Constantine The Great
This is an excerpt from the paper...
Political, social, and artistic changes on a vast scale make the reign of Constantine the Great and, indeed, the entire fourth century the most confusing era in the history of Roman art. The fortuitous survival of the Arch of Constantine--with its historic relationship to the rise of Christianity as the state religion--has made this monument the focus of many questions about the emergence of the distinctly unclassical style that was eventually identified with the new religion. The Arch featured various classical sculptural elements taken from monuments of earlier reigns in addition to contemporary carving in the new style. Though there is little agreement among scholars as to the precise stylistic significance of the new style as represented on the Arch and the form in which it was eventually manifested as Christian art, it is clear that the Arch of Constantine stands at or near the divide between classical and Christian art. The Arch was erected in celebration of Constantine's victory over his co-emperor Maxentius at the Milvian (or Mulvian) Bridge in 312. The Edict of Milan, granting freedom of worship in the empire and restoring various rights to Christians, was published in 313. Since the Milvian victory turned out to be an even greater triumph for Christianity than it was for the emperor the subsequent legend of the battle grew considerably. Constantine, it was claimed, had been led to victory by the sign of a miraculous cross that appeared in the sky during the
. . .
n the figures, are far more successful than the battles depicted on the new-style end reliefs on the Arch. Strong notes that the style of the largitio and oratio reliefs, despite all its shortcomings, is somehow "very effective for conveying the character of the occasion in each case" (277-78). And Huskinson claims, comparing the new-style largitio with the same subject in one of the Arch's borrowed classical panels (depicting Marcus Aurelius), that the hierarchic frontal approach of the new style may not be as pleasing to the eye but it does "lay bare the inner significance of the scene" more effectively than the idealized older version (298).
Other scholars have not taken so kindly to the style of the friezes and an interesting contrast emerges here. Huskinson and Strong approach the Late Antique from the viewpoint of historians of classical art and form guardedly favorable impressions of the friezes because they compare them with classical precedents to which they have almost no stylistic relation. But those who dismiss the quality of the friezes on the Arch are all historians of Christian art. They compare the friezes with the glories of the Christian art that was either part of the same tradition or at least shared sur
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Marcus Aurelius, Romans Rostra, Arch Constantine, Edict Milan, York Universe, York Odyssey, York Oxford, Strong Chapter, Fortunate Augustus--inasmuch, Princeton Princeton, christian art, friezes arch, roman art, fourth century, classical art, arch constantine, official art, art arch, style friezes, revival classicism, york universe 1971, art york universe, byzantine art york, morey charles rufus, classical christian art,
Approximate Word count = 3065
Approximate Pages = 12 (250 words per page)
More Essays on Constantine The Great
|
Customer Service
to Over
32,000 Professionally Written Papers!!!
