Why were Roman busts less realistic after the 3rd century?

Tiberius Caesar said:

It should be noticed that this process was, in fact, far from linear and unitary (as everything in Roman 'art', actually): even though it's undeniable portraits of rulers became increasingly more drained of their naturalism, 'realistic' portraits of priuati did not cease to exist - a most outstanding example of that are the two magistrates, one older (Detail :: Last Statues of Antiquity), one younger (Detail :: Last Statues of Antiquity), temptatively identified as Q. Aurelius Symmachus and his son (that they are father and son is likely enough), found in the area of the so-called Temple of Minerva Medica (near Porta Maggiore), now housed at the Centrale Montemartini, in Rome, certainly sporting a great expressivity.

The question, as all the 'stylistic' questions, is essentially moot, and generated an hefty scholarly controversy and schematic conceptualization, ranging from the Kunstwollen of Riegl to more recent attempts, like the 'plebeian art' of Bianchi-Bandinelli. It was once commonly alleged that the increasing detachment of the monarch, and his lack of naturalism, was somehow linked to Christianity; but the idea has by now fallen out of favour. Rather, for one, Contantine is presented as a deus praesens, with a focus put on his fulgor oculorum - without putting too much stress on the cerimonial nature of late antiquity (a commonly quoted passage is Constantius II's entry in Rome during his aduentus), one should rather look at other aspects, like the spiritual force, or the serene, unmovable impartiality of the monarch, which heavily contrasts with the pain-struck and heavy faces of the emperors that ruled in the first half of the 3rd century. But even as far as emperors are concerned, we're once again dealing with a non-unitarian image: the Colossus of Barletta, depicting a late antique emperor (who exactly is unclear - Valentinian I and Marcian are usually the most quoted options) is much less 'trascendental' than, say, the acrolith of Constantine.

Click to expand...

VHS said:

In short, these often had to do with presentation and perception about the emperors.
Keep in mind that the busts of Honorius and Arcadius aren't exactly "glorified", and both were weak emperors.

Click to expand...

Tiberius Caesar said:

Weak or not, statues and portraits were meant to celebrate the person depicted, and therefore were intrinsecally honorific in their nature. The image of any emperor is therefore glorified and glorifying, even though we often mistakenly read the images of 'bad' emperors under the light of hostile literary sources: therefore we spot 'madness' in Gaius' portraits but that is our modern perception with no relevance to how these statues were conceived.

Click to expand...

DiocletianIsBetterThanYou said:

A naturalistic piece from the Tetrarchic period:

View attachment 75899

Click to expand...

Corbulo said:

I think changes in artistic style,trends and changing social,cultural and religious attitudes all certainly had a part to play. Yet I cannot help but notice like many other aspects of Roman Civilisation the gradual decline in Roman sculpture seems to correspond with the period following the "Antonine Plague" in the mid to late 2nd Century and seems to be compounded by the following 3rd Century crisis. If the chroniclers are to be believed the plague had a devastating effect amongst all echelons of Roman society with some of the more conservative estimates of mortality being around 10% around 7.5 million throughout the Empire with a 15% mortality rate in cities and Army Camps. Therefore as most artisans would have been located in the great cities and towns they would have been amongst the hardest hit by the pandemic. If we then look at the nautre of their profession were older journeymen teach the rudimentary skills of the trade to younger apprenticies then we can assume that many of the former being older were even more suceptible to the ravages of this pestilence and having expired were unable to pass on much of their knowledge to the next generation. Of course many would have survived and the skills of Classical sculpture would and did get passed on but when we add in average life expectancy in this period even when the plague abeited it surely must have been diluted to a degree. These artists and artisans were men who belonged to a very niche group and a pandemic of such scale must have severly thinned their numbers and caused a lot of knowledge handed down to be lost or at least minimised. This may have been resolved had the events of the turbulent times of the 3rd Century constant civil wars and uncertainty not compounded things even more.

The 3rd Century crisis surely would have compounded the decline, lack of commsions from rich senators and noble families. not to mention city aediles meant their trade was going into decline and in turn so did the quality. This can be seen both in sculpture and in coinage and also art in general. This slow decline is very prevalaint both in the Western and Eastern halves of the Empire but more rapidly so in the west.When in the East Roman (Byzantine period) things did calm down the coinage begins to show the Emperor or Empress face no longer in silohette clearly showing their features in profile. Now many will say this is Christian symbolic stylism or an artistic trend! Nonsense!! If you were an Emperor God's Vice Garant on Earth you would want people to see you in all your glory (Obviously touched up! Most Emperor's were more vain than Cromwell!) Yet a spludged image on a coin looking nothing like you! Just had to suffice! This is not an artistic style or Christian convention! They simply did not have the skills to produce what their ancestors could in the past in qaulity nevermind enmasse! I mean check it out!

Click to expand...

Dios said:

I like this website. It's the reason I'm very dismissive about coins.
View attachment 75868
APPEARANCE | Cleopatra Kebab

Click to expand...

Tiberius Caesar said:

I have a few issues with this site here. The bust provided in this image does not depict Antonius at all, but rather an unknown private of late 1st century - the identification with M. Antonius is baseless. The site also fails to mention that the identification with Cleopatra of at least two of the portraits on the round (the Vatican and Berlin ones, belonging to one youthful type) is borne out precisely by the comparison with the coins where Cleopatra is identified as such, not just by the diadem as stated there.

Click to expand...

Dios said:

You're right. That bust is in the Vatican Museum ... Flavian-era "attributed" to Marc Antony. It's like the Cleopatra busts ... "attributed" to Cleopatra. No solid connection to any ... other than "looks like".

That Antony bust appears EVERYWHERE almost as much as the Boulaq Museum fake Cleopatra.

Click to expand...

Tiberius Caesar said:

One ought to ask the following question: what was the meaning of an image for its contemporaries? If we place an aesthetic (and abstract) canon above all others, we reduce the complex dynamics of art (and history, of course) to a mere evolutionism and de-evolutionism. It is far more complex than that. To give just one example, as the statue habit in Africa declined in late antiquity, the province itself and its workshops were all but in decline: during the 2nd and 3rd centuries, Africa had become the main productor of kitchen and tableware ceramics, replacing Italy and the Gallic provinces in that role (and this will be highly reaffirmed during the 4th and 5th centuries), and the urban centers were still highly prosperous and developed well into the 5th century, just before the Vandal invasion. I think late antique visual culture is better explained as the symptom of an highly experimental society on the verge of changing, seeking new ways to express itself.

Click to expand...