Click on a label to read posts from that part of the world.
Dec 5th 2011 11:06AM Ciao Sean, how are you? Have you read something of serious about ancient art? Or you are even with your bullshit?
Jul 25th 2011 3:07PM You may to search the portrait of Paquio Proculo and his wife; Pompei, 60-70 b.C. in which you can find an exemple of precursor of the portraits that you've presented here.
In all your sources and remandments, you've did'nt yet say why the roman origin of your portraits (how I've explained) it's so unacceptable.
I've read your themes, and I've not found nothing that is'nt suggestions and romantics visions. And none really analysis.
Say that: " In the cosmopolitan world of the eastern Mediterranean, with its constant interaction between cultures, it's hard to say anything is "purely" from one civilization." are suggestive but incorrect and seems an abandonment to analysis: it's hard but not impossible. Those "purities" can be inferred; sometimes it's not easy, but in "our" case is even immediate. When I've sow the images, immediately I've sow the typical (and mature) roman portrait, then I've identified the paintings presents into my "old" text of roman-provincial art. In tribute to your love for sources I report a source: "Roma, la fine dell'arte antica". Translation: "Rome, the end of ancient art"; R. Bianchi Bandinelli; ed. BUR Rizzoli CDS Milano 1988.
The intellectual conversation is not possible, sure, because your dogma cannot fall without reveal your superficiality. You speak about science, without a least of science or logic. Ok, now I may to leave you to your dogmas and to your ignorance; I mean that art and history are not bread for your teeth.
Jul 25th 2011 1:03PM The roman portrait tradition have the origin that I have wrote. And is a tradition of personal portrait (also if in the earlier their "personal" tracts are very questionables). During the centuries this kind of personal representation became a model for personal representation of "upper class"; already in high republican age. In imperial age this model was mature and differentiated, and penetrates in Egipt, like in others parts of empire. The portraits that you've showed are an exemple of this penetration of this model that was "purely" roman. Also if the people represented are egiptians; but they partecipate to "new" model of dominant class. This is not unbilieveble; this is normal: in every time and every place are several foreign models that represent your proper self-vision; to communicate own class or own profession.
You speak only under protection of your sources... Do you have an original thought and opinion?
I'm an archaeologist, and I've sudied and I study every time. But I have mostly my personal opinion.
This is a synthesis which I've wrote in italian language. You know another language out of english? Now I go to babbing with another idiot like you.
Jul 25th 2011 12:34PM Realistic=personal (sorry... my english)...
There are some goods dictionaries on line.
Il ritratto personale, in Grecia, si può far iniziare con Pericle (l'Erma); prima è sempre stato impersonale. Riguardo al fatto che le mie argomentazioni siano sbagliate, beh, non so davvero cosa dirti; evidentemente tu non hai studiato nulla che riguardi l'origine delle forme artistiche (o pre-artistiche) mediterranee ed europee.
Ma torniamo ai "tuoi" ritratti: insieme alla tradizione (egiziana in questo caso), c'è sempre - in ogni tempo e luogo - l'innovazione. L'Egitto antico è una cosa; l'Egitto tolemaico prima e romano dopo è un'altra cosa. Il modello dominante, durante la dominazione romana dell'Egitto, è quello del nobile cittadino che fa eseguire il suo ritratto (e quello dei suoi famigliari), nelle diverse occasioni della sua esistenza; compresa la morte (da qui i ritratti tombali). Questo modello non mancò di permeare anche l'Egitto, e i ritratti che tu hai esposto nel sito ne sono un esempio. E sono perfettamente insiti nella tradizione romana del ritratto personale. Puoi cercare tutti i confronti che vuoi.
In quanto alla "cospirazione"; io non ne ho parlato; è un fatto che in Germania, come in Francia e in Inghilterra, hanno un modo quantomeno "singolare" di ricostruire la storia. Ed è profondamente "nazionalista". Ecco un esempio: (in breve), "l'Europa delle nazioni è il prodotto VOLUTO e CERCATO dei popoli nordici per "liberare" l'Europa dalla "tirannìa" romana... " questo è un argomento portato avanti da una certa storiografia tedesca. Questo è nazionalismo. Ma io non lo attribuivo a te in particolare. Solo mi è parso molto "tendenzioso" il tuo rifiuto di vedere, nei ritratti egiziani che hai riportato nel sito, l'influenza romana, la quale è evidente per chi ha un minimo di dimestichezza con la storia dell'arte antica. Non c'è nessun nazionalismo in questo; solo una mera constatazione dei fatti. Se poi non credi che la tradizione romana del ritratto sia quella che ti ho descritto, beh... hai ragione tu: anch'io ti lascio alle tue dabbenaggini e ti saluto qui.
In quanto alle fonti: Ranuccio Bianchi Bandinelli. Buona lettura.
Jul 25th 2011 11:55AM Very poor replay, the your.
Ok, but, I will write my argument in my language; sorry, but your barbaric language is unfit to my explications. Then you can to let to translate by somebody.
Wait a little bit.
Ah, I forgot: the first who doesen't want to debate are you. The first scream are your...
Write later. Bye
Jul 25th 2011 11:43AM To explain better:
the origins - or "tradition" - of portrait, are in the pre-artistic representation of anthropogenic forms. Those representations of idols, gods or dead, was often with few humans elements; sometimes a trace of eyes, of mouth, of nose, or sometimes without those details and only a kind of oval for head. The rest of body was, according cultures, a simply parallelepiped, more or few lenght, or totally without it, and only with neck. For exemple; the Xoana in the celtic culture or in the apulian pre-roman culture. For celtic Xoana is, in most cases, impossible to establish a short arc of time for its realization; cause its typology are persisted for several centuries. In the early Rome, before every suspicion of nationalism (don't worry), it was the cult of ancestors, that was represented with a wax kind of portrait, very involuted in their forms, only with head (and neck), that begun to improve during the time. And this is the origin of roman portrait. So says like inside origins of roman portraits was present the developmental germ of personal portraits of followings centuries. Until become (I jump a lot of stages) to our... oh, sorry, to "your" portraits. In a lot of ancients cultures, included Egipt, the personal portraits was not a tipical expression of status; also Pharaoh was represented more with ideals tracts than realist. And also greeks don't had a tradition of personal portrait. The realism in the roman personal portrait was, instead, inborn in its original ideology. This is not "nationalism", sorry, but history. It most to study it without turbids and idiots and barbaric prejudices.
Jul 25th 2011 9:51AM You are very susceptible, and you confirm to be inintelligent: first: I don't said you have said that Romans passed without traces in Egipt, but this way to represent history (anti-roman, substantially), is typical of german (mostly), french and english way to studies mediterranean-european civilizations (if you want I may to make a "great" example of this). Then, the "nationalism" which you speak is a typical barbaric - and idiot - product of those cultures; not of mine!!! I don't know where you came from, but your (no) knowledge says that your preparation is product by the "nationalism" about you speak, without realize that one which you accuse me, is exactly that you demonstrate for yourself.
Second: the no-real knowledge that you say about my preparation is exactly the mirror of your no-real knowledge; I've said that the portraits that you've showed are presents in manuals of roman history of art; I've invited you to look them; but is evident like is more easy to believe yourself more prepareted of all the world, than entry in a normal argumentation.
Third: your formula: "and the fact that you have given no hard evidence that the portraits are only Roman" is the finally demonstration of your inability to understand a simply historical fact, and to understand my simply words (also if I can understand that my english are not correct; I speak better french and spanish, apart italian obviously... and you?), and, mostly, to unanderstand an argumenation that come down a bit more in depth than your "analysis". I've well tried to explain because the particular portraits that you've showed are a product of the roman domain in Egipt, and for this you accuse me of "nationalism"!!! I mean that your stupid susceptibility are the direct daughter of your "nationalism", and, unfortunately, of the desolate german-anglo-saxon "culture" which you are, evidently, infected.
Jul 24th 2011 9:42PM To think that roman dominance in Egipt passed without signs, is not only incorrect but also unintelligent: in those portraits - like in anothers expressions of art in Egipt, during the roman period - the faces, the clothings and others objects, are propers to egiptian tradition, but the people portraited partecipates to the dominant climate, which roman archetype of portraits - that has a long tradition - was one of several expression.
Jul 24th 2011 9:24PM Sorry, but maybe I was not clear: The tradition of portraits are certainly
commune to ancient mediterranean civilisations, but the particular kind of
portraits that you've show in the article, its style, and - if I remember right
- its times, are "purely" roman. I invite you to watching the roman portraits
of Pompei and Rome, from the same period, and do a comparison. Anyhow, I know the portraits showed in the article; those appear in the titles of roman
history of art.
Jul 24th 2011 9:21PM Sorry, but maybe I was not clear: The tradition of portraits are certainly commune to ancient mediterranean civilisations, but the particular kind of portraits that you've show in the article, its style, and - if I remember right - its times, are "purely" roman. I invite you to watching the roman portraits of Pompei and Rome, from the same period, and do a comparison. Anyhow, I know the portraits showed in the article; those appear in the titles of roman history of art.