Late Antiquity art style change

[Lone Wolf]

The phenomena of change of art style in Late Antiquity from the slightly idealized realism of Classical Antiquity to the more symbolic (and, sometimes even homely) style had always intrigued me. It's not like it can be traced solely to the fall of Western Roman Empire - after all, Eastern Roman Empire displayed similar art evolution, despite occasional quite rare antiquity reference like the Paris Psalter. Overall, there's a great difference between Classical antique art and Medieval art, both in the East and in the West.

Is Christianity the reason for its development, with its disapproval of too much focus on human body? This is an acceptable explanation, but it strikes me as too simplistic and reductionist.

Why the Classical artstyle disappeared in the West, and why there were so few Paris Psalters in the East?

Attached are the examples of Byzantine coinage from Classical Rome to 15th century. The Emperors' names are in Russian, but the dates explain everything. In the ERE, apparently, the coins weren't really considered to be "works of art", but the style evolution is very interesting. In the very end you can see a comparative example of an Italian 15th century medallion.

 

[Dachs]

Predates Christianity. Change in art style focus in classical Rome sometimes dated to the barrack emperors, sometimes to Tetrarchs, usually connected with (semi-outdated) thesis of increasing interest in monumental, simple, and stark themes related to power and the Dominate emperors' "increasing" monopoly thereon. Relevant evolutionary trend in statuary: Septimius -> Trebonianus -> "Four Tetrarchs" porphyry.

At any rate, onset loosely coincides with the middle stages of what is sometimes called the crisis of the third century.

Christianity definitely not driving force; may be contributory, but doubtful; realistic art part and parcel of Christian artistic trends in Western Europe at times, degrees of realism featuring in manuscripts, etc. (both Byzantine and, say, Frankish), comparable with wall or vase paintings of classical antiquity. Think that Ramage and Ramage go over this, but not in any real detail. (Heh. "Detail.") Causative reasons unclear, although reasons for continuation of the trend seem clear enough.

 

[Lone Wolf]

I'd also argue that the Byzantine 7th century with its shrinking of territory due to the Muslim conquests played a role here. After all, the classicising silver David plates date at the end of that period, and I don't remember much Byzantine classicising influences after it and before the 10th century.

I sort of like the coinage style of 7 usurpers from Justinian II to Anastasios II, though. It's neat, though progressively de-individualized.

 

[innonimatu]

Attached are the examples of Byzantine coinage from Classical Rome to 15th century. The Emperors' names are in Russian, but the dates explain everything. In the ERE, apparently, the coins weren't really considered to be "works of art", but the style evolution is very interesting. In the very end you can see a comparative example of an Italian 15th century medallion.

Well, coins were always propaganda pieces for the rulers who had them struck. The choice of images (which god, and in later antiquity the ruler's head, and sometimes whole slogans, as in Mithridates's athenian coinage) were so important that some cities produced coins just so that its rulers could appear to be "on par" with neighboring rivals!

I find all the roman imperial coinage rather inferior in artistic quality (the complexity of the symbols used and the realism of the engravings) to the previous and contemporary coinage of most other classical Mediterranean polities. As the empire spread the variety of styles was reduced - coins became standardized not only on weight but also on style. Local emissions continued in many cities, but on a much reduced scope and with far less quality - city councils within the empire clearly would not pour as much funding for coin propaganda as independent cities had. This may have caused a general decline of the engraving art (or, rather, a deduction of the number of skilled engravers).
I really don't know. What I do know is that the loss of quality on coinage was a choice, not a result from a general loss of ability. There are amazing bas-relief and even high-relief roman medallions from the 2nd and 3rc centuries AD which show that they were quite capable of creating small, realistic images for coins, should they want to.

Why were profile portraits abandoned in favor of flatter coins depicting faces from a front view? I don't know, but the transition to flatter coins happened first, I'd say by the 2nd century AD. Perhaps because flatter coins were more convenient or cheaper to produce? Having made that change, which necessarily caused loss of detail, it would then be better to go all the way, abandon realism and depict front views of faces on coins together with a body, thus gaining more space for other symbolic elements by the side? But practical considerations would not explain the later byzantine oddity of using concave coins!


The only notorious influence of christianity on coinage was the temporary replacement of the image of emperors by one of Jesus around the end of the first millenium. And when the end of the world failed to happen that display of piety was quickly abandoned.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Predates Christianity. Change in art style focus in classical Rome sometimes dated to the barrack emperors, sometimes to Tetrarchs, usually connected with (semi-outdated) thesis of increasing interest in monumental, simple, and stark themes related to power and the Dominate emperors' "increasing" monopoly thereon. Relevant evolutionary trend in statuary: Septimius -> Trebonianus -> "Four Tetrarchs" porphyry.

Interesting. I've definitely heard the Christianity argument before (graven images), but certainly the dominate emperors would make sense as far as the hierarchy aspect of it.

But why would people be more stylized (with the long fingers and things like that)? I guess this is just something to chalk up to taste? I know that, in the late Renaissance began to move away from the realism that had dominated to Mannerism. I suppose it could be a similar trend.

 

[Lone Wolf]

I don't know, but the transition to flatter coins happened first, I'd say by the 2nd century AD.

Dunno, the first coin on my attachment - the one of young Marcus Aurelius - doesn't seem that flat to me. It's certainly less flat then the following coins.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

If you're talking about Roman coinage, that explanation is clear enough. The empire had fewer and fewer resources at its disposal over time, as the money dried up, and currency became debased. Finely crafted coinage just wasn't as much a priority.

If you're talking about (western) Art in general, similar factors may apply -- resources. Productivity and overall quality of life deteriorated during the Dark Ages, and the focus shifted entirely from concrete to abstract representation, as people focused more on the next life than this. Christianity is to blame, in a sense, but it is more the effect than the cause, as once Europe recovered in the Renaissance, the focus returned to more "Classical" artwork.

 

[Lone Wolf]

The empire had fewer and fewer resources at its disposal over time, as the money dried up, and currency became debased. Finely crafted coinage just wasn't as much a priority.

It's not really about crafting and more about style. The coins of the emperors of seven usurpations (685-715) are technically crafted quite neatly, but the style is markedly different. (The style becomes more flat and geometric in the Iconoclastic period, despite it not being more turbulent then the one of Justinian II - Theodosius III). And the style evolution goes on, pretty much independent from the empire's situation - only in case of the latest period coins you can claim the lack of resources. The style evolution is pretty consistent, unlike the fortunes of Byzantium, that jumped up and down.

If you're talking about (western) Art in general, similar factors may apply -- resources.

The point is, Byzantium experienced similar artstyle evolution. I am willing to entertain the interpretation of Christianity as a factor, but more as an effect then a cause, though. It seems to accurately describe the effect Christianity had on art. But it can't be the only reason.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

It's not really about crafting and more about style. The coins of the emperors of seven usurpations (685-715) are technically crafted quite neatly, but the style is markedly different. (The style becomes more flat and geometric in the Iconoclastic period, despite it not being more turbulent then the one of Justinian II - Theodosius III). And the style evolution goes on, pretty much independent from the empire's situation - only in case of the latest period coins you can claim the lack of resources. The style evolution is pretty consistent, unlike the fortunes of Byzantium, that jumped up and down.


The point is, Byzantium experienced similar artstyle evolution. I am willing to entertain the interpretation of Christianity as a factor, but more as an effect then a cause, though. It seems to accurately describe the effect Christianity had on art. But it can't be the only reason.

I'm not sure where you mean the style changes, but the devolution of the economy happened far earlier than 476. It can be said to have happened at least during the "Crisis of the Third Century" if not earlier.

Christianity appears only as the effect, not the cause, as it is only expressing the desperation of the times.

 

[LightSpectra]

If you're talking about (western) Art in general, similar factors may apply -- resources. Productivity and overall quality of life deteriorated during the Dark Ages,

Citation needed. Preferably one from after the 1950s, since that's when scholars near-universally agreed that the "Dark Ages" is a historical myth. So, what I'm asking for you is to prove something that nobody seriously believes anymore, except in professional ignorance. Good luck on that.

I'm not sure where you mean the style changes, but the devolution of the economy happened far earlier than 476. It can be said to have happened at least during the "Crisis of the Third Century" if not earlier.

Christianity appears only as the effect, not the cause, as it is only expressing the desperation of the times.

Are you telling me that the "devolution" (wrong word, by the way) of the economy happened continuously from the end of the 1st century to the end of the Roman Empire? I'd like a source for that one as well.

 

[Dachs]

If you're talking about Roman coinage, that explanation is clear enough. The empire had fewer and fewer resources at its disposal over time, as the money dried up, and currency became debased. Finely crafted coinage just wasn't as much a priority.

Wide-scale debasement kicked off during so-called third century crisis. Total imperial resources not attenuated - instead, more emperors drawing from pot at same time. Result: hyperinflation. Solved by fourth century, greater political stability. Same problem arose in fifth century but with more dramatic results. Not same hyperinflation though - no multicentury trend.

Mostly irrelevant. Distinct issue from coin portraiture.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Citation needed. Preferably one from after the 1950s, since that's when scholars near-universally agreed that the "Dark Ages" is a historical myth. So, what I'm asking for you is to prove something that nobody seriously believes anymore, except in professional ignorance. Good luck on that.



Are you telling me that the "devolution" (wrong word, by the way) of the economy happened continuously from the end of the 1st century to the end of the Roman Empire? I'd like a source for that one as well.

http://www.amazon.com/Collapse-Complex-Societies-Studies-Archaeology/dp/052138673X

You said after 1950. This is just one. Btw, what I said is standard historical understanding. The Roman economy receded over hundreds of years, and the emperors reacted by debasing the currency, causing hyperinflation. By the time Diocletian was emperor, Roman currency was so useless that barter was preferred. Diocletian was forced to issue an edict on price controls, which apparently had little effect. (All this is available on wikipedia, if you like, or any history book ever written.)

People just don't realize how desperate life had become by the late 3rd century AD. In times as those, it's no wonder that many turned inward rather than outward.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Wide-scale debasement kicked off during so-called third century crisis. Total imperial resources not attenuated - instead, more emperors drawing from pot at same time. Result: hyperinflation. Solved by fourth century, greater political stability. Same problem arose in fifth century but with more dramatic results. Not same hyperinflation though - no multicentury trend.

Mostly irrelevant. Distinct issue from coin portraiture.

I didn't know Mordin Solis studied history too.

 

[LightSpectra]

http://www.amazon.com/Collapse-Complex-Societies-Studies-Archaeology/dp/052138673X

You said after 1950. This is just one.

Page numbers and quotations would be nice, since it would take me about two minutes to name-drop two dozen book names and say (rightfully so) that they disagree with your thesis.

Btw, what I said is standard historical understanding. The Roman economy receded over hundreds of years, and the emperors reacted by debasing the currency, causing hyperinflation. By the time Diocletian was emperor, Roman currency was so useless that barter was preferred. Diocletian was forced to issue an edict on price controls, which apparently had little effect.

What you need to make a more precise argument for is that Christianity is an expression of this. Christianity grew quite fast from AD 100 - 500 in Roman territories, but the economic decline was not entirely contemporaneous with that.

Wide-scale debasement kicked off during so-called third century crisis. Total imperial resources not attenuated - instead, more emperors drawing from pot at same time. Result: hyperinflation. Solved by fourth century, greater political stability. Same problem arose in fifth century but with more dramatic results. Not same hyperinflation though - no multicentury trend.

Mostly irrelevant. Distinct issue from coin portraiture.

Also, this.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Not to mention what the hell this has to do with people switching to idealized art choices.

 

[Masada]

Productivity

I doubt that highly for three reasons: (1) a fall in population relative to a fixed stock of land should ceteris paribus increase the productivity of labor; (2) the 'Dark Ages' saw the introduction of significant technological innovations like the mouldboard plough and three phase crop rotation; and (3) I'm not aware of any empirical evidence for a general decline in productivity.

but the devolution of the economy happened far earlier than 476.

What is meant by devolution here?

The Roman economy receded over hundreds of years, and the emperors reacted by debasing the currency, causing hyperinflation.

Hint: it isn't long term trends (everyone is dead in the long run) that drive debasement, but short term expedients mostly related to paying soldiers.

By the time Diocletian was emperor, Roman currency was so useless that barter was preferred.

That just proves that civil wars are Bad Things so far as the integrity of the coinage is concerned.

Diocletian was forced to issue an edict on price controls, which apparently had little effect.

That just demonstrates the limitations of Imperial power and not much more.

 

[innonimatu]

That just proves that civil wars are Bad Things so far as the integrity of the coinage is concerned.

Foreign wars too, when they drag on. During Rome's second war on Carthage both cities had severely debased their coinage by the end of the war.