|
Grand Fromage posted:Painting was in many ways the top art among the Romans, we just don't associate it with them because so few paintings survive relative to the sculpture. You've noticed how so many sculptures are copies? It was a very commercial art. One of my professors claimed it's as if people in 2000 years thought the main art form of our age was the generic painting prints in motel rooms. Not sure I'd go that far, but it is true a lot of surviving classical sculpture is made up of copies churned out of workshops purely for commercial sale. Cool, so my crappy IKEA print of Audrey Hepburn will be fine art some day if I preserve it right.
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 15:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 07:06 |
|
|
And as we often note the statues were painted so the forms were in any event complimentary.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 15:34
|
|
|
Something something future art gallery full of Realdolls.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 15:49
|
|
|
Ein Sexmonster posted:That's amazing. Although I don't think it's really the same thing as Roman Imperial statuary since it was made 500 years after Charlemagne's death. It is Imperial Roman statuary 
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 16:06
|
|
|
Could some of the reason for a decline in statuary and busts and such in the late Roman and early middle ages be religious? Part of the reason Romans made busts of themselves and their ancestors was tied up with ancestor cult worship. When the empire Christianized and the ancestor cult stopped, there was less of a need for statuary.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 16:21
|
|
Epicurius posted:Could some of the reason for a decline in statuary and busts and such in the late Roman and early middle ages be religious? Part of the reason Romans made busts of themselves and their ancestors was tied up with ancestor cult worship. When the empire Christianized and the ancestor cult stopped, there was less of a need for statuary. I'm certain there's something to that given the injunction against idolatry, particularly in the East. We know there was a shitload more statuary at Delphi than survives between Christians tearing it down and rulers stealing it all to make themselves look cool. On the other hand you start making images of Mary and the crucifixion like crazy.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 16:31
|
|
|
You can also probably credit the decline in nude statuary specifically to Christian mores, since nudity became more associated with either Adam and Eve or the damned, and its association with ideal beauty and heroism kind of dropped out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
skasion posted:You can also probably credit the decline in nude statuary specifically to Christian mores, since nudity became more associated with either Adam and Eve or the damned, and its association with ideal beauty and heroism kind of dropped out. i would be interested in a source on that since we know from written documents that many christian thinkers remained incredibly greek
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:Could some of the reason for a decline in statuary and busts and such in the late Roman and early middle ages be religious? Part of the reason Romans made busts of themselves and their ancestors was tied up with ancestor cult worship. When the empire Christianized and the ancestor cult stopped, there was less of a need for statuary. We know the early Christians hated statuary but would later end up offering incense to that huge statue of Constantine in Constantinople by the late 4th century, and the West seemed to be mostly insulated from the Iconoclasm in the East in the 8th-9th centuries. So there doesn't really appear to be a strong religious connection to the decline of statuary in that time period, since Christians in the West post-Constantine seemed totally fine with it. SlothfulCobra posted:All these depictions of Charlemagne being from after he's dead is just more and more evidence for the phantom time hypothesis. Why don't we have more sources from the Dark Ages? Duh, 'cause the Dark Ages never existed. Checkmate, historiographers 
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
I would guess there's a decline in skills, patronage, and access to materials concurrently with the decline of the western empire and a move towards greater recycling of old statuary as a result. Just a guess
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 18:00
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:i would be interested in a source on that since we know from written documents that many christian thinkers remained incredibly greek Uh, how about Paul and Augustine. The sexual body is a Bad Thing because sex is distraction from the spiritual world, so glorifying the nude as heroic figure is right out. This is distinct from nude baptism, which is well attested (and shown by art) to have been de rigeur in early church, both for its Adamic associations and as part of the general metaphor of rebirth. Though even then they sometimes had a cincture for modesty's sake. Interestingly there were some early Christian groups in Augustine's own day that he alleged practiced nudism, known as Adamites. He talks a bit about them in his catalog of heresies; in their case the doctrinal problems weren't limited to the nudity, but it was clearly one of them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
skasion posted:Uh, how about Paul and Augustine. The sexual body is a Bad Thing because sex is distraction from the spiritual world, so glorifying the nude as heroic figure is right out. This is distinct from nude baptism, which is well attested (and shown by art) to have been de rigeur in early church, both for its Adamic associations and as part of the general metaphor of rebirth. Though even then they sometimes had a cincture for modesty's sake. augustine was almost totally uninfluential in the eastern church
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 18:04
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:augustine was almost totally uninfluential in the eastern church He is the big man for the Latin church though.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:I would guess there's a decline in skills, patronage, and access to materials concurrently with the decline of the western empire and a move towards greater recycling of old statuary as a result. Just a guess This is generally what my classics professors have said, particularly the lack of patronage. The economic decline in the west meant that there really wasn't any sort of demand for statuary, so few people would have dedicated their lives to creating it. skasion posted:Uh, how about Paul and Augustine. The sexual body is a Bad Thing because sex is distraction from the spiritual world, so glorifying the nude as heroic figure is right out. This is distinct from nude baptism, which is well attested (and shown by art) to have been de rigeur in early church, both for its Adamic associations and as part of the general metaphor of rebirth. Though even then they sometimes had a cincture for modesty's sake. You're describing the early church Christians though? There's a huge difference between your average 3rd century Christian and your average 5th century Christian.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
The church didn't start making images of the Crucifixion till around 400 AD, so it wasn't the early church favouring crosses over statues.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 18:46
|
|
nothing to seehere posted:The church didn't start making images of the Crucifixion till around 400 AD, so it wasn't the early church favouring crosses over statues. Right, but we're not just talking about early Christianity. Before that you have a lot of mosaic and painting of King Jesus. But it's interesting that when marble statuary comes back in a big way it still often reaches more for classical imagery, but wood jesuses are big in the medieval. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Jul 17, 2017 |
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 19:38
|
|
|
The Arch-Governum of Novaskosha is gonna tow away the Green Woman from our fair shores in a future age no doubt.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 22:17
|
|
|
I've casually lurked this thread over the years, so I'm sorry for asking a question that I know has already been posed, but is The History of Rome podcast as good as it's hyped to be? Or, at the very least, is it worth it for a person not particularly knowledgeable of the subject to get a good handle on the general history? I'd also be interested to know of any other history podcasts any folks here might be inclined to recommend.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 06:06
|
|
|
Stato-Masochist posted:I've casually lurked this thread over the years, so I'm sorry for asking a question that I know has already been posed, but is The History of Rome podcast as good as it's hyped to be? Or, at the very least, is it worth it for a person not particularly knowledgeable of the subject to get a good handle on the general history? Yes, absolutely. Also check out Revolutions, same guy as History of Rome, going over revolutions from England to idk probably somewhere mid 1800s Europe. The Dollop because while it may not always be distant history they sometimes find some bonkers poo poo in the dusty pages of days past and it becomes loving hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 06:21
|
|
|
HoR is one of the best podcasts ever and one of the most accessible ways to learn about the subject matter. The spiritual successor about Byzantium is great too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 06:28
|
|
|
I think Revolutions is the best history podcast I've listened to so far, though History of Rome and Byzantium are both very good too. I also want to give points to the History of the Crusades; I think the woman who runs it goes a little bit too in depth sometimes but it's still wasn't that hard for me to keep the main narrative thread in my mind and I've learned more about the Cathar Crusade than I ever thought I'd know.
Elyv fucked around with this message at 08:03 on Jul 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 07:33
|
|
|
Alright, thanks for the recs. I've actually already had Revolutions (probably because it's the same guy as the HoR podcast) and the Dollop on my radar, so it's good to know they're solid. History of the Crusades sounds great, too, I'm definitely not up enough on that subject; that's the one by Sharyn Eastaugh, yeah? E: Oh, just remembered, is History on Fire worth my time, or nah? Stato-Masochist fucked around with this message at 08:08 on Jul 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 08:01
|
|
|
Be aware that History of Rome is a little rough early on in terms of sound quality and Duncan's delivery. Gets better quickly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 11:02
|
|
|
Stato-Masochist posted:Alright, thanks for the recs. I've actually already had Revolutions (probably because it's the same guy as the HoR podcast) and the Dollop on my radar, so it's good to know they're solid. History of the Crusades sounds great, too, I'm definitely not up enough on that subject; that's the one by Sharyn Eastaugh, yeah? History on Fire is not terrible, but Bolelli's accent can occasionally garble some stuff. He's toward the more Dan Carlin end of things but not as bombastic. Episodes take a while to come out but they're fairly long and he will often spend multiple episodes talking about a topic which allows a reasonable amount of depth because it's usually a person or event.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 12:33
|
|
|
History of Rome declines a bit as it goes into the 300s and 400s due to Mike Duncan's increasing decadence and moral degeneracy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 12:35
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:History of Rome declines a bit as it goes into the 300s and 400s due to Mike Duncan's increasing decadence and moral degeneracy. This is a good post.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 14:48
|
|
|
Stato-Masochist posted:I've casually lurked this thread over the years, so I'm sorry for asking a question that I know has already been posed, but is The History of Rome podcast as good as it's hyped to be? Or, at the very least, is it worth it for a person not particularly knowledgeable of the subject to get a good handle on the general history? History of Rome takes about 15 episodes to warm up but then he hits his stride and it's still the best history pod ever .
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 15:52
|
|
|
peer posted:Be aware that History of Rome is a little rough early on in terms of sound quality and Duncan's delivery. Gets better quickly. yeah, the dude started out with like a cheap 30 buck headset. It takes about 10-15 episodes to get the audio improved and such, but he gets better and better over time. Once he hits the Punic Wars its in stride.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 15:57
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:History of Rome declines a bit as it goes into the 300s and 400s due to Mike Duncan's increasing decadence and moral degeneracy. You cock you made me nearly drown in my coke.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 16:31
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:You cock you made me nearly drown in my coke. You are probably doing too much cocaine of you have enough of it to drown in.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
peer posted:Be aware that History of Rome is a little rough early on in terms of sound quality and Duncan's delivery. Gets better quickly. Most of the good history podcasts have some teething issues in the early episodes, while the podcaster is learning to podcast well. I'd still listen to them anyway. The History of Byzantium is strange, because I think it is Robin Pierson's first real podcast, but it does not have obvious teething issues.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 19:19
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:He is the big man for the Latin church though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
golden bubble posted:Most of the good history podcasts have some teething issues in the early episodes, while the podcaster is learning to podcast well. I'd still listen to them anyway. The History of Byzantium is strange, because I think it is Robin Pierson's first real podcast, but it does not have obvious teething issues. His voice is far too soothing and even though it's interesting, I could easily fall asleep to it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 19:38
|
|
|
No but seriously, Duncan's interest is clearly in the Republican and Principate periods, and by the Dominate he's struggling to keep up with the sheer volume of events happening. He has said on his pod that the later History of Rome Podcast became just the History of the Roman Emperors as there was too much to get through in ~200 episodes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:You cock you made me nearly drown in my coke. Okay what is the story with your red text?? This must be preserved for posterity.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
Marxist-Jezzinist posted:His voice is far too soothing and even though it's interesting, I could easily fall asleep to it. i had this problem with the earlier episodes of The Ancient World i, uh, actually started listening to it as an insomnia cure. and that was my gateway drug to history podcasts
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
I stopped listening to History of Rome a year ago, just getting to Valens and Valentinian being crowned The podcast going from Rome to Emperors captures what made me lose interest. But that point somebody made why crystallize. I've gone back to it because I want to hear the history of Byzantium though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 20:06
|
|
|
golden bubble posted:Most of the good history podcasts have some teething issues in the early episodes, while the podcaster is learning to podcast well. I'd still listen to them anyway. The History of Byzantium is strange, because I think it is Robin Pierson's first real podcast, but it does not have obvious teething issues. He was on a few other podcasts before he got Byzantium going, which I think got him to figure out the audio issues and get a speaking pattern down.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 20:41
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:which has way fewer dudes who were incredibly into greek philosophy in it I mean there is Greek philosophy embedded in Augustine and which underlay a lot of the Latin church's beliefs through that indirect vector, but it's all neoplatonism from Plotinus.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 21:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 07:06 |
|
|
I will actually one day finish my series of posts Aristotle->Augustine->Aquinas->Medieval Crisis of Church and State.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 21:12
|
|