Showing posts with label roman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label roman. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

Treasures

The Thames is an amazing archaeological site, much of it accessible to the public. An area of the foreshore by Tower Hill, not usually accessible, was open to the public last weekend during the hours the tide permitted. (Thanks to the Thames Discovery Organisation)
Keen archaeologists donned wellingtons and with buckets of enthusiasm dug the muddy foreshore in search of treasure.

A couple of people were lucky. One woman found a 3rd century Roman coin. This man found a ring, part of a Roman Brooch and a coin.

Monday, April 5, 2010

Owen Jones and Roman Ornament

Illustration: Roman Ornament from Owen Jones The Grammar of Ornament, 1856.

The chapter dedicated to Roman Ornament in Owen Jones The Grammar of Ornament published in 1856, is purposely short both in text and illustrative plates. Compared to the corresponding chapter on Greek Ornament, which has eight plates to the Roman three, it would appear that Jones was trying to underline a point. He was in fact being purposeful in drawing out the inadequacies, as he saw them, between the cultures of Greece and Rome.

Jones, along with many other critics in mid-Victorian Britain, saw Rome as an all but pale imitation of Greece, in all aspects whether that be cultural, political or decorative. Jones takes no time at all in referring to Roman ornamentation as crude and full of woeful attempts at self-glorification and gratification.

Illustration: Fragment in white marble from the Mattei Palace, Rome from Examples of Ornamental Sculpture in Architecture by Lewis Vulliamy.

This is an interesting stand to take in Britain at the time. Britain was a nation that in many respects was beginning to see itself and its empire as the natural successor to that of Rome. Many imperialists saw a definite link between Britain the former colony and province of Rome, and Rome itself. Many believed that the baton of imperialism was being handed enthusiastically to the British by the old classical empire. However, it must be remembered that the French, German and Russian empires equally saw themselves as the rightful inheritors of Rome, with the United States taking a slightly different position in being handed the baton of continuity from Republican Rome. It could be said that there were so many batons being metaphorically handed out that it must have been confusing to know who was deemed the legitimate heir, if any, of the classical empire.

Illustration: Roman Ornament from Owen Jones The Grammar of Ornament, 1856.

Jones was in no doubt as to the intellectual and cultural gulf between Greece and Rome. He must have been well aware of the jingoistic speeches of imperialists and their general kidnapping of past cultures in order to give their present course legitimacy. It would be interesting to wonder whether Jones references to the Roman bankruptcy of ideas and crude and blatant attempts at self-glorification, was purely scholarly on Jones part, or were perhaps, at least on some level, critical of some of the excessive analogies drawn by some of the more excitable imperialists and their supporters.

As far as Roman decoration itself is concerned, Jones spends most of the chapter dealing with the famous acanthus leaf and its widescale use in Roman ornament and decoration. He felt that Romans used the popular leaf as a means of disguising their crude attempts at 'improving' on Greek definitions of decoration. Of course, as far as Jones was concerned, all attempts failed miserably. However, he has given us a large full sized illustration of an acanthus leaf from nature. It appears very much like a large cabbage leaf, which could also be taken as a largely unsubtle slur at Rome's expense.

Illustration: Corinthian and Composite Capitals from The Architectural Antiquities of Rome by G L Taylor & Crecy, 1821.

Nothing of course is that simple and the differences and similarities between the cultures of Greece and Rome are much more complex than many mid-Victorians were willing to admit. To many scholarly critics Greece was to be identified with the intellectual pursuit of perfection, while Rome was to be seen as a crude, aggressive and profit motivated culture. Analogies could easily be drawn between the mid-Victorian hallowed and insular environment of university life and that of the free-market economy that was driving Britain towards economic and political domination.

Perhaps in the end Jones drew a conscious or unconscious analogy between the Roman and British Empire, with Rome handing down the legacy of a large cabbage leaf.

Illustration: The Acanthus leaf from Owen Jones The Grammar of Ornament, 1856.


Further reading links:
The Grammar of Ornament: All 100 Color Plates from the Folio Edition of the Great Victorian Sourcebook of Historic Design (Dover Pictorial Archive Series)
Grammar of Ornament: A Monumental Work of Art
The Grammar of Ornament. Folio Edition
The Roman House and Social Identity
Hope's Greek and Roman Designs CD-ROM and Book (Dover Electronic Clip Art)
Roman Architecture (Great Ages of World Architecture)
Roman decorative art
Pompeiana: The Topography, Edifices, and Ornaments of Pompeii (Cambridge Library Collection - Classics)
Ornament and the Grotesque: Fantastical Decoration from Antiquity to Art Nouveau
Etruscan and Republican Roman Mouldings (University Museum Monograph)
Ancient Italian Ornament CD-ROM and Book (Dover Electronic Clip Art)
The Architectural Ornament of Diocletian's Palace at Split (bar s)
Style and Function in Roman Decoration
Roman Architectural Ornament in Britain (bar)
Domus: Wall Painting in the Roman House (Getty Trust Publications: J. Paul Getty Museum) 

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Owen Jones and Pompeian Ornament

Illustration: Pompeian Ornament from Owen Jones The Grammar of Ornament, 1856.

Owen Jones felt little need to spend too much time discussing the subject of Pompeian ornament in his 1856 book The Grammar of Ornament. In fact only three plates are included in the chapter, two from a book dealing with the interior decoration of both Pompeii and Herculaneum produced by Guillaume Zahn in 1828, and another on a series of mosaics that Jones sketched while at the Museum of Naples.

Jones saw the decorative work at Pompeii as being influenced by both ancient Greece and Rome. Pompeii itself was a town that had been heavily influenced by the Greek colonies of southern Italy, but had later become a relatively standard Roman town, be it one devoted to pleasure. Jones himself was on solid ground with his analogy of the interior dimensions and styling of Pompeii, as it had been the subject of archaeological and critical analysis since 1748, when it had first been surveyed in modern times.

Illustration: Pompeian Ornament from Owen Jones The Grammar of Ornament, 1856.

The chapter in Jones book identifies the standard colours used by Pompeian's for all aspects of their interior decoration from dados to pilasters, panels, and friezes. Jones preferred to call the decorative style 'capricious' but clearly felt that this should be taken as at least a mild criticism. To him, the style veered from mere froth to the outright vulgar. He did however, admit that the style tended naturally towards the spontaneous and the immediate and recognised that contemporary revival styles that tried to imitate the Pompeian, failed to catch any of that spontaneity and individuality and instead merely produced a heavy, sluggish and indifferent decorative effect.

Overall Jones tended to see the Pompeian ornamental style as belonging firmly to its own era, and although interesting from a critical viewpoint as an historical decorative effect, he saw little purpose or gain in using this particular style outside of its immediate timeframe. This is an interesting stand for Jones to take as many saw books such as The Grammar of Ornament as reference guides to many of the Victorian revival themes, some of which took on their own nineteenth century personas. However, many did not and were often hopelessly adrift in an era with no known reference points or details of commonality to their decorative style.


Illustration: Pompeian Ornament from Owen Jones The Grammar of Ornament, 1856.

Jones clearly felt that this was the case particularly for a Pompeian decorative revival. He even gave a contemporary example by name, which was rare for him. It was that of Digby Wyatt and his reconstruction of a Pompeian house complete with internal decoration, set within the Crystal Palace after the palace had been moved to Sydenham. Although he felt that the experiment to be one that was both worthy and faithful to the original, he also made it clear that he personally thought that the experiment had failed on a more fundamental level. To Jones the simple fact was that although the decoration was painfully accurate in its execution, it lacked the instinctive individuality of the original Pompeian designers and decorators. Jones felt that they were the only ones that could have truly done justice to the decorative scheme by giving it their own carefree, light, and even capricious touch.

It seemed to Jones at least, that there was little chance of getting anywhere close to the original concept or finished effect and that any contemporary example would seem pale by comparison and so therefore should not be attempted. A valuable lesson perhaps.

Further reading links: