04-28-2007, 08:03 PM
Quote:I like to think that possibly this sculptor was an idiot. I've seen people spend hours and hours on projects and have them turn out wrong because A) they didn't research it correctly, or B) they lacked an integral skill at craftsmenship. Either scenario is plausible in this case, given the inconsistancy of this piece.
I guess we just think about this differently, but I don't think it is plausible that a sculptor would just accidentally not carve in a neckhole and armholes for the cuirass.
Quote:If the lorica was indeed flared at the bottom, then why not build up the edges of the neck and arms to show the folded brass edging, as on the real pieces? Again, totally inconsistent to be used as evidence.
Because some cuirasses had flared bottom edges but flat neck and arm openings, and I'm guessing that's what he intended to show here. You have to realize that this is not isolated to this piece. The sculpture of Paris as an archer that they reconstructed is similar- the sculptor carved in the edges of the clothing at his hands and his feet, but for the rest it just looks plain, like a full-body jumpsuit. However, when the paint was reconstructed, it showed that there was actually some sort of jerkin or sleeveless tunic painted on over top of the jumpsuit. Now, was that sculptor also an idiot for carving in the edges of one piece of clothing but not another?
Quote:I'm saying that using only one source when it concerns drawing conclusions about the Romans is folly.
Nobody was just relying on one source. In this case we were just discussing this particular piece.
Quote:Unless you can check it against archaeological finds, or something that has been found in the written record, you're going out on a limb.
"Check it against archaeological finds"? This is an archaeological find.
Quote:Period. Art is completely subject to the artist's interpretation, since we don't know to what degree that is, it's extremely difficult to make conclusions based on it. Especially this particular piece...
Of course, but all that means is that you need to approach such art with different considerations in mind.
Quote:Not all modern art is existential or abstract. Check out a life drawing class at a local college or university. Not to mention there are thousands and thousands of examples of accurate though aritistic renditions of people. Again, you don't know what you're getting when it comes to something done 2000 years ago that can't be cross-referenced against anything else.
What I was referring to in comparing modern art to ancient art is that modern art has transformed itself several times over with different movements that fundamentally change the nature of individual pieces and how they should be interpreted. While realism is of course still common in art, a huge portion of art is modern or postmodern, so that today it ranges drastically in nature. In ancient times, almost all art followed the clear and restrictive guidelines of the day which dictated why a piece of art should be made and how it should appear. Variations of course did occur, but they were much less drastic than in modern art.
And I don't get why you are repeating that you can't cross-reference ancient art. Of course you can, and that's what art history is all about.
Ruben
He had with him the selfsame rifle you see with him now, all mounted in german silver and the name that he\'d give it set with silver wire under the checkpiece in latin: Et In Arcadia Ego. Common enough for a man to name his gun. His is the first and only ever I seen with an inscription from the classics. - Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian
He had with him the selfsame rifle you see with him now, all mounted in german silver and the name that he\'d give it set with silver wire under the checkpiece in latin: Et In Arcadia Ego. Common enough for a man to name his gun. His is the first and only ever I seen with an inscription from the classics. - Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian
