When there is no archaeological record: Portrait Bust of a Flavian Woman (Fonseca bust), part 2 of 2
Vložit
- čas přidán 11. 08. 2017
- Portrait Bust of a Flavian Woman (Fonseca bust), early 2nd century C.E., marble, 63 inches high (Capitoline Museum, Rome).
ARCHES: At Risk Cultural Heritage Education Series
For the traditional reading of this sculpture, see part 1 of 2 here: • Portrait Bust of a Fla...
Speakers: Dr. Elizabeth Marlowe and Dr. Beth Harris
That was terrific. I really enjoy the rare video we're Smarthistory takes on larger issues of understanding the discipline of art history. Thank you.
As an archaeologist: thank you for raising awareness about archaeological context. People tend to get mad at us because we frown on those who use metal detectors, telling us that "without them a lot of artifacts would remain unknown"... that would be true if there were nice objects like the Fonseca bust everywhere, but a simple coin or fibula is worthless without context, and the site on which it is found is deprived of a little more evidence. So yeah, thanks for explaining this clearly and concisely!
Dr. Beths voice is so Calming. Its like Asmr!!
Another great video. The other day I watched a lecture on CZcams by Mary Beard about the identification of roman portrait busts. I highly recommend it to anyone who enjoyed this video. Why this channel does not have 20x the subs I have no idea.
Yet another wonderfully enlightening video. I never thought of this topic, but it makes so much sense and is something to be kept in mind
A succession of humans cared for this sculpture, because it's too delicate to have survived this intact for centuries. I wish the authors would have spoken to the now-understood process of painting these sculptures: was this one painted, originally: The final sentence is a good one.
I'm a stonecarving sculptor, I've made marble portraits with deeply drilled intricate hair. Not quite to the standard of the Fonseca bust but decent enough I think. My first thought on seeing it was there's no way it was made in ancient Roman times. Who am I to argue, I'm no scholar and tbh I love the idea that they were able to carve like that in antiquity, but it really does look like a bust carved in the Italian Baroque or later - although even then it's as good as anything Bernini made.
The bust compared to the Fonseca one is much simpler in design. The locks of hair that hang down take far more time and skill to create. If an artist can make one drill hole they can use the same tool to make multiple drill holes in a row, and that is what it takes to create separate locks of hair that appear to hang freely. But it would not occur to most sculptors to even attempt that as most simply reiterate what's been done before. The design of all these locks is far more complex than the other examples shown in the video, more aesthetically challenging to conceive of as well as more technically difficult to realise in stone.
I didn't know that no other Roman portrait bust has the head tilted to the side either. I want to believe it's authentically ancient but there are so many questions!
Keep in mind that older busts hair styles are heavily constructed with hair pieces and hot irons to curl hair
Most Europeans have straight or wavy hair but less frequently curly
What a beautiful bust! Thumb up for the vid.
Was this sculpture broken/repaired across the neck at the jawline?
Thanks for another great video, however i did find it hard to take in the commentary and read the text that was being presented at the same time.
Thank you for writing, on occasion we do put in a tad more text that can be read in full in the time alloted-if we believe it is warranted. We suggest pausing the video to read the annotation more carefully in those cases.
There is a pause button, try it sometime.
😂 Juvenal was fresh! Juvenile, more like! Ancient shade never ceases to amuse me.
It's true I'm not used to seeing sculptures in the condition of Claudia Tatiana.. I'm not sure that I value the effects of time because the works were meant to be admired in a whole, polished condition. In a sense, I'm getting the experience the artist intended when they're restored... Or at least that's my impression. I just need more art in my life in general, lol.
Empress Domitian is my 64x Great Grandmother. I Clicked on your videos hoping to find out more about her
How do you know she is your 64x great grandmother without any written lineages dating from the 2nd century?
Valid point of vieuw and material for thought! Thank you. ( Is it a Baroque fake?)
How would someone fake that hairstyle if their only reference was something like that dreadful bust of Domitia? There is so little detail in it the results would be purely conjectural. The hair looks totally natural on the Fonseca bust.
first historical documentation of Marge Simpson.
Thank you for this contextualized presentation and including the issues - gender; archaeological challenges - that surround these taken for granted works of art.
The first sculpture looks Pre Raphaelite.
Can't the sculpture be examined by some scientific method to see how old it is? It looks really "modern", but, on the other hand, it looks very much like a bust preserved in the Archaeological Museum of Fiesole, which has sometimes been identified as Vibia Matidia. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matidia_Minor#/media/File:Ritratto_muliebre_01.JPG
The problem is that we don't want to know how old the material is, the marble is likely millions of years old, we want to know how long ago it was carved. That's why find spot data is critical.
@@smarthistory-art-history I meant the sculpture, not the marble. I have been searching on the internet and I see that there are numerous scientific approaches to the dating of marble sculptures, but apparently none of them are, at present, completely conclusive. I have read the interesting case of the Getty Kouros, which the museum itself finally dated "about 530 B.C. or modern forgery" :-)
mindboggling hair YIKES, seen that one before .. but what if an object or document is actually/really known by all to be totally fake, but there is a total hegemonic consensus on its utter authenticity ?
Those aren't frauds, they are ancient copies. The originals were often bronze and were melted down since the material was valuable. The Romans commonly made marble copies of Greek bronzes and that is sometimes all we have left. A copy isn't necessarily meant to be deceptive.
@SHAHC .. no i was just shifting the center of the point by a few nanometers into the hypothetical.
alertonoff 4, I was responding to Quo Tanzient, not your post. But I agree, art historians, scientists, really all of us must be on guard against holding on to beliefs where new evidence is contradictory. The best book to cover this topic is probably still Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. It is worth reading.
@QT .. yeah .. that kind of thing .. is it tautology or somesuch ? .. perfect example, 'invasion of the bodysnatchers' where the 1978 version is actually More authentic and more Real than the 1956 original, like time flowed in reverse .. i hope to witness such accomplishment for the original 'alien' movie for instance, if you get my blab. Seen numerous attempts as the meme must be very pervasive on some level of our culture, all failed however .. he did well old Ridley .. two powerful culturally haunting memes .. even Hitch didnt manage that. different operations on the mise-en-scene i guess. and eternal franchises is no substitute, there is no actual real authorship.
It's also helpful to realize there is no such thing as certainty. There is only probability. Some things are more or less probable than other things. Removing the unreasonable expectation of absolute certainty allows for more reasonable, flexible discourse on amy subject.