannot follow a linear path containing various steps that can all be neatly demonstrated. I believe that the time is right, however, to tackle Roman painting — and particularly painting in the domestic setting — with more conviction. Although understanding the rôle and nature of the patrons and painters remains an objective that is still far off, it is probably worth investigating the traditions that enjoyed some level of continuity in Roman painting and the concrete ways and contexts in which the process unfolded. The aim is to achieve a deeper understanding of the rôle that this artistic technique played in a society that made ample use of it during a fundamental phase of its history. In the 1st c. B.C. and 1st c. A.D., in the brief period that saw the transition from Republic to Empire, the domestic ideology of Roman society found expression in a decorative system marked by a continuous stream of innovations with respect to themes, schemes and ornament that were adopted consistently by a broad spectrum of patrons. A reflection on the cultural roots of Roman painting also seems necessary in view of the state of the art. Indeed, studies have long suffered from a rather narrow focus, perhaps partly as a matter of principle, according to which the figurative pictures – the most striking aspect of these decorations – depend totally on late-Classical and Hellenistic painting. For these reasons, in a framework characterised by the scientific interests of the 20th century, the study of Roman painting per se was considered to be of no great interest. In this way however, an important tool for understanding the meaning of a broad artistic process was lost. Indeed, despite the gaps in the historical record, a thorough analysis of Roman painting suggests that it continued to sustain an artistic and craft tradition of the highest sophistication. As I hope to demonstrate, this ‘continuity’ is intentional, the result of an active process, which can tell us a great deal about the motives of the various figures who had a part in it. In the light of these considerations, I would like to focus on certain phases that enable us to look in greater detail at the more problematic aspects of this artistic technique and the cultural level of the painters themselves. In the wake of a long and consolidated tradition of studies, we tend to see Roman painting in terms of broad continuity, from the late-Republican 'masterpieces' until the late-ancient world. In this continuity-based approach – based on the long persistence of the technique and certain decorative schemes – the evidence is examined linearly, following a path that is seen as being characterised by successive impoverishment. At the same time, the rich diversity of languages and themes that characterised the domestic ideology of Roman society from the early Imperial period to the Late Antiquity tends to be ignored. I will focus here mainly on the period from the late-Republican to the 1st century BC to the 1st century AD because in this brief period the archaeological evidence presents rapid sequences of shifts, interruptions and outright ruptures in the tradition, which facilitate the attempts at acquiring a deeper understanding that we propose here. Indeed, the period indicated above is marked by at least two fundamental innovations that represent an interruption of the tradition: frescoes with architectural schemes characterised by rich use of colour in the “Second Style” and the resurgence of mythological themes.

Towards a cultural biography of Roma painting

Irene Bragantini
2019-01-01

Abstract

Using a term drawn from economic anthropology I would like to describe an attempt to trace in time and space the roots of the technical, stylistic and iconographic know-how that gave form to Roman painting. Considering the fragmentary nature of the evidence at our disposal, the argumentation set forth here cannot follow a linear path containing various steps that can all be neatly demonstrated. I believe that the time is right, however, to tackle Roman painting — and particularly painting in the domestic setting — with more conviction. Although understanding the rôle and nature of the patrons and painters remains an objective that is still far off, it is probably worth investigating the traditions that enjoyed some level of continuity in Roman painting and the concrete ways and contexts in which the process unfolded. The aim is to achieve a deeper understanding of the rôle that this artistic technique played in a society that made ample use of it during a fundamental phase of its history. In the 1st c. B.C. and 1st c. A.D., in the brief period that saw the transition from Republic to Empire, the domestic ideology of Roman society found expression in a decorative system marked by a continuous stream of innovations with respect to themes, schemes and ornament that were adopted consistently by a broad spectrum of patrons. A reflection on the cultural roots of Roman painting also seems necessary in view of the state of the art. Indeed, studies have long suffered from a rather narrow focus, perhaps partly as a matter of principle, according to which the figurative pictures – the most striking aspect of these decorations – depend totally on late-Classical and Hellenistic painting. For these reasons, in a framework characterised by the scientific interests of the 20th century, the study of Roman painting per se was considered to be of no great interest. In this way however, an important tool for understanding the meaning of a broad artistic process was lost. Indeed, despite the gaps in the historical record, a thorough analysis of Roman painting suggests that it continued to sustain an artistic and craft tradition of the highest sophistication. As I hope to demonstrate, this ‘continuity’ is intentional, the result of an active process, which can tell us a great deal about the motives of the various figures who had a part in it. In the light of these considerations, I would like to focus on certain phases that enable us to look in greater detail at the more problematic aspects of this artistic technique and the cultural level of the painters themselves. In the wake of a long and consolidated tradition of studies, we tend to see Roman painting in terms of broad continuity, from the late-Republican 'masterpieces' until the late-ancient world. In this continuity-based approach – based on the long persistence of the technique and certain decorative schemes – the evidence is examined linearly, following a path that is seen as being characterised by successive impoverishment. At the same time, the rich diversity of languages and themes that characterised the domestic ideology of Roman society from the early Imperial period to the Late Antiquity tends to be ignored. I will focus here mainly on the period from the late-Republican to the 1st century BC to the 1st century AD because in this brief period the archaeological evidence presents rapid sequences of shifts, interruptions and outright ruptures in the tradition, which facilitate the attempts at acquiring a deeper understanding that we propose here. Indeed, the period indicated above is marked by at least two fundamental innovations that represent an interruption of the tradition: frescoes with architectural schemes characterised by rich use of colour in the “Second Style” and the resurgence of mythological themes.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11574/192613
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
social impact