Did art decline in the late Roman Empire?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 ноя 2022
- Steal BLACK FRIDAY deal and get Atlas VPN Premium for $1.70/mo + 6 months extra: get.atlasvpn.com/Maiorianus Limited-time offer😉! (30-day money-back guarantee)
🔴 YOU WANT TO SUPPORT THIS CHANNEL? 🔴
🤗 Join our Patreon community: / maiorianus
Or become an official Maiorianus member on RUclips: / maiorianus461
🤗 One-Time Donation?
- PayPal: paypal.me/Maiorianus
- Bitcoin: bc1qv4lsfsplvfecrrgvmfclhga28we7mvh9563xdj
🔗 Share the video with anyone who might be interested (it helps a ton!)
👍 Subscribe to our videos FOR FREE: ruclips.net/user/Maiorianus4...
📚 My favorite novel about the late Roman Empire, "Julian" by Gore Vidal: amzn.to/3mZwOdJ
📚 BEST BOOKS ON ROMAN HISTORY: 📚
1. "History of the City of Rome in the Middle Ages" by Ferdinand Gregorovius amzn.to/3yOvjEd
2. "Rome: Profile of a City, 312-1308" by Richard Krautheimer amzn.to/3yyChgp
3. "Rome: An Urban History from Antiquity to the Present" by Rabun Taylor amzn.to/322ClsZ
These are all excellent books if you are like me, absolutely fascinated by the transition of Rome from late antiquity to the early medieval period.
📚 One of our favorite books about the Fall of the Roman Empire, "The Fall of Rome" by Bryan Ward-Perkins: amzn.to/3FXeDNg
The wonderful background music is by Adrian von Ziegler: • Relaxing Roman Music -...
🎦 FILMING EQUIPMENT WE USE: 🎦
Webcam: amzn.to/3yFSFvu
Microphone: amzn.to/3e2ZFsW
Disclosures: Some links in the description are affiliate links which means that if you purchase something by clicking on one of them, your host Sebastian will receive a small commission at no additional cost to you. In this way you will be supporting the channel to improve the video production quality at no extra cost to you.
Disclosure: This video was sponsored by atlas VPN.
📬 Contact us: maiorianus.sebastian@gmail.com
#Maiorianus 
Наука
Steal BLACK FRIDAY deal and get Atlas VPN Premium for $1.70/mo + 6 months extra: get.atlasvpn.com/Maiorianus Limited-time offer😉! (30-day money-back guarantee)
art today is a banana duct taped to a wall. paintings made with semen. garbage dumped on floor. architecture designed by the cia to be ugly so people have no hope. any Roman style is better.
When I was at school I was told that the change in style was due to a new emphasis on spirituality. I wasn’t convinced. Constantine had to steal sculpture reliefs and statuary from older buildings to grace his triumphal arch and I’m sure he wouldn’t have done that if competent sculptors were available. Also there is evidence that even aristocratic houses built in the fourth century “borrowed” masonry from older buildings and used it haphazardly. I think there was a definite decline in skill, however, there were still mosaicists about, even if latterly these tended to come from Constantinople. Brick making also practically stopped in the fifth century. There was a shortage of money, a shortage of skills and political insecurity. Art needs wealth and economic optimism to flourish.
The Arch of Constantine was only built over 2 years. So the use of spolia could’ve been a cost/ time cutting measure. Constantine would later build two more arches in Rome, however only the brickwork survives today. Judging by the quality in the body work of the colossal statues of Constantine, I’d argue that Classically trained sculptors were still present at the time
and...Tolerance of new ideas...hard to find once the ev-aggelicans take hold
@@wirelessbluestone5983 Certainly the colossus of Constantine appears to be a very well executed piece of work, incorporating the then fashionable stylism in the facial appearance, and his foot is wonderful. But I don’t think it is representative of contemporary sculpture, if there indeed was very much. In most of the western empire things were going bad quickly, although there were a few prosperous decades during Constantine’s lifetime, and the gold quality of the solidus held up for those few decades, but after Constantine died the whole shaky edifice collapsed. After his rule, for example, there was little new villa building in Britain, whereas in the first three decades of the century there was quite a lot of activity. When I look at contemporary modern sculpture the best representative work is poor compared with past centuries, and the fashionable work is dismal. And we also live in a decaying civilisation, as far as I can determine. Others may think everything now is wonderful and the future will be amazing. Best wishes to them.
You are right , my friend: NO MONEY, NO ART, NO NOTHING
In my school we learn nothing.
The shortage of artists suggests a breakdown in the chain of education so skills weren't passed on. I am very sceptical of any suggestion that there was a deliberate stylistic choice. As a bad artist myself, I know very well the standard look of bad art caused by a lack of skill, and it's not the same as a good artist making a choice to be stylised in a "simple" manner. It's the same as the difference between a bad pianist and a good pianist playing a simple tune. So I think the number of good artists dwindled quite rapidly as new masters ceased to be trained and the old ones died off.
This is exactly correct. I'm a realist painter and you really can see the signs: those symbolic eyes and craniums too short on top, those are mistakes done by people with little knowledge of anatomy and proportion. Figures four or five heads tall, so people resemble munchkins in sculptoric compositions. Clearly not done on purpose. It's totally different from classical Greek and Roman art where you can see those basics not only mastered but surpassed and played with for expressivity. One thing that no one mentions at any point is, ok sure, that "stylized" art is the new normal, but where is the reproduction market? For a long time during the Republic and the Empire a market existed for copies of master pieces from Greek and Roman artists. Surely it might be old fashioned but maybe you'd like a copy of Fidias for your building or of a bust of Scipio? But is clear that the making of such copies also stopped. I'm almost certain that the transmission of knowledge master to disciple in the Art Workshops broke at some point and the knowledge was lost. So there would be no one to know how to make molds, use a caliper or any of the tools Romans used to make copies of sculptures (because Roman copies were really exact copies of originals many of those lost). I think it was probably during the epidemics, which hit cities hard when that happened. Masters living there must have perished. Afterwards people filling in for artists would be carpenters masons or stone cutters, maybe people that used to do decorations for buildings, surviving members of professions with bigger pools of workers. But the real sculptors were gone, and with them knowledge and know how you really can't learn from books. People would have to rebuild that knowledge again from the beginning and using inspiration from the vestiges of Greek and Roman art which showed future artists what was possible, and that is what happened at the End of the Middle Ages.
The artists of the earlier Roman era weren't good, they were just ACCURATE. Their sculptures look lifeless and dull, they are just insanely correct in proportion. You can see this by googling Roman sculpture, you will find laughably bad composition of incredibly well-proportioned subjects. This suggests that the earlier sculptors were using copying machines and molds to make their sculptures, not their eyes, hands, and brain.
Good point.
@Gaye Lorde I have brown hair and eyes.
@Gaye Lorde More Einstein, less Ba'al Shem Tov.
The idea that in the 3rd century busts of emperors had to be made “more quickly” before said emperor was overthrown is really quite amusing! Sounds like a good theme for a comic opera.
This idea is nonsense.
@@annaclarafenyo8185 if you overthrow a regime and need to produce symbols of legitimacy you may pressure the artists to work faster if you are a usurper rather than legitimate this is even more true if you are the usurper of the usurper of the usurper…
@@annaclarafenyo8185grow up bro
'Bring Me the Bust of Emperor Garcia'
Decline tends to come in waves. The waves of decline come in and then recede, but each "high point" is a bit lower than the prior one, and each "low point" is a bit worse.
There was no decline. The industry that made sculptures before relied on armies of non-artist slaves, the new sculptures were made by individual artists, sanctioned by the Church. It's a completely different method of working, and the later Roman sculptures show artistic spirit and good composition, although inferior in accuracy, because they aren't copying casts from real life.
Give examples
@@annaclarafenyo8185
There was a decline yes in all sorts of ways
@@ProtoIndoEuropean88 There was a decline FOR THE ELITES, who were used to armies of slaves. For the common person, the 'dark ages' were the greatest period of equality and freedom until that point.
Man this is depressing, to think that such a magnificent culture could vanish.
They were obsessed with art and architecture. Ancient Rome was a beautiful place in many aspects, other not. Depends on where you were and the era of Rome. It’s a shame Rome is lost to history.
I always get depressed whenever the thought strikes me that only 10% of the literature survived, and just fragments of painting and music.
Painting in particular hurts me, since from surviving accounts it was as developed as sculpture. Only names of artists survive, some descriptions of masterpieces and some third hand copies in places like old tombs, Pompeii and Herculaneum.
….As is our currently
@@marlonbryanmunoznunez3179 It depresses me too. Especially to think about how much it was a beautiful and colorful world. Almost fantastical in many aspects. All the colored plaster and beautiful marble tiles and marble columns and the architecture. All the colorful and highly detailed marble statues was a surprise as well . I watched a very detailed digital tour of Pompeii. Gives you a very good look of how ancient Romans really were. It’s too bad it was so destroyed by the nearby volcano. But that is also what preserved it for centuries from bandits and raiders. The color, oh the colors I was not expecting. Ancient Pompeii and I’m sure Rome as well, was very very colorful. Color everywhere! The walls of almost every building was covered with plaster and painted with bright vivid colors. On the inside of the more upscale buildings and villas were very detailed and bright paintings and painted decor. Most all marble sculptures and reliefs were painted and they even painted their columns (unless they were a more upscale type of marble). Ancient Rome and its surrounding cities were not all white or plain and stoic like people thought back in the renaissance. Ancient Rome, especially in the republican era, was very bright and full of color! And it’s all lost to history and even with some of the pieces of info that we have, most of Ancient Rome and the surrounding cites, are a mostly a mystery left to our imaginations.
@@ecamilo762
define "our".
Another aspect to consider with some busts is the material used. Porphyry, the purplish stone, is much harder to work than marble. So statues made of Porphyry are simplified while some marble statues of the same era are naturalistic. Porphyry was rare, costly to shape, and best of all purple (imperial color). Using Porphyry was another sign of the emperor's wealth and status even to the detriment of realism.
There was a gradual decline in Roman ability, there was a decline of focus and sense of urgency in the population. The Roman society became complacent and their abilities decline including their art, to understand this see ruclips.net/video/eVYD4orSvOo/видео.html
I think this is a symbol of the increase in authoritarian rule by the Emperor as he commanded more wealth even in times of crisis which led to Emperors wearing fancy purple tunics with gold embroidery and golden diadems encrusted with Indian diamonds.
@@t.wcharles2171 emperor's always wore purple. Even Julius Caesar wore an all-purple toga and red boots. When you see those Byzantine mosaics of emperors covered in gold and purple, and jewels, it was a high ceremony type of dress. They didn't wear that stuff on a daily basis.
Early emperors had porphry statues made as well.
@@histguy101 yes but only in times of peace the period I was attempting to talk of is the Dominate where the Emperor was the State and the State was the Emperor's where wealth was more centralised in the imperial sphere.
I think this only partially explains it though - look at the Sarcophagi of Helena and Constantina - they are incredibly detailed and realistic
1:15
*Fun fact:* This noseless bust of a thin man with abundant hair and a fierce look was considered for years a representation of the dictator Sulla, since there is another noseless bust that represents the dictator with the same physical characteristics. However, it was recently discovered that the first mentioned bust actually depicted General Scipio Africanus before said general became bald and fat. If at least one of these busts did not have a broken nose, this confusion might never have occurred.
Very Interesting. Thanks for Sharing
Bald and fat lol
It should be noted with the quality of the strike had two important factors which are important to note. Firstly, the blank the mint workers use to strike the coins, decays through use and in times of crisis where mint workers are rushing and don't have access to new blanks would keep using the old ones and so bad strikes can be seen in some of these coins. The second consideration is the quality of the mint itself, a high quality mint, such as in Constantinople or Rome would produce coins of the highest quality where as provincial mints could produce coins of a much lower standard. A fantastic example of this are the difference of mintages for the follis from Syracuse and Constantinople during the ninth century.
With Roman coins, it's with the Tetrarchs (i.e., Diocletian and company) where I first notice some decline in terms of style. This continues with the Constantinians, and it really accelerates during the 5th century. When I get to Constantine I and his family, I have some trouble identifying which one is which for some of them unless I read the inscriptions on the coins. I never have this issue with earlier coinage because the busts are so realistic that you can see each emperor as an individual. One thing: that statue that you showed to depict the Emperor Julian is no longer thought to be him by a fair number of scholars.
That statue or bust of the emperor Julian looks like a product of a much earlier time period.
There was a gradual decline in Roman ability, there was a decline of focus and sense of urgency in the population. The Roman society became complacent and their abilities decline including their art, to understand this see ruclips.net/video/eVYD4orSvOo/видео.html
@@hughcapetien I agree. I also have a feeling that any statues or busts of Julian were destroyed in the decades following his death because of the strongly negative feelings a certain part of the population held towards him.
I agree I think the cameo depicting Julian would’ve been a better example of classicism’s survival
@@julianhermanubis6800
Nah, there were still intact statues of Julian as late as the 9th Century in Constantinople. I'm sure some probably might have been vandalized, but Julian was given a proper burial and his tomb was respected until 1204.
Money is everything. When the Empire is stable, you get classical realistic art style. If the Empire is not stable, you get simplified style.
It's the opposite
I don't think this is the reason. They had plenty of money in the later era described here too. What they were missing is armies of slave labor for the labor intensive process of creating molds and copying the molds into marble. This requires a lot of labor, compared with the cost of hiring a single sculptor to make a bust.
They definitely had slaves well after the christianization
I would say yes. Those kawai eyes of Constantine you don't see that on Augustus or Trajan. What seems weird is that Julian doesn't look kawai he looks like the old statues, maybe he wanted to make a tribute to the old style.
That's the christian artstyle. Big eyes since eyes are the door to the soul, and that really matters to christians.
Julian Tried to bring the old art style like he tried with Paganism
I definitely prefer the old style.
I wouldn’t say they’re “kawaii” eyes. Remember that Roman busts were painted so these eyes would’ve shown the image of an alert and attentive emperor
Julian was the last shot at a proper restoration the empire had, but alas he fell and we got Greeks and barbarians larping among the ruins...
I was told on school some bull about medieval art changing to show more "spiritually", but I am a realist painter and dabble in realist sculpture sometimes. And for me the symptoms are unmistakable: classic roman artists knew their business about proportion and anatomy while late Roman artist's clearly did not. You can see that in some of the late Roman artists some of the technical stuff about use of tools and materials survive, but not the knowledge needed to accurately depict nature, their work reverted to the primitive way the human figure is depicted by people with no artistic knowledge (that look on those heads with big symbolic eyes and shortened on top skulls, you can see that a lot in children for example). I suspect that the training master to student that happened in professional Workshops broke at some point and simply the knowledge wasn't passed. That's training that takes time and effort to transmit and can't be improvised or learned through books. I have the suspicion this could have happened during one the epidemics, like the Cyprian Plague that affected urban areas where artists would take residence. Too many masters dead and at some point there's no one left to train the new generation. And once lost it would take 1500 years for people to build the knowledge again from first principles.
I'm right on board with that, and I wonder, without much basis for theorizing, why the Western world can't sculpt anymore. Sculpture is done with the easiest material, bronze, and busts and statues don't look like the subject and always seem to be out of proportion and unrealistic even without reference to the actual subject. Could you say something about this idea/observation?
1500 years ?
You're looking at 700 at worst.
Early medieval sculpture was indeed shaky, but late medieval works got as good as it gets.
Also, the appeal to symbolism to justify medieval weirdness is actually pretty valid when looking at works like the ones ornating medieval cathedrals that exhibit such elongated and unnatural proportions, yet always following the same patterns, that they can't be anything but intentionally so.
@@remilenoir1271 So is corporate art, which sucks.
@@friendlyfire7861 Corporate art is simplistic, the exact opposite of medieval art which, though not realistic, is extremely intricate (sometimes to a fault imo).
@@remilenoir1271 I know that, but it still sucks. That's just a matter of taste, and spending a lot of time on something doesn't mean it's any good. One might even argue that corporate art is 'intricate" in that creating the software was also an intricate process and pretty amazing in the big picture. There is also an similarity in that Byzantine art was serving a very specific purpose and got minimal innovative effort from the artist and furthermore remained static for a long period, 🙂
As and ardent amateur historian of the Roman Empire, I have for years noted the difference in sculpture and coins between the early and the later Empire. I've often wondered about this, and I think your theory is accurate. Both the busts and the coins of the later Emperors have what best be described as a simplified, generic portrait. Making one coin virtually indistinguishable from that of another Emperor's, except by the inscription.
I think the simplicity of late Imperial coins had something to do with the revolving door of Barracks Emperors in the third century many of who had reigns of only a few months and this constant change in Imperium holders could have led to the simplification of the coin dies in order to facilitate quick production of the new guy's coins because in many ways a coin was a sign of legitimacy and so the imperial mint continuing to produce was not an option so detail and accuracy gave way to speed and simplicity.
Simplified is not a determination here. Simplified is Nordic style vs Baroque. Here it's more like childish or unprofessional. Indeed they are simpler than the early ones - but it's not the complexity that was removed in the 1st place, it's skill.
It’s interesting that Constantine iV used the older spear over shoulder style during the mid 400s to early 500s in his coins more than a century later.It’s like a modern monarch is wearing an early Victorian dress.
Or Charlemagne looking like a Roman emperor oh wait.
Yeah I find Constantine IV's throwback solidi really interesting, maybe he thought the design was cool or maybe he thought that was a more prosperous time for the empire before the Arabs took over most of their land and he wanted to "Make Constantinople Great Again" perhaps?
When I found out about polychromy, it blew away what I thought about art in antiquity. I wish he covered this more.
He will never cover it, as this type of stuff tries to make the Romans look good. They weren't good, they were the archetype of evil empire.
@@annaclarafenyo8185 Yes for the most part. I’m still amazed by their sense of aesthetics and architecture though. It’s like something out of another world. But the Romans were real nasty. They were conquerors. Slavery was so common it was considered a normal class and they enjoyed executing their condemned with one of the most horrendous methods ever known to man, being crucified and left out to rot in the blazing sun. Their idea of entertainment was to watch men carve each other up in a battle arena. Pretty messed up. I love their architecture and art, the society is nothing to model a civilization after though.
@@kalvinkalvarino9536 I wish everyone understood this like you do, a lot of these channels are neo-fascists trying to resurrect the Roman order, because they see themselves as the masters. Roman art, though, is being viewed through a reneissance lens. When you see it in color (as it was originally) and without the scars of time, the sculptures look like the cheap figurines you buy today of jesus, or mary. The realism of the sculptures is due to technology, not any artistry, and the sense of composition is completely off. The reneissance figures who idolized the Romans often had slaves, or were conquering a new world, or both, so they had reasons to prop up the Roman world having nothing to do with aesthetic merit. I agree that the architecture is cool, the concrete dome is amazing, and when you see an aquaduct up close, it's a very intimidating structure for plumbing.
@@kalvinkalvarino9536 That's all true but how different is it from any other ancient civilization in terms of brutality? Not very much in my opinion.
@@Stephen-uz8dm It's a step back in barbarity for both the Jews and the Greeks., which is why the Greeks and Jews protested the Roman 'civilization' using Christianity and revolt respectively.
As an Orthodox Christian, who's painted his fair share of icons, I can you there is a debate for the simplified style, in that it isn't the art that is one display, it is the figure being presented. What is important is when you see this image, you think of this person and what they represent, not the piece of wood they're painted on or the coin, or marble.
You should take a look at Byzantine mosaics because some of them are hilariously weird. Like, some depict the most ACCURATE clothing possible but all have the same face, or some make it so hard to distinguish Christ from the emperors, that you have to look for His unique halo. Like the funniest to me, the icons of emperors Constantine and Justinian, they are ALMOST the same exact icon. That seems deliberate, to equate Justinian with the glory of Constantine.
Also after the Iconoclasm period and DEFINITELY after the Great Schism, the East began to eschew statues. I know in my particular church, no 3D images are allowed at all.
I was told the same and that may be so, but ideological reasons are one thing. It is still inferior in the sense that it takes less skill to make. Which is not to say that non realist art is all ugly but still
Excellent analysis of the subject. We can thank those artisans for letting us know what these important Romans looked like. Sad that so much Roman art was destroyed when the Empire fell. Great channel!
A decline in the recognition of beauty, and a rise in banal existence,
My art history Prof. said the difference is explained the same as the change between 19th century beaux art style and 20th century impressionism and abstract art.
But the shift in art style was caused by technological development, not the opposite. I think it’s unfair to say it changed because of the decline.
Fascinating discussion. Perhaps however there could have been mention of the fact that porphyry (favoured for late period statues of emperors because of its purple colour) is a hard stone that is difficult to carve.
There is a break in continuity for many art styles and media. For example, realistic funeral portraits stopped being made in the Fayum area in the 3rd century. But researchers think the tradition had moved to urban Alexandria. Since Alexandria has suffered brutal conquests and destruction due to earthquakes and war, it is possible that all the late portraits have been destroyed. So we might never know what Egypt's late antiquity funeral portraits looked like.
A very interesting video and one that I think tries to address this piece of art history that for many is just written off as only a drop in quality.
There was a gradual decline in Roman ability, there was a decline of focus and sense of urgency in the population. The Roman society became complacent and their abilities decline including their art, to understand this see ruclips.net/video/eVYD4orSvOo/видео.html
I think another argument challenging the decline of skill after the crisis of the 3rd century is the similarity of late roman art to the Palmyrene funerary reliefs created in the 1st century BC which are similarly more symbolic, with less individual characteristics. Perhaps the syrian influence of that era, the reconquest of Palmyra and the rise of Christianity in Syria contributed to the shift in style.
I also noticed that.
And what about architecture ? infraestructures? filosofy? Law ?
There was a gradual decline in Roman ability, there was a decline of focus and sense of urgency in the population. The Roman society became complacent and their abilities decline including their art, to understand this see ruclips.net/video/eVYD4orSvOo/видео.html
@@bideni408 filosophy, with an f.
@@bideni408 Do you have a point?
I think it matches how, as society declines, so do the apparatuses of its culture.
This wasn't a 'decline', it was the end of ancient slavery.
@@annaclarafenyo8185 what the hell are you taking about? Art wasn't made by slaves, and slavery was practiced widespread around the the world until the 19th century.
@@bud389 No, no no. Slavery disappeared in the Roman empire, gradually, starting in the 3rd century and finalizing by the early medieval period. There was hardly any slavery in Europe from the 7th century until the modern era, because the Church ruled you can't own Christian slaves. Slavery was reintroduced in the modern era to allow for quick exploitation of the new world.
You don't know how the ancient art was made. I believe it was made in large houses and the majority of the work was done by slaves by copying casts.
@@annaclarafenyo8185 Call up whoever gave you a humanities degree and ask for your money back.
@@mercster I have a science degree.
What is also interesting, is that during the crisis of the third century, the aurei (golden coins) of Postumus' western "Gallic Empire" were much more detailed and beautiful than the aurei of Gallienus from Rome itself.
I visited East Berlin in 1985 and Leningrad in 1988. In both cities I noted the contemporary art in galleries to be crude, if not outright grotesque. It was my opinion that this was a sign of cultural collapse, and I was spot on. Sadly, I see a growing quantity of such art today in the US.
Spot on. When I went to the art gallery once, the comparison of art from XIX century and then from XX century down to the contemporary was extremely depressing. Decline is visible.
@@micheasz2552 same with architecture too!
You can still find plenty of representational artists out there if you wish. They certainly exist. The problem is we've been doing representational art for close to 600 years now as it appeared in the late 1400's and dominated the art scene through to the Impressionists of the late 1900's. With the rise of photography and it's optimization in the 20th century (and beyond), representational art makes less sense as a dominant driver for creative energy. For many artists and creatives, reproducing the same type of style and work that's been done for 100's of years is just not satisfying and could be seen as it's own sort of decline: ossification or stagnation. I'm not really a fan of modern art myself but I understand why it exists and know that there's more to it than just abstraction. Many modern artists still work in representational elements in their work so it's not all shapes, lines, blobs and urinals.
@@TimothyCHenderson Of course, but a lot of it reveals a level of cultural self-loathing and a simple, desperate, lack of creativity.
@@TimothyCHenderson you're right
I always thought late Roman art conveyed the message the emperors wanted to give - that they were blunt, tough, hard-fighting soldiers, not interested in prettiness or ornament.
Imagine being Eutropius and being best known for having the derpiest-looking bust of all time.
Great video! I think the statuary art peaked with Caracalla. That guy looks like a person got frozen in stone. On the whole, I enjoy the Crisis statues: all those gloomy-looking, yet individualized, emperors, waiting to be stabbed at any moment. You're right about a blend of realism with stylization - Constantine himself is a perfect example. That immense, realistic, frightening head in that museum at Rome (iirc) versus the bland fish-face on the coins. The coins definitely suffer after the Crisis. Everyone is Emperor Fish-Face in the late coinage; the statues are only slightly better in the late period. Porphyry was a terrible rock to work with - the faces seem ghastly to me, or simplistic to the point of childishness, a la the famous Tetrarch sculpture in Venice. The Justinian example is interesting: he looks monstrous in porphyry; in marble he look quite a bit like the guy in the mosaic in Ravenna, that is to say, a clever-looking Balkan peasant, perhaps a shopkeeper. But who on earth is that frightening freak at 1:01?
The guy at 1:01 is Eugenius. An attempted usurper emperor who got himself killed after a few months
@@laughsatchungus1461 he looks like an aubergine.
@@laughsatchungus1461
No, it's a statue of the eastern roman consul Eutropius.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutropius_(consul_399)
I wonder if the change in style didn't have more to do with the way the statues were painted. We tend to forget that they didn't leave them as the color of the bare rock. That granite bust of Justinian is particularly odd, given that they usually used white stone like marble, presumably because it was a better medium for paint. Perhaps they switched to a thicker type of paint in this period, meaning less detail was needed in the sculpture?
The lighter bust of what's presumed to be Justinian (it hasn't been confirmed yet so they call it "Head of an Emperor") actually is the usual marble, it must be the lighting that makes it look like a different stone. I've seen it in person at the Getty Villa in LA and that's what the info card says it's made of anyway.
Our art and architecture has declined in the same way compared to say a century ago we have advanced in many ways yes but we never acknowledge our obvious decline .
Alot of that stuff resembles Byzantine art. I think with the spread of Christianity, there was a move away from realism in art in the Roman empire, and it probably drew in a wider field in general of who was considered an acceptable artist- there was a move towards more prosaic sculpture and painting styles. Whether that is good or bad is going to depend on what you think about realism. As somebody who appreciates Byzantine and Orthodox religious art, I don't have a problem with it.
Very nice video with interesting topic. I too have been wandering about it for a long time and I am glad that I wasn't the only one who have been asking questions and wondered about the same thing:D
Srry I've been so busy- keep up the great work, Sebastian! 👍
Really love ❤ this channel. I never heard of these things. Good work. 👍
Very informative video! Just found your channel and first time viewer her, you earned a sub!
A change in style and a decline in quality are not mutually exclusive.
I had read in a history book on Rome (Rome And Her Empire - Barry Cunliffe) that a new artistic style had taken hold in Rome from beyond Roman borders in the east around the third and fourth centuries AD. In contrast to classical Greek art, it had figures facing forward with staring eyes, out-of proportion facial features, and rows of figures of contrasting proportions.
As an economist, I see one cause for all three problems presented here - poor quality statues, poor quality coinage, and increasing invasions. All three can easily be explained by the debasing of the precious metals content in the coins, which we know definitely happened. Debasing coinage has the effect of price inflation, which has the effect of transferring wealth from the people to the government. This is how you can become poorer despite having more money, and this affects prices of different goods in different ways. The overall effect is that people become poorer, there are fewer buyers for the services of artisans, which causes there to be fewer artisans, and various crafts lose expertise and quality over time.
Exactly.. quality of art goes down when there are no donors or art patrons.. Medici family prompted the Renaissance movement.. artists were paid to make masterpieces
The demographic who funded great works of art certainly declined
Diversity is our strength, we must accept Goth immigrants into our society to replace our aging Roman populace, or else we will not survive.
In the still image for the video, I imagine an artist saying, "The sculpture on the left is what you get for $5,000. The sculpture on the right is what you get for $500."
Twist ending: People randomly got ugly for a few generations, and the sculptures are actually hyper realistic.
In my art history class we set the main responsibility of this change, which was increasingly noticeable during the whole Middle Ages, in the teachings of Plotinus who was very influential in considering the importance of expression over mimesis. I suppose that as so frequently, the reason must reside in a set of factors, not in just one.
It kind of feel like you got what you paid for.
Platinum level: Life like, full detail, people will recognize you in the streets
Premium level: You can kind of tell who it is, but we simplify the clothes and leave all unnecessary stuff off.
Basic package: Stick figure with your name on it.
It seems that there are many parallels between the development of art in Roman times and the development of art in our society over the past few hundred years. We have enough skilled artists to produce good naturalistic art, but often we choose not to, and produce primitive-looking abstactions instead, which are often praised to the skies. Western civilisation isn't doing too well at the moment and much of its art (but not all) reflects this.
Who needs naturalistic art in the age of photography anyway?
Oh yeah, the evil globalist Kabal strikes back, off couse.
Many artists now can produce amazingly beautiful naturalistic art but being complex doesn't always mean the best, and as people have pointed out, we now have cameras, so why create an exact copy of a person, you want the feeling, character, love, etc to be in the work. I love a lot of the late Roman art, more so than the endlessly similar designs from the earlier times. It changed, I don't think it just got worse
@@AndrewBuckleBookReviews Yeah, you are right : Duchamp , Warhol and Hirst are really good artists, not Michelangelo, Raphael or Leonardo. Why copy Nature if you can paint with your eyes closed and still have an auction in Sotheby's, uh?
@@ALEJANDROARANDARICKERT Why paint anything at all, when you can generate an infinitely more accurate representation of nature with just the click of a button in an instance? The purpose of art is not to portray what the eye can see, but rather what it can not see. There is no point in handmade naturalistic art in the digital age, that's why ours is necessarily more abstract.
could we say that due to the loss of talented, experienced and/or studied individuals we always returned to a more simplistic state and, eventually, while regainging some of the knowledge, when the hard times came, we had to take another step back in artistic style and complexity? because even when the complexity restarted to emerge in later periods they still looked lacking in comparisson to the more stable times of the past.
THANK YOUUUUU👍👍👍✨🤩✨🤩
This was so informative and interesting,
WOW, thank you😁😁
No matter what the age people will always hate contemporary modern art.
I think there are many millions of amazing artists now, just sadly the ones that get often mentioned are the ones who get a lot of publicity. As with music, films etc, there are many wonderful art forms out there but the ability to spot the best gets harder and harder.
Modern Art is a money laundering racket for the very rich. I think it's fitting that art so ugly and unskilled is used to cheat taxes for the ultra rich.
Good points! Thank you very much.
Exactly like this days, art no longer exists, I recently visited the Vatican museums and interestingly enough nobody stopped to look at the painting from the modern days... I wonder why...
Art today is never old enough
I'd like to see you do a video on statues and other images of Roman emperors and other notable classical personalities. What is the earliest reliably accurate image of a Roman personage? How "complete" is our record of emperor's (and other's) images? New graphics technology can now, in a sense, bring them back to life even having them speak in a speculative voice, the Latin of their day.
One thing I've noticed is that the quality of statues seemed to decrease with christianity, but the quality of mosaics increased. I guess the religion influenced the artists and empire's cultural priorities
There was a gradual decline in Roman ability, there was a decline of focus and sense of urgency in the population. The Roman society became complacent and their abilities decline including their art, to understand this see ruclips.net/video/eVYD4orSvOo/видео.html
The quality of the mosaics definitely did not increase in Late Antiquity in terms of naturalism.
Much later, mosaic quality did rebound, as evidenced by the Deesis Mosaic, for instance.
Not at all, compare the Pompeii mosaics with Santa Prassede..
very interesting work. only one little detail: the coin of Basil II doesn't depict emperor and empress but two emperors - Nikephoros II and Basil II;p Basil had never married
I thought it was the two emperors Basil II and Constantine VIII, since they ruled together, though Basil was the one ruling and Constantine just left him with his own business.
It probably also depended on the use of the sculpture.
We have to remember this was a time before pictures and a sculptures purpose may be to be as life like as possible to help with recognition.
A wonderful evaluation, explained of this art's phenomenon which pursuing whole progression of Aristocrats class peoples lifestyle...so when whole declined started for that art style declined in parallel movement
This topic was discussed by the Artist and art historian Vasari a few hundred years ago. Vasari particularly noticed the marked decline in masonry work, especially the engravings of public buildings. Overall, the changes were obviously due to lack of craftsmanship, or the care for craftsmanship.
If one examines and compares the present building brickwork (in American cities) to that of a few decades ago, the recent decline here is also obvious.
When cultures collapse, due to either lack of ability or care, craftsmanship / art is one of the first things to suffer.
The brickwork in America was rarely much more than functional, a few decades ago it wasn't much different other than in some areas and buildings. I do wonder what other societies this can be seen in, assuming it's true
@@watching7721 Having brick masons in my family, and looking at the stuff for decades, I can assure you the razor sharp brick work of the mid century has gone by the way side as of late.
Anyhow, if you can access the books, you may want to read Vasari's opinion. "The Lives of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors, and Architects".
He covers the above topic, from a 1500's point of view, in relation to the Romans.
@@johncharleson8733 Fair enough honestly. Thanks for the recomendations
I think it is can be same as nowadays simplification of logos of the companies. Maybe in 300 years people will be discussing did people suddenly lost their taste of art in late 2010's ?
I don't think think that this is roman exclusive as if you look at Sassanid coinage from Ardashir I to Khosrow II it becomes much more simple with less detail and they're also flatter than coins of the fourth and third centuries.
Is it true? This could settle the debate.
@@ankou6 it is probable that a decline in image quality in Sasanian coinage had nothing to do with instability as while they definitely suffered from poor economic periods the ShahanShah Khosrow II who reigned over the last great period of the empire produced very simple coins while Ardashir I produced much more complex coins with greater amounts of depth in his image compared to later Padishahs of Persia despite his tenure starting in a period of upheaval and civil strife in Persia and this simplistic currency continued to be produced even after the Arab conquests swapping Shahs for Caliphs but retaining the simple style until the reign of Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan ibn al-Hakam when the more familiar gold dinar appeared in the early eighth century
@@t.wcharles2171 Thanks!
Ardashir was probably using, even though he hated them, parthian style coins. I am guessing Zoroastrianism hated good art as much as then Christianity did
@@evripidisalexiou6060 have you seen late roman Christian art, its got the same aesthetic qualities as pre-Christian art but with new subjects.
Thanks. Very interesting video.
At 14:51, I think that the style of the statue on the right was deliberate. Think about how it would be viewed from the ground looking up.
In the late roman empire busts of the emperors were an important part of the state cult in all cities of the empire. In small provincial towns mainly cheap mass-produced busts were erected. As far as I remember, even special state craftsmen were used for this purpose. The probability of finding such a simple bust is much higher due to mass production. Of course that doesn't apply to the chaos after Theodosius' death
Then why arent the same simplistic busts found as much in the 1st and 2nd centuries?
Makes sense. The rise in status of the emperor over the senate and local elites might be the reason?
@@abcdedfg8340 Yes of course. The early empire relied heavily on local government. From this period many inscriptions and monuments were erected by local aristocrats. The imperator, on the other hand, was only regarded as the first among equal.
After the reforms of diocletian this changed. the state became strongly autocratic, the emperor a living god. The local aristocracy was pushed back. Peter Heather writes about this process in "The Fall of the Roman Empire"
@@laughsatchungus1461 After the crisis of the 3rd century, the cult of the emperor changed. The emperor became divine and omnipresent. To give an example how omnipresent: Here in Raetia a small late antique watchtower was found (in the middle of nowhere on the fringe of the empire). The crew consisted of 4 soldiers and an ugly bust of Valentinianus I.
In the early empire, the high-quality statues of emperors and other nobles were mainly erected by local aristocrats. after the crisis of the 3rd century, this behavior of the aristocrats changed for unknown reasons. What was left were the "ugly" statues mass-produced by the state.
@@laughsatchungus1461 Because those emperors weren’t considdered gods. At least not until they died and were ellected into goodhood by their supposed peers. No they had to keep pretending that they were just first amung equals because the Romans of those eras hated the idea of kings. It’s a whole long story that makes this pretence of emperors not being kings last for like 200 years. Anyway in the crisis of the 3rd century has the cult of the emperor change out of necessity. It had gotten to the point that if the emperor was going to keep being viewed as mearly the first amung equals then every general who gained some noteriety was going to try to take that title. If however you invested the Emperor with divine grace and gave him the divine right to rule, then just being a general with some soldiers wasn’t enough to over throw him. I mean what are a buch of soldiers against the might of God? See where this is going. Anyway the divinity aspect of the emperors was suddenly super important and that’s why they started making a huge ammount of statues which in stead of a person, now depicted an idea. In essence they were religious iconogaphy, and had to be stylized accordingly. Not every artist was goning to be equally skilled and bad quality art that was heavily stylized flooded the market. Perhaps the lack of naturalistic art demand then degraded the over all quality of the art further.
I'm of course a subscriber but it's been awhile since I've heard your voice my friend. Great content as always but would like to see you addressing space once again. Maybe sometime in the future.
The artistic style changed with an influx of Eastern aesthetic values and craftsmen from the provinces.
Would the western empire really be interested in Egyptian styles that much?
That makes a lot of sense. It does look like Egyptian sculpture in its simplicity and strikingly nature.
And the fact that the Egyptian sovereign used to be all powerful and the Emperors were trying to strength one’s title and position. It makes sense
It could be some of the difference was the result of how much the various emperors had to spend on statues. Some emperors had nearly empty treasuries, and didn't have much to spend on anything but the army.
It definitely changed..... It always is. Parallel our society with art, fashion and classical music from the 1700s to now..... It's night and day. While there might be a healthy respect for Mozart, and Van Gogh in 2022, nobody today is still making that art/music style.
Same thing with ancient times. 1st century Rome was totally different than 4th century Rome in many categories.
From the examples in the video we can see that there were nuances in the styles. Julian statue may aspire to be naturalistic, but it's still way more simplified than the statues of the II century.
On the other hand the colossal statue of Constantine even if simplistic depicts him with proportionate and realistic features (and most importantly, individually recognisable) while more extreme simplistic statues seems to depict symbolic representations of humans, with no realistic aspect at all.
Ich wusste sofort, dass du aus Deutschland kommst, weil ich habe exakt den selben Akzent wenn ich Englisch rede.🤣
It's not just you everyone is thinking about the Renaissance vs modern art right now
Do art and societies decline together? A few centuries ago we Europeans built châteaux and palaces, our nations were homes to painters, musicians, writers, that are still references. Nowadays? Well.....er....
And cathedrals…….
as well as magnificent ”missas, requiems” etc in music.Beautiful paintings, stained glass, and sculptures served as ”bible for the poor” and illitterates
The bored apes. 🤣🤣
Honestly, just look at videogames. Minecraft alone is an achievement that can be argued to surpass any works of arts made in the past, essentially creating a whole new world as your 3D canvass at the click of a button, with thousands of talent showing off their talent and hard work through the medium.
Or heck, even as much as they're meme at, Skyrim has created a wide and open world for you to explore with many interesting lore myths and history just right around the corner, and I don't even like Skyrim anymore.
I'm sorry, but this "boohoo societies is declining" shit is just getting really annoying.
In school in Italy in history classes they say this decline is due germanic influx in the roman empire
But I thought diversity is our strength, and we become stronger as a society by accepting immigrants into our nations? 🤔
The Germans ruin everything, lol.
I suspect a big factor in decline of statuary and architecture in late rome was increasing difficulty in quarrying. It took a lot of money and tech to cut big stones from quarries and transport them. Specialized transport vehicles, roads, ropes, cranes were all needed for it. Once quarrying became choked off artisans had less opportunity to practice and take risks so they switched to a less risky simplier stylized versions. its probably why mosaics continued to be popular. it took a lot less specialized equipment to manufacture and transport it. I've looked at western architecture history and a lot of early middle age new buildings were built from essentially field stones. it wasn't until the high middle ages that quarrying on a large scale happened again. at least thats my take for now.
I was wondering this for so long. Great video Majorianus.
you have some peaks of good art in the late empire, but overall there is a clear descending trend starting in the 3rd century crisis...
Sculptors would still see remains of older Roman art lying around and try to imitate them. Same in illuminated manuscripts. There's one Bizantine Psalterium from 950 (after the Iconoclast Controversy) that shows "David" composing the Psalms. It's clearly a copy on tempera of a Roman fresco, Orpheus or some such character. This happened a lot during the Middle Ages, some artist would see some vestige of Roman Art and learn from it by imitation.
8:30 The idea this statue depicts emperor Julian is heavily disputed. Most scholars nowaday believe that ot rather depicts an Hadrianic priest of Serapis.
By the time of Diocletian, the visible evidence of decline was striking.
When court panegyrists described the art of the later Empire, they kept comparing it favorably to earlier artwork, and were keen to describe it as exceedingly lifelike.
So, it's doubtful that the shift in style was intentional. They were still trying to make highly naturalistic art. They just lost the skill over time.
I think they started seeing in a different way, so what was "realistic" for them changed.
@@glbale that's not very convincing tbh.
@@patsy02 All visual arts deal in codes (as does music), though we may think some are just like life. A religious imagination can produce art that is highly sophisticated, and even naturalistic in details, but has symbolic elements that are different from what we think of as classical realism while being "realistic" to the artists and audience. Think for example of Justinian's churches in Istanbul and Ravenna. Incredibly architecturally ambitious and stunningly beautiful in their decoration. There is no loss of "skill" apparent. That's not to say that there can't be decline and inferior work, but I don't see it occurring at that time.
@@glbale - In terms of building capabilities, the Late Roman Empire was still able to build enormous and impressive structures. However, in terms of visual arts, I think the decline is undeniable.
Cyril Mango points out that we appreciate Byzantine Artwork for its apparent stylization and abstraction, but that wasn't really what they were trying to achieve.
@@Ntyler01mil
Having visited Ravenna twice, I don't see any decline in the visual arts. Take for example the two Justinian and Theodora mosaic panels in San Vitale. There's a naturalistic spirit in the details and they look like real portraits even as the figures become more formalised like icons. And the palace mosaics in Istanbul show that mosaicists could still do very impressive work in the old classical style. As priorities changed, naturally there would have been a loss of skill in some areas (e.g. loss of skill in making statues in the round after they stopped being made, apparently sometime the seventh century). Unfortunately, there's been a lot of destruction that makes it difficult to compare like-for-like. For example, it would be interesting to be able to compare the Column of Justinian with his statue on top and winding narrative frieze to the prototype columns in Rome, but unfortunately it doesn't exist anymore.
Another example of Roman art were the Romano-Egyptian coffins that featured life like portraits that wouldn't be seen again until the Renaissance.
Had similar reflexions about architecture
i think the rise in the quality of art came with the stability of earlier periods of the roman empire
i think the turmoil of the later roman empire left little time for brilliant artists to hone their skills to create incredible pieces of art. the later period featured frequent invasions, civil wars, and other general conflicts that required most men to be fighting on a regular basis.
it’s interesting to see this process happening in the art of the empire.
I find art from Late Antiquity fascinating! A piece like the Colossus of Constantine really demonstrates the transition between Classical realism and Medieval abstraction. On the one hand there’s great attention to detail in the hand, foot, bulging muscles, veins, etc but then the face, especially the eyes, is very cartoon-like in appearance, almost like an anime character. Maybe it’s because I’m not that great of an artist myself and maybe it just is easier to recreate but I find myself inspired by the more abstract art of the Middle Ages when making my own work and appreciate it just as much as the more technically proficient art of Classical Antiquity.
the Julian you showed was more detailed than the others of the time, but to gush over the folds in the cloth and so on seems weird when it's not *much* more detailed than the others. Maybe it's a clear attempt to bring back the old style, but for whatever reason it wasn't fully realised in *that* sculpture.
Also, not mentioned in the early part of the video is the change from a much more detailed style, with wrinkles and stuff being more obvious and prominent, while in the late republic and empire it became more idealised. Not stylised or simplified, but imperfections were removed. smoother skin, less wrinkles and so on. plastic surgery, but for statues. The same amount of detail is made, but it's in the hair, the clothes, not the skin.
I also thought that the Julian statue was definitely less detailed than the earlier examples.
I was just about to ask about the statue of Constantine at York Cz that's super detailed and realistic. And then it got to the bit where your explaining how depictions of him at the beginning of his reign were more realistic and became more stylised at Christianity became a thing so I went to look up the date of the statue. 1998 🤣🤣🤣 I have always thought it was ancient 🙈🤣
8:40 Isn't it statue of some bishop? I somwhere read that, this i propably not Julian, but someone from clurgy. In polish book of Aleksander Krawczyk about Julian there is photos of head of statue of Julian from private collection. This statue looks pretty simplified (not that much Glaerius for example, but still.
Perhaps a reason why so man coins looked so shitty is also because of the massive inflation that occurred because late military Roman emperors had to constantly increase military stipends in order to secure the loyalty of the Roman army. If you have to mint such a massive amount of coins each year (because that's the average length of a late emperor's reign), suddently artistic style is no longer a priority.
My guess: the art was REIMAGINED FOR MODERN AUDIENCES
Wow, I am doing an essay on this now. Of those two Greek schools, how do you spell their names?
It became less realistic, no doubt.
‘Decline of art” is a more complex question. Are Picasso or Salvador Dali less “artistic” because they moved away from realism? The problem is that there is no university accepted definition of “art”, much less a way to measure it.
Picasso and Dali could paint and draw amazingly well in a realistic style as well, likewise many other artists. Art definitely does not need to be just realism.
Art is objective. Its always during decline and confused times they say everything is "abstract", which also begins to include values
The art of both is objectively ugly looking. The stuff they did was to prove that you could make art by breaking the rules of naturalist representation. The result? Sure you can do it but the results are not pleasant. Both Picasso and Dalí were highly compensated for their work in their time and are currently dead.
I think art can move on from early twentieth century controversies and create stuff people actually likes and speak to them. Modernist aesthetics are as much the establishment right now as the Academia was in the nineteenth century . Both no longer speak to modern people. And that is the reason why Modern Art is mostly a money laundering scheme for the very rich these days.
It makes a person consider how technology and art interconnect. Before photography in its various forms, realistic representations had practical purpose, from emotional touchstones to technical illustrations. When a photograph can capture much of the same information with (arguably) less effort and skill, where does that leave the art world? Maybe with less of an emphasis on realistic images. Is this a “decline”, or adapting to a new reality?
@@sampetrie340 "adapting to new morals and values. History says otherwise but this time its different"
Where have we heard this before
In my Brain how it plays out
Golden Age of the Roman Empire:"I Shall understand the Fundamentals and focus on Realism with tonage and physique"
Late Roman Empire: " Uhhh Actually its called an artstyle and it focuses on spirituality and the abstract mind and soul... so yea... You Plebs wouldn't get it"
(Disclaimer this is a Joke and Satire)
A sine qua non of quality art is the ability of a society to have enough food surplus to support specialists who are not necessary for food production. As humans transitioned from Neolithic hunter/gatherers to farmers and herders, they had enough food surplus to support specialist potters, weavers, etc. As Roman society broke down, more and more of the population had to be directly involved in food production, so there was less surplus available to support specialists.
Love this content, but could it kill ya to put a starship in the thumbnail lol 😂
this is centuries and hundreds of year of change. natural to see something new. those new styles look kinda modern and cool
In other words dumbed down.
They don’t call the succeeding epoch “the dark ages” for nothing.
@@stephendise7946 They dont, atleast any good historian does not. It's a word invented mainly by the renaissance humanists in their arrogance to paint the past as worse. Because they thought themselves as being superior and in the future. So no, the use of the word 'Dark Ages' say a lot more about us, than it does about the people and cultures that existed in the Early Middleages.
very interesting subject.
It is clear that at that time the observation of the real world was moving towards simpler and more stereotyped forms of representation, until reaching an extreme in the later Middle Ages.
Creating, based on the observation of the real world, did not recover until the Renaissance, which led to the birth of Science, and subsequent technical, social and political development.
I think that currently, we are entering a new Middle Age -although on a different level-. It seems the population is increasingly distant from the vision of the real world, perhaps mainly, thanks to the media.
Is it possible that nearly all of the good sculptures in Rome of the earlier era were simple Greek sculptures trained in Greece?
I have a feeling that a art history expert would laugh at the notion…
very good video!
At 00:45, that's not Nero on the coin but John Belushi!!
If you look at fairly recent French History, the answer becomes apparent. During the Commune of Paris in 1871, a lot of the executed insurgents were artists and craftsmen. Those professions depend a lot on public order, so during revolutions and riots they often carry the blame for instigating unrest or writing pamphlets (whether they are actually responsible or not). There's still automatons and clockwork cabinets in the national collections that are impossible to replicate today because the know-how was lost with the sudden death of those artisans. My theory is that artists in the late Roman Empire also fell in public disgrace as soon as things went sour.
idk, it just seems like a different style. One that became more unpopular, but not really worse
If you have good documentation and physical artefacts to study, you can recover from artistic decline within one generation. However, if you have lost documented techniques such as paint pigments or how to sculpt certains materials, it might take much longer. You need research, engineering, etc.