Afterglow
by A. Robert Malcom
The surprising thing about the Romans, artistically, was that they formulated so little in the way of originality about it. Almost all of their sculptures, for instance, were merely imitative of Grecian ones. They just changed things like the drapery, to the styles the Romans wore, or simply copied the renowned Grecian sculptures from the centuries before. It is thanks to this latter that, as previously stated, we have been able to gain, second-handedly, knowledge about them, since the originals are as yet still lost to us.
It was only in the arena of domestic dwellings - in effect continuing the process of the Hellenistic individualism - that there was anything in the way of advancement. That was the introduction, by way of their friezes, of landscape renderings. Most of the examples which have survived are of the garden variety - trees, flowers, bushes, walls dividing the areas, and the assorted birds and other wildlife nesting or flying amidst. Like their still-lifes, which also flourished in popularity, the landscape renderings were very much in the way of personal visualizations, and very much contemplative as a consequence - something which obviously had given the owners a sense of peace and serenity away from the travails of public life. As an added incentive, it may well have also been attempts at providing the appearance of gardens without the efforts required for actually having them. This could especially be so, since these renderings were found in habitation areas such as the crowded complexes within a city, which would not have allowed for the real thing, especially one of the extravagant sizes often depicted.
But that was the great extent of the development, at least in regards to paintings and sculptures. Apparently, the codified thought of conformity, so expounded in the laws developed by those Romans, seemed to have stifled originality in all but a selected area - non-fictional literature. It was in their essays, histories, orations, and so forth - all those things involving rhetoric - that they put their energies, and the extent of their aesthetics in the field of Art. Their odes, for instance, as well as their plays, were but little-original creations: efforts in imitation of Greek efforts - and again tuned to Roman tastes and subjects.
The actuality was even worse than that. Even the Arts such as sculpture, the murals, still-lifes and other paintings, even the music - all were usually done by Grecian artisans and artists who had been imported to Rome for the purpose. The Roman himself basically was not interested in doing any of those endeavors - he considered himself to be a "man of letters", or rather he was raised to consider himself as such. His primary leisure, however, was spent in sports - gladiator displaying their military prowess, for instance, not the Arts.
Much of the reason for this state of affairs is the fact that, like ancient Egypt, the Romans lived in an agonic social structure - the difference being, however, that, unlike the Egyptians, theirs was not an insular society, cut off by barren lands and sea, to keep them in isolation. Instead, there was a continuous need for a lengthy time of conquest, governing the acquired territories, and keeping the outer, fringed barbarians at bay.
While this allowed enough in the way of leisure time for one to become a person of letters, it did not make for the extended time needed for Romans to do sculpturing or painting - especially at the various outposts, even worse among the hustle and continued bustling associated among, say, the senators at Rome. Far better it was to be the essayist, or historian, or poet, or [when in Rome] the orator-all utilizing the rhetorical skills taught while growing up.
Furthermore, there were the engineering feats to engage in: something also of major importance to the Romans. They then let the feats of architecture become a substitute for the Arts such as sculpture. The public building became the arena for the expressions of aesthetics-their attempts in tribal glorifications.
Yet there was still a need for the personal. It is an inborn trait of being human, however much tribal influences dictate the public sphere. So, even tho the sculpturing and painting that was done was largely produced by imported artisans and artists, mostly from Greece, the fact that there was a lot of domestic-dwelling aesthetics showed that there was a sense of the individual, and that to the Roman it was of importance - even as it was ignored socially. That was one of the reasons, perhaps, for the introduction of landscape renderings - and, to a lesser extent, the other background renderings, such as room extensions, whether whole rooms or alcoves wherein were painted vases of flowers or other artifacts desired to be remembered. Here, it would seem, Romans conceived themselves as being "in the world", firmly grounded in reality - for those backgrounds were of the world around them as they had seen it, and as they, in the sense of landscapes, had remembered it or wished it to be.
The real major problem with all of this was that the Roman, while seeing value in these endeavors of contemplation, did not see them as something which they could engage in doing - it would have been thought of as being very beneath them as a Roman. In an agonic society, the worth is resolved only within the public - the private, such as it was, was considered beneath any official consideration, for it detracted from being the public person. That, too, was why the works were done by imported artisans and artists, for these same artisans and artists were considered as slaves and thus "lesser beings". Moreover, as it was with the Greeks in their earlier history, there was also a disparaging view of those who sought to do the Arts "for a living", as a commercial venture - the concept of the trading syndrome did not sit very well, if at all, in the consciousness of the Romans and their taking syndrome mentality.
The consequence of this was an inevitability - a loss of incentive for creativity in the Arts, one of the Trading Syndrome virtues. While it could have been said that because of the vastness of the empire, there was great potential in the endeavorings, by the same token, because of the agonicness of the social structure, there was perceived little desire for actualizing that potential - it simply would not have been rewarded.
Contemplativeness, however, is still a necessity of being human. If there is little, if any real social approval of it in regards to the world around them, then it will of consequence be turned to contemplations of other realms, whether real or not, whether appropriate to human qua human growth or not. In other words, it opened the way for the infiltration of Christianity, the most profoundly anti-human aesthetic perversion of the agonic taking/tribalist syndrome to appear - even as it was postured as being a doctrine of love and hope in a disparaging world. The consequence of that, which lasted for hundreds of years - to nearly a millenia - was that era which gave identity to the true nature of religion, the Dark Ages.
Discuss this Article (0 messages)
|
