‘Roman Art and the Perception of Beauty – Then and Now’
Wednesday 14th January, 2015.
This is the first in a series of personal responses to YEDFAS lectures. From Amy White, MA student
at The University of York.
‘All history is contemporary history…’ – Benedetto Croce, 1938.
I was reminded of the above thought in listening to Gillian Hovell’s talk for YEDFAS last week. In
this quote Croce was underlining the constant importance of ‘perception’ in History. He felt that a
person’s view of the past is indelibly linked with their experience of the present time and place and
that the contemporary affects people’s understanding. History is the past, written from the point of
view of individuals of another time and another place; in much the same way as the classical Roman
art Gillian was specifically referring to, is now considered and appreciated by experts and enthusiasts
alike.
This leads nicely on to a key theme of the lecture: it must also be
remembered that ‘beauty’ – as the title suggested – is a subjective
experience. It is subjective not only in the sense implied by Croce’s
comment that ‘all history is contemporary’ and therefore of a certain
place and time, but also a deeply personal notion of what we find
appealing or harmonious. As the saying goes ‘beauty is in the eye of the
beholder’. Standards of beauty have changed over time and place based
on changing cultural values; hence, historically, paintings show a wide
range of different standards for beauty. However, humans who are
relatively young, with smooth skin, well-proportioned bodies, and
regular features, have traditionally been considered the most beautiful
throughout history. This arguably supports Gillian’s idea that the
bleached marble we usually associate with classical sculpture appears
more beautiful to us than the painted originals. The earliest Western
theory of beauty can be found in the works of early Greek philosophers
from the pre-Socratic period, such as Pythagoras. The Pythagorean
School saw a strong connection between mathematics and beauty, a
connection that was applied to art and architecture alike. Such Classical philosophy and sculptures,
produced according to the Greek philosophers' beliefs of ideal human beauty, were rediscovered
in Renaissance Europe, leading to a re-adoption of what became known as a "classical ideal" in the
western world. Consequently, the clarity and evenness of bleached marble has come to be associated
with beauty. Our perception has been conditioned through our common experience.
The link between virtue and beauty was also touched upon throughout the lecture. In particular Gillian
highlighted that in the Aristotelian sense of virtue as excellence at being human, a skill that helps a
person survive, thrive, form meaningful relationships, and find happiness. This thinking also sees
virtue as being the ‘golden mean’ between two extremes of character, for example, courage as the
golden mean between cowardice and foolhardiness, or confidence as the golden mean between selfdeprecation and vanity. As we saw, such golden means or virtues were common depictions in
classical sculpture and other works. Men were depicted as brave and courageous warriors or wise
sages, while women as perhaps docile and submissive or assertive and educated, all depending upon
what the period and perceptions required. I’m sure many other examples sprang to mind as this idea
of displaying beautiful or virtuous characteristics was explained: my mind wandered to
representations of Queen Elizabeth I, particularly the Rainbow Portrait (c.1600) which allegorically
displays how the queen wanted to be perceived. This is an example of complex imagery that sought to
convey the prestige and majesty of the monarch and the state and has been in use since the classical
era.
The questions posed at the end of Gillian’s lecture brought, in my view, some interesting complexities
to the discussion of the perception of beauty through Roman art. Throughout the talk, excellent
though it was, there seemed to be some persistent contradictions in terms – an almost inevitable
downside of covering such a broad range of material and ideas in a limited time. For me, the
discussion surrounding Laocoön and His Sons raised such contradictions, and therefore provides a
good place to begin further discussion and resolve some ambiguities. The original question posed the
difficulty of considering sculptures, such as that of Laocoön, as beautiful when they clearly depict
scenes of agony or strife. Here I think it is useful to make a distinction between beauty of craft, and
beauty of the form – or, separating beautiful depictions from depictions of beauty if you like. In this
sense, Laocoön may commonly be thought of as a beautiful depiction, but not a depiction of beauty;
instead it is commonly considered “the prototypical icon of human agony”, by art historians such as
Nigel Spivey. While as a piece the sculpture is beautiful, the scene it portrays does not evoke feelings
usually associated with beauty. That is not to say that works cannot simultaneously portray beauty and
be beautiful portrayal in their own right of course. In my earlier examples, arguably, the bleached
marble sculptures simultaneously portray beauty and are beautiful portrayals, yet for the use of the
lecture the beauty of the sculpture itself (rather than the models) was relevant. If Gillian had had the
time or scope to approach the evening from a different angle, I wonder if such an approach - of
splitting works into beautiful depictions and depictions of beauty may have proved useful. For
example; the 20th century was mentioned fleetingly but for those interested in the evolution of beauty,
and changing perceptions of it, it may be an interesting period to consider in greater depth. This
period saw an increasing rejection of beauty by artists and
philosophers alike, culminating in the anti-aesthetics of
postmodernism. This is despite beauty being a central
concern of one of postmodernism's main
influences, Friedrich Nietzsche, who argued that the Will to
Power was the Will to Beauty. Though I enjoyed the
lecture, being a student of History I think I was expecting
some sort of historical overview – or ‘then and now’ – of
portrayals and perceptions of beauty from the Roman era
and beyond. But then I suppose that is my contemporary
affecting my understanding, just as Croce thought!
Amy White
(Image I has been identified as being free of known restrictions under copyright law, including all
related and neighbouring rights. Image II is free to be shared - to copy, distributed and transmitted
-, Livio Andronico, 2014)