Trajan\'s Column V Adamklissi

[tlclark]

In 'The Artists of the Ara Pacis; the process of Hellenization in Roman Relief Sculpture', by Diane Atnally Conlin, she firmly believes the Greek master theory must be abandoned.

Great book BTW. For the later periods I strongly recommend Thomas Mathews and Jas Elsner. Picking up Gardner's art history I still see that they are following Gibbons and Winckelman. In time, this too will be corrected.

As an undergraduate I learned that there was a very scientific method for determining if a work was "Roman" or by a "Greek" master.

If they liked it...it was Greek.

It was infuriating. Some people still aren't giving up the ghost. The Laocoon is still covered as a hellenistic work, even though the finds at Sperlonga have firmly dated it to the reign of Tiberius. The "And but..." crowd argue that it's still a hellenistic work, BUT under that logic all the art currently made in America is technically British.

I think it's utterly feasible that the sculptors in Dacia had plenty of input from the Roman military there, which would explain the accuracy of the content if not the forms.

Minor quibble here. If the form is not accurate, how do you know the content is accurate? How do you convey content without form? :wink:

It's a judgement call at best. You make your bets and take your chances.

Perhaps back in Rome the column had a military advisor in the form of a young tribune with an eye for the Arts who had spent some time in Dacia? Alternatively, a member of the Imperial Court who had accompanied Trajan, but had no eye for military detail, which would give a reason for the accuracy of the forms but not the content? That assumes the TC segs are wrong :wink:

Or that they didn't care to get them right in the first place. I think they were going for recognition not accuracy. They wanted everyone to look and say "Hey, legionnaires!" Not "Hey, segmenatatae from the Dacian campaign!" Everyone already knew they were looking at the Dacian campaign.

Travis