About 10 years ago I started getting interested in the 18th-century origins of Roman archaeology, the Grand Tour and art collecting. It started out as something that I did as a way to relax, but as I spend more time with it (and got better at it), I have become to appreciate how much this period still defines how we think about certain objects and about how we see the Roman Empire and the objects that the Romans chose to surround themselves with. So, when I came back from the University Library this week, I had found a book on Context, Connoisseurship and the History of Roman Art, I thought it might make a good weekend read, to get a critical assessment of Connoisseurship today.
To say it straight from the start, for those who have done Ancient, esp. Roman Art History as part of their archaeology in a conservative university, the arguments in this book may be a little bit heretical, and your local art appreciation group will not love you for citing it too much in a public lecture, but I think it is a book whose time has come.
The origin of Roman Archaeology is the appreciation of Greek and Roman artworks by the collectors of the 17th and 18th century (connoisseurship). Since Winkelmann (1764) we know that we should appreciate this art for its various styles and the ideas and technical expertise that it expresses and that these styles flow from one to the other. However, we were also told, that Greek art is good and that Hellenistic art is less good and that Roman art is pretty derivative (and let's not talk about Late Antiquity). There are not many today, that would subscribe to the latter view.
But the method he and his contemporaries developed, which focused on the evaluation of art works of and in themselves is one of the mainstays of the discipline and until recently there has been comparatively little methodological criticism. In an archaeological world, where methodological self-reflection abounds these days, this may seem surprising, but as archaeologists know, there is so much to do in our field, if you don't fit in, just move to another area, where you do. So, perhaps that is why.
But this dearth of self-reflection is where Elizabeth Marlowe's book comes in. She asks why in Roman Art History do we value objects without finds contexts so much? Why, despite our increasing understanding of the substantial changes that especially the 18th-century art market and collectors made to the original finds, do we treat these old finds as canonical and make them the centrepieces of our art histories? Why at the same time do ensembles of well-preserved sculpture from well-documented excavations find it so hard to make their way into the surveys of Roman art history and the general consciousness of the discipline?
Using carefully chosen examples Marlowe takes us through the history of some of the objects, as well as a history of connoisseurship. She talks about the problems of some of these approaches in Art History in general as well as the question how this may be linked to decisions in the design of museums on the one hand and the art market (both legal and illegal) on the other. She also presents cases (such as the Charioteer from Motye), where modern finds from well-documented excavations have very much transformed our understanding of art history, because of the surprising contexts in which they were found.
Marlowe is presenting the argument for a changing approach and thus the account is partisan - as it should be. It is not her role to make the case for the defence.
But with many new approaches to any field, one should be aware that this is not a case for completely abandoning the old or connoisseurship as a whole. For starters, it is debatable that this would be even possible. Connoisseurship of the object, stratigraphy of the context and typology of the assemblage are three of the basic approaches in archaeology. The thought processes of these methods and the interpretations that they have spawned are everywhere and frequently not even understood by the casual (or sometimes even the expert) reader. Marlowe uses the example of third-century art being identified as less refined and thus (in our eyes) less successful art being attributed to the third century. The original reasoning used the judgments to the retrospective elite literature of the fourth century, and still rarely relies on finds that are securely located in (post-Severan) third-century contexts. A claim that can be found in most art history overviews is, therefore, it could be argued, not supported by any verifiable evidence.
But in a world where an introduction to Roman art does not necessarily go side by side with a study of the style and characteristics of the fourth-century literature, this is not necessarily apparent to every reader, especially if the majority of books will repeat the statement and thus it will probably take a lifetime to seem these statement replaced with less generalising, evidence-based insights, even if a concerted effort is made.
We have in the last twenty years in archaeology seen a large number of paradigm shifts, where some of the very basics of the discipline were moved in such a way. Those familiar with these debates will remember the glacial speed with which these changes happened and how often, you find the old orthodoxy suddenly starting up again. It will be interesting to watch, where connoisseurship of Ancient Art will be 20 years from now.
Literature:
Elizabeth Marlowe (2013), Shaky Ground. Context, Connoisseurship and the History of Roman Art. Debates in Archaeoogy. London/New Delhi/New York/Sydney: Bloomsbury. ISBN: 978-0-71564-064-7. 168pp.
Johann Joachim Winckelmann (1764), Geschichte der Kunst des Alterthums. Digital version:
http://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/winckelmann1764.
