This is one of my favourite channels on RU-vid. Please keep making more - it's a fantastic resource for anyone interested in art and history. You're both very engaging and explain things in a very clear manner.
THANK YOU for letting us SEE the sculptures which are very difficult to see even if you stand before the arch.And THANK YOU for the descriptive commentaries that help us integrate those images in what we know about Roman History. This presentation merits the mark of EXCELLENCY
Yes, but since the early 21th century art critics have been told to sneer at the idea that there is such a thing as good or bad, ugly or beautiful art. So they feel the need to justify the value of obviously poorer quality pieces through other means, ie: "it's not ugly, it's clear". Very good and informative video otherwise.
Wonderful video with so much specific detailed information!!! Makes me want to return to Rome to see these things with your videos fresh in my mind!! Thank you!
Wow! I sure do like your vids and channel! I like how I don't have to set aside an hour to watch something. I like how there are two narrators to make it not so monotonous in delivery and tone. The visuals are just fantastic and the content is always so interesting. Thanks!
Awesome. Would like to visit Rome one day. But I just don't want to be regular tourist so I been learning Latin and Roman history for a year now. Rome is just a gem. All this beautiful contribution to humanity. Originally my people were nomads and still practices that life style. So in my country, however huge it is, we don't have permanent structures like this. No permanent city until 20th century. Ocassionally we do meet with petroglyphs and deer stones, stone monuments here and there.
I was lucky to live there for three months with complete and total freedom. I explored the city like very few people ever have. There is also so much outside the city one of my favorite sites is Villa Adriana. I went a few times its usually empty and you can walk around freely. My second favorite place is Villa D'este stunning fountains and usually very few people around. I had the pleasure of just losing my self and immersing myself with the people and culture and it will completely change you. TRUST ME! go as soon as you are able to I guarantee you wont regret it even if you go as a regular tourist.
I know art historians avoid labeling successive artistic styles as better or worse than each other, but I really think the reliefs do just look like they were made by sculptors of vastly different ability. We have no problem labeling pre-scientific medicine as inferior and we have every reason to believe they would have practised effective medicine if they were capable of it. I think the two things are comparable. Btw this is such a great channel. The style and quality is absolutely unmatched, it's such a great resource. Thanks for all the wonderful content for all these years.
Thank you so much for the kind words. We really appreciate it. Here is another way of thinking about this complex issue. Any individual work of art should not be seen as the most sophisticated work that culture could produce since its survival is an historical oddity, as most works of art did not survive. Further, our culture, in 2017, produces images in very different ways. We use simplified images for road signs and airport way finding, we make both cartoons, and highly accurate reproductions. We do this for different audiences and for different purposes. The Romans also worked in numerous modes for differing audiences and in differing circumstances. Assuming that a single work necessarily represents the aspects we now value most in the art of a distant time is, in this regard, potentially misleading.
Wow thanks for replying, what an honour. If I could choose a RU-vid channel to survive intact until our ashes are discovered by alien life it would be this one. You're absolutely right, making assumptions about the state of a society based on surviving artworks is not reasonable, and now that you mention it I realize that surviving artworks are not a random sample. One thing that will probably continue to nag at me will be medieval paintings. Those misshapen, gigantic people standing next to tiny buildings and walls make me think the painter couldn't have created naturalistic works if you put a crossbow to their head but I probably have a non representative view of medieval art. Thanks so much for replying, and again, thanks for the content all these years. Bringing art into people's homes and explaining things the way you do is such a wonderful thing to do for people.
The crossbow remark made me laugh. The Medieval is a great place to point in this regard but also very tricky. I agree that much Classical knowledge was lost, especially in Western Europe. But the Medieval is a thousand years long and there were many brilliant moments. Its also important to think about how the naturalistic traditions of the ancient Greeks and Romans came to symbolize, for the Medieval Christians, a tradition that they may have seen as pagan. The classical focus on the material world may not have sat well with the new Christian emphasis on the spiritual. Distorted figures can be seen in this regard as symbols of the divine rather than representations of the earthly. So while some skills were certainly lost, the question is also, were they let go because they were no longer seen as important.
That's a great point. I had the pleasure of going to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NY and was surprised at the time to see some pagan scenes depicted by Christian painters (this confused me a lot), but, just like you mentioned, none of them were anywhere near Medieval (and I'm pretty sure they were all private commissions) so that fits perfectly. Now that I think about it they were all very naturalistic too so you've really got me there.
While the smaller fourth century reliefs(the "band") when viewed closely may look to be of an inferior quality, when viewed from a person on the ground, they offer a very crisp, distinctive, and easily identifiable image, and from that angle, appear to be of an impeccable quality. So it was probably a delibrate artistic method. We see the same style used for smaller reliefs on the arch of Titus, Trajan's column, and other places that date to earlier times. So these proportions aren't unique to the late Roman period. Also, we don't know with 100% certainty where the other reliefs originate from.
Wonderful video. Straight to the point. No unnecessary imagery/graphics/animation. Thank you! Alas, we’ll never know whether the “primitive” styles of the late Roman Empire were the result of the loss of craftsmanship and tradition, or a conscious stylistic choice. After all, “modern art” of the late 19th-early 20th centuries also introduced primitivism in stark contrast to the “classic beauty and elegance of form” of the past.
The newspaper of Rome "il messaggero" wrote same years ago the most weird and silly questions asked by foreign people when visiting the city to their Italian guides. One was "was the arch of Constantine of Rome inspired by that of Paris?". 😳😳😳😳This is not a joke.
Having attended a small, private Christian school in the Deep South, I and my classmates were often taken on trips to Bob Jones University. The university has quite a collection of renaissance and medieval art. The guided tours, however, are biased in their presentation of this art. What you said about the sloppy and simplistic execution of early Christian art is borne out by the way in which the Bob Jones tour guides explain the difference between such art and renaissance art. The art is arranged chronologically, so as we were guided through the museum, we moved from the older to the newer. I remember one of the guides saying that with the return to realistic depiction of the human form in the renaissance, we see man moving "away from God" and towards "glorification" of man and man's carnal, mortal form. Interesting that you mentioned something related to that.
Could the collage of sculpture on the arch of Constantine be related to the Late Antique habit of collecting and rearranging Classical sculpture? For instance I was reading about the Hadrianic baths in Aphrodisisas which were apparently remodeled by a 5th-6th century Governor, and contain much earlier sculptural groups that were reworked into new contexts.
In another video you mention "typology", a kind of foreshadowing of New Testament figures by Old Testament characters who play similar roles. Here, in a parallel manner, the sculptures seem to take Marcus Aurelius as a prototype for Constantine in actions including the distribution of largess.
I always wonder about the missing hands, heads, and other bits of historical sculptures; somewhere, there’s a little head of Justinian chilling in a cabinet or buried in a landfill, that belonged to a Roman arch.
Trajan and therefore the Roman Empire didn't consider the Dacians as prisoners nor barbarians. Trajan was so impressed with their bravery that he wanted to incorporate Dacian warriors into the Roman legionary at any cost. In order to impress them, he commissioned statues of Dacians to be made out of red porphyry and would be taller than the statues of the emperor himself, which were to be placed in the most glorious place in the Roman Empire, Trajan's Market, looking down on the people of Rome like gods. Dacian descendance was something to be proud of in the Roman Empire. It's also the reason why we can find the Hora, an ancient Romanian dance found in places like Germany and Ireland.
@@SethTheOrigin there are 2 in Florence in Boboli gardens, one in the Louvre, one in the Vatican. Saw all of them with my own eyes. Very small signs near them explaining what they represent.
Art did not degredate, rather it re-focused during the middle ages. The reason for the artistic transition of classical realism to middle age outlines was to remove glory or worship of images and rather tell the history. Biblical Christianity of the middle ages rejected idol worship but took advantage of sculpture and art for story telling. Thus, they took the artistic liberty to negate realism to re-focus the purpose of the craft. Space became more important than the object/person in order to convey a message, rather than glorify an individual. It went from worship to reverence and there is a difference.
when you say portions are from monuments to the good emperors, do you mean they were designs copied exactly so that people would recognize them? or were the original monuments defaced and parts taken to make the arch? (that would seem odd to like something because they were good but destroying them in the process..but then who knows how powerful people really think :-))
Dr. Harris sounded differently in this video... did she have a cold? I still can't get over Constantine's head being the only one missing... I now know what a spandrel is, though.
I appreciate your explanation of the Christian era reliefs. Instead of being inferior, it is a different style. I watched a silly video that used the Arch of Constantine to prove that Constantine never converted to Christianity. The lack of Christian symbols "proved" it. Your interpretation of the arch shows some serious flaws in their interpretation. Thanks.
Actually the silly video you dismiss is historically accurate! This one not so much. There are not Christian symbols to be found on the Arch! He converted in his deathbed!
those huge Daci doesn't look like prisoners to me, the posture that they have and the size compare to the rest of images suggest that they are more like somebody important, don't forget Romans occupied 10% from Dacia and only for 100 years!!!
Since there in not much known about Dacia in the history books, all explanations can be possible! What is curios to me, is that the language of Dacia can't be Roman Latin, but is the closes language to Latin.
There were a few Emperors and high officials who were in fact Dacian. So I think there has been a lot of misconceptions or out right lies about Dacia and it's involvement (and possible founding of) with Rome.
I wonder why not huge statues with Roman generals , instead they put Dacians males with proud and dignity poses !? The history of Europe is a little different.
Well, I´m writing an article about this arch and I´m not quite sure if those inner panels are dating to era of Hadrian. Everywhere it´s dated to Traian.
@@aurea.antiqua Nope, it looks to young to date to that age, It doesn't show any visible sign of weathering, no sign of cracks....etc. It's standing in perfect condition for a thousands year old structure ? That's simply bs. also why would Constantine build an arc in rome, when he only reigned all his life in modern Turkey and buIgaria ?
@@teddyissak2720 Well, as archaeologist may I ask If you have some kind of scientific article to prove this? Because I’ve analysed this arch and it’s really visible which parts are from which era (Traian, Hadrian, Marcus Aurelius and also Constantine). Also we have the dedication etc. Constantine did not build it, the senate did as a sign of gratitude that Constantine liberated Rome (Milvian bridge battle).
@@aurea.antiqua "Scientific article" for an archeologist ? lol, Archeology is not a science mate, It's a humanity and archeologist doesn't do any scientific investigation. They relay on visual inspection and giving a hypothetical explanation what they observe. This doesn't need any expertise, you can do it by yourself. Archeologists are not scientist. They don't analyze material science. YT doesn't allow me to post any Iink here so, You should research by yourself, "How a limestone stone degraded", "How many years a limestone structures can survive", What is the rate of limestone reaction to a dry or cold atmosphere, Humidity....etc. You will then know why the age of these structure as claimed is a bs
1:30 Why are Dacian prisoner barbarians depicted standing and in important places like the top of the monument that is about Roman military victories? It seems like these statues are in positions of glorification. I would think you'd mention why they are placed in this way.
@@Chad_Eldridge he started making 4 --> 2. This stopped expansion in the West. After him, 50 -150 years later Western Roman Empire fell. Although, everything is much more complicated..
the 8 dacian they dont look like prisoniers.......looookkk.......look at their hands left with right......what it mins that position of hands......look
It makes absolutely no sense . You say the 4 dacian statues represents the Dacian prisoners. Well is not that obvious to me. By the posture of those statues there is nothing to hint that is representing some prisoners.
Calling Trajan one of the "good emperors" seems a bit of stretch given his dual campaigns on Darcia, but then historians often gave deference to the Roman Empire for being so "great".
The term is meant to express how Constantine and Romans of the 4th century may have viewed certain previous rulers (though it is possible that the term is no older than the 14th century). I applaud your skepticism.
One of the most silly and dumb question americans ask to their Italian guides Is if they took the Arch of Paris as model for the archs in Rome. It's not a joke. The Rome' s newspaper published the dumbest questions. There Is a big list...
I don't think labeling any bearded figure straight up as barbarian (foreigner) is not a good approach. There were many Romans who sported a beard and depicted with it from emperors to generals due to variety of reasons being a Philhellenist is one of them. Take 2:20 in this video for instance.
