WI: Romans get perspective

So I've just come back from visiting the Uffizi in Florence, and one of the first things that's pretty incredible to see is medieval painting from the early 1300's, where the painters displayed a poor understanding of perspective and the anatomy of the human body, side-by-side with painting from the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, where the understanding of mathematical perspective is complete and human bodies and faces look entirely lifelike. Now, the Romans weren't nearly quite so badly off as the medieval painters—if you take a look at some of the examples of their fresco painting from Pompeii, you can see that their understanding of how bodies worked was not nearly as bad as it got during the bad old days of the early fourteenth century—but there were still some things that the Romans didn't ever have: the two most important were probably oil painting and perspective.

Let's say some bright young Roman painter tries the experiment done OTL by Filippo Brunelleschi, and develops true one-point mathematical perspective to use in his paintings. This could be whenever, but let's put his discovery right around the time of the founding of the Empire, to give it room to grow and develop before any kind of collapse.

It seems self-evident that an advance in understanding like this would cause it to spread among fellow painters, but would it? Let's say it does—is it enough to avert the erosion in skill that we see OTL from the fall of the Roman Empire to the Renaissance? Does it lead to an increase in production or prestige of painting earlier, and what kinds of knock-on effects might result from that? Could it even do enough to change history?

If this wouldn't be enough (or enough on its own), how about oil painting (which we have evidence existing in Afghanistan in the 7th century, but which didn't gain popularity in Europe until the 1400s)? Would these upgrades, in ability and possibly in prestige, lead to a community of artists like the Italians and the Dutch during the Renaissance?

The image I get from these oil-painting Romans armed with mathematical perspective is a bunch of first-century Botticellis, Raphaels, and Titians painting the types of scenes from classical mythology that were quite popular during the Renaissance. The difference in this case would be that they would be painted during the time when the worship of such gods was commonplace throughout the Empire. This kind of artistic innovation, if it has great enough effects on society, might even allow for the survival of the Roman pantheon in some form.
 
Bumping this—anyone with an interest or knowledge in art or art history that has any ideas?
 
Now, the Romans weren't nearly quite so badly off as the medieval painters
Oh boy, again with the "medieval artists wanted to emulate classical art, they just weren't skilled at all"?
Trying to keep it short to not derail the thread : different cultures will have different canons and approach on art. Medieval art, particularly, was a cultural mix of late Roman art (partially hyperrealism and byzantine), provincial (re-apparition of local styles) as well outer influences (the most obvious being Arabic art). Baming it to not being roman enough is like arguing ancient Egyptians were bad at painting because, obviously, bodies doesn't look this way.

[rant-off]

As for Roman perspective...Do you mean something like this?

Basically, there was a Roman art perspective, but it was a non-linear one rather than mathematical, a choice that could be interesting overall as it avoids a too great distortion of the purely mathematical perspective. It's actually more close from XIXth/XXth experiments than Renaissance art.

That said, let's say Romans devellop a mathematical perspective approach. It would likely be still limited to an architectural-like usage, more "utilitarian-looking" if you will, rather than artistic (even if it could eventually) and certainly limited to an urban elite presence, provincial art being more naturalist (the lack of easy way to widespread popularly new forms of art, as it happened eventually in Europe thanks to stuff like massive printing would certainly plays a lot)
 

fi11222

Banned
...The difference in this case would be that they would be painted during the time when the worship of such gods was commonplace throughout the Empire. This kind of artistic innovation, if it has great enough effects on society, might even allow for the survival of the Roman pantheon in some form.
The primary function of painting during the renaissance, as well as in antiquity, was propaganda. When a renaissance artist painted for the Pope or the Medici, the main motivation of the customer was to aggrandize his reputation and prestige. And the same is true of Nero's Domus Aurea or Hadrian's Villa.

It does not seem, however, that paintings palyed such an important role in ancient roman worship. The prestige of ancient gods and sanctuaries was materialized in buildings and statues, and also in lavish pubic celebrations but not so much in paintings, as far as we know.

There is however a juncture in which this might have changed, with possibly a significant historical impact. The crisis of the IIIrd century was ended, as we know, by Diocletian who, by sheer force of will and political acumen, managed to stabilize the Empire's borders, end the cycle of usurpation and shore up the economy (somewhat). One of Diocletian's main tools was religious propaganda. Contratry to his immediate predecessors during the crisis who had placed their bet on newer cults, Diocletian tried to revive the faith in the ancient Roman gods in order to provide a basis of legitimacy to his tetrarchic system. Among the four rulers, there were 2 "Herculians" and 2 "Jovians" each pair being put under the protection of Hercules and Jupiter respectively. The order of the day was restoration (renovatio) and therefore it made sense to put forward powerful symbols of timeless stability such as the old gods of eternal Rome.

The main problem of ancient propaganda was the choice of medium. Writing was (relatively) cheap but had limited impact on the imagination of the target audience. Even a wonderful panegyric was only words. Statues and high relief were much more effective in that regard but they were extremely expensive. Constantine, another master propagandist of the period, apparently invested significantly in sculpture. Even today his eerie 6m high statue is still impressive. But there is only one example left in existance and no more than 2 or 3 monuments of this size could have been made during the life of the emperor.

Painting could have been an interesting alternative. Depicting a scene on the wall of a buidling is much cheaper than carving a statue. Also, taking into account the roman genius for industrialization, one might imagine ways in which painting might be made even cheaper, for example by using semi-skilled laborers (slaves ?) using templates to reproduce a design divided into squares. The fact that the perspective technique is math-based helps in that regard.

Let us imagine the following scenario:
1- mathematical perspective painting appears during the first century.
2- for the nex 2 centuries it remains a luxury art, confined to the private villas of the snators and members of the imperial family. Limited impact at this stage.
3- At the end of the IIIrd centuries, Diocletian gathers the few surviving painters who master the perspective technique (who are by then, like other artisans, severly impoverished) and explains them his gran plan:
4- develop an industrialized painting technique in order to cover all walls in the empire in grand frescoes depicting the members of the tetrarchy along with their tutelary deities. The images do not need to have great artitstic merit, a simple comics-like technique would suffice, but they need to be impressive and have bright colours.
5- The painters, who would have previously refused such a debasement of their art, have little choice now and therefore accept.
6- At a central location, say in northern Italy, a training facility is set up from where foremen and teams of skilled slaves are sent all over the empire in order to reproduce everywhere a few standardised images. These teams are supported by the system of the military annona so that the still shaky economy is not a hindrance.
7- within 5 years, every basiliaca and every portico in the empire displays the image of the tetrarchs together with Jupiter or Hercules.

This has the effect of tremendously bolstering the prestige of the Tetrarchs and of Diocletian in particular who had the cunning to build a slight imbalance into his outwardly "egalitarian" tetrarchy. As the senior "jovian", he is just one little notch above his 3 colleagues. Whereas they become demi-gods in the popular mind, he become a full-fledged living god. Everywhere people flock to the temples of the old gods, where a cult to the new god, the divine Diocletian, and his three assistants, is also wildly popular.

Bottom-line : a stronger dominate with enough popular support to survive without the help of a new religion.
 
Last edited:
As for Roman perspective...Do you mean something like this?

Basically, there was a Roman art perspective, but it was a non-linear one rather than mathematical, a choice that could be interesting overall as it avoids a too great distortion of the purely mathematical perspective. It's actually more close from XIXth/XXth experiments than Renaissance art.

And nobody can say the Romans didn't occasionally draw with purely mathematical perspective, only that it wasn't popular enough to survive. Surviving examples clearly show Roman artists had a decent grasp of perspective and they certainly had the math. Perhaps the Roman style of art valued a representative portrayal over a purely mathematical one. The focus on mathematics in art is a largely Renaissance ideal after all.
 

Hecatee

Donor
fi11222 : don't forget that painting WAS emphasised during Constantine's period, as shown by (for example) the ceiling of Helena's palace in Trier. It also shows that painting at his time had evolved toward what my old Roman Art teacher called "magalographia", large scale images depicting, among others, important peoples or gods (see this reconstruction : http://comminfo.rutgers.edu/~mjoseph/CP/fultrier.jpg ).

Thus I'm not so sure your scenario is not quite close to something that did happen OTL but for which archeology has few remains to show
 

fi11222

Banned
fi11222 : don't forget that painting WAS emphasised during Constantine's period, as shown by (for example) the ceiling of Helena's palace in Trier. It also shows that painting at his time had evolved toward what my old Roman Art teacher called "magalographia", large scale images depicting, among others, important peoples or gods (see this reconstruction : http://comminfo.rutgers.edu/~mjoseph/CP/fultrier.jpg ).

Thus I'm not so sure your scenario is not quite close to something that did happen OTL but for which archeology has few remains to show
Yes, indeed. The idea here would be that mathematical perspective might give painting just a little bit of extra impact by making grand "movie poster"-like murals more impressive. Maybe this would be just enough to tip the balance in the direction of a return to the old religion at the time of the Tetrarchy.
 
Top