ROMAN COPIES OF GREEK ORIGINALS

The construct of the ‘Roman copy’ in art history has deeply rooted and extensive origins. Whilst this prejudiced was attached to Roman sculpture from an extremely early time in modern archaeology and art history, the construct viewed in a current context reveals issues with both its development and contribution to historical understanding and education. The construct is formed upon several main factors that have recently been called into question by revisionist historians. Firstly, the development of the construct by conservative historians during the 18th century, a context that valued artistic originality and authenticity, lead to it’s popularisation and circulation as a respected model. Secondly, the construct rests entirely on the presumption that Greek art is in fact aesthetically and artistically superior, insinuating a negative predisposition towards Roman artistic workmanship and aesthetics. Lastly, technological advancements aiding historiography have asserted the fact that many conclusions drawn by conservative historians through their methodology are in fact irrefutably incorrect. While the basis for much of the conservative historians argument has been seen as flawed, or otherwise seriously questioned in terms of accurate and reliable history, the construct of ‘Roman copies’ of Greek originals has remained a legitimised understanding and interpretation of Roman art for centuries. The question can then be raised as to whether the attention given to this aspect of history is worth the fact that much of the history being taught is now being heavily questioned.

One major area of debate surrounding the theory of Roman ‘copy’ of a Greek ‘original’ is the perception that Greek art is inherently superior. This view was first...

... middle of paper ...

...o understanding and appreciating Greek art is significant, but as seen through the writings of Gazda, Marvin and Ellen, the practice of appreciating Greek sculpture as presented by the conservative historians is of detriment to the writings and perceptions of historians, as well as the general education of the public. Unfortunately, due to the popularity of the abovementioned historians during their times of writings, methodology including Kopienkritik has remained a valued and prevalent approach to judging and analysing of both Greek and Roman sculpture, despite increased criticism. All of these factors serve to undermine the validity of the construct, and show that while the construct may have suited and served the purposes of those who created it, it does nothing to legitimately further proper and rational history of Greek and more specifically, Roman sculpture.