- This topic has 48 replies, 27 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
-
Throughout this semester we have learned how art has evolved with humans. With the earliest form of art in prehistory, votive figures were used as a teaching tool. As civilizations became more complex, art was used for multiple reasons. People began to use art in innovative ways to influence society. Propaganda starts to emerge as leaders find the need to persuade the growing public in support of their decisions. ‘The Arch of Constantine’ (312-315 CE) is a example of how art can be used to influence the public’s view of a leader. Arches were used to celebrate military conquest that relied on taxes from the people. Constantine’s arch took other artwork from the “Good’ emperors to incorporate into his own monument. This helps Constantine tie in his ruling with some of Rome’s best leaders, but in the process alters the pieces original meaning. As new nations rise it becomes crucial for leaders such as Constantine to use propaganda to gain support. With new factors contributing to art, its use and purpose continues to become more complex in the same way humans are.
-
Re: Miranda
Great post! I appreciated how you brought Roman art into the wider scope of everything else we’ve learned this semester. They did play a huge role in the world of art, but much of the meaning has changed from what they likely originally intended. The many uses of propaganda in their art showcase just how powerful art can be.
-
-
Art has a very powerful propagandistic effect. Anything from posters to sculptures to paintings can be used to instill certain ideas into people’s subconscious. One example of this in Roman culture was the sculpture of Augustus of Primaporta. The “strong, yet fair’ image of him helped citizens to trust him and by believing in the image of him, they began to believe in the actual man himself. Portraying Augustus as diplomatic, yet also militaristically skilled, helped to transition the civilization from the republic to the empire. Another example is Arch of Titus, built to commemorate a victory. Such architectural wonders serve to make the citizens feel proud of their officials and cause enemies to be intimidated by the grandeur of the city.
-
To Laura Barber
I thought you had a great example using Augustus to show how they used imagery to leave an impression on the viewer. Other examples would be how the Romans viewed elders, making them look older to show their wisdom. The ‘barbarians’ were given rough and huge features to contrast from the elegance the Romans portrayed themselves as. Great ideas! -
I hadn’t thought of how propagandistic features wouldn’t only affect the people of the empire, but with outsiders as you stated about the arches. It’s a great point, and can absolutely be translated to other parts of the world. For example, the Great Wall of China is absolutely a propaganda piece, to show the strength of the Qin Dynasty, but also to warn outsiders of such strength.
-
-
Most societies have relied on propoganda to help sway in general public. This is no different in the Romain Empire. If you look at Augustus of Primaporta the statue was actually used to justify his ruling through his divine lineage by tracing his ancestry back to Aeneus. Aeneus was the son of Venus and Cupid is depicted in the statue by his right leg. These subtle depictions were abundant throughout Roman Art.
-
Eelkingkade,
You are right, in saying most societies use propaganda to help sway public support. Before we had modern printing options the only way to broadcast opinions was through art or speaking. Interesting how humans are so similar through the ages, we always try to sway people for power or influence.
-
-
-
The Propaganda of Roman art is seen in a lot of their pieces – although it is very vague in some. A lot of the propaganda are displays of spoils of war, such as the Arch of Titus, which has depictions of soldiers walking under the arch with spoils from the temple of Jerusalem. During the High Imperial time, Commodus dressed and seen as Hercules is a sort of propaganda to his own power, how he viewed himself, as well as how others viewed him (while also being somewhat blasphemous to the legendary figure). Augustus’ armor, which shows victory over the Parthians, is another example of war-like propaganda. The enormous Ara Pacis Augustae displays many pieces of propaganda, and is a piece of propaganda itself, as it was created as devotion to the Pax Romana. The piece, Gemma Augustae, commemorates Augustus’ triumph over a barbarian tribe – another nod towards war / violence. The famous Colosseum itself was funded by spoils from the siege of Jerusalem in 70 CE and was part of the “Bread and Circus” idea to try and keep people entertained and at peace. Most notably, there is Constantine himself, who is the most important Propaganda of the Christian religion, as he converted on his death bed.
There is so so much, and I’m sure there is more, but this is just some of the stuff I found in our museum.
-
Lucas you bring up a great many good points in your discussion, but I’m curious if those that viewed the statue of Commodus dressed as Hercules helped people see him in a greater light or if it became an item of ridicule. When first viewing the statue, I can’t say I was awe inspired about how powerful Commodus looks, but how it makes him look as if he is trying to be something he is not.
-
-
Art is, by definition, a method of communication. It makes sense that in times where only the rich and powerful could afford to commission art, they might manipulate it to propagate a certain message or idea. Often, art with certain themes would be commissioned in order to promote an idea, and art with certain themes would be repressed to suppress an idea or movement. We can observe this in the Roman empire by considering art which often depicted leaders as more powerful, or more just. This art promoted the idea among citizens that the leaders were fit to rule, and therefore helped them to sustain their power. Propoganda art was certainly a powerful tool during this time.
-
-
I think the point you make is interesting, and it makes me think about how similar tactics are used today. The way most people feel about our leaders is either that they are almost ‘super-human’ and can do no wrong, or else they are terrible villains who are destroying our nation. This reminds me of the ‘Larger-than-Life’ portrayals of leaders that the Romans created in their artwork.
-
Good point about the rich being able to afford to commission propaganda art, and being able to suppress art that contains views counter to their message. Isn’t it amazing that we have come far enough that artists can run their political cartoons that satirize our rulers – right in our daily newspapers? I’ve read that Romans loved to drag their famous people through the dirt just as much as Americans do, but I think it was easier to have someone flogged then as well.
-
-
A lot of the art we have looked at this semester can be seen as propaganda. The Egyptian rulers used art to prove their right to rule by showing them in close quarters with the gods. Many other cultures used art this same way, including the Romans with the “Augustus of Primaporta” that had cupid on Augustus’ leg to illustrate his divine lineage. Another example of the Romans using art as propaganda is the “Equestrian Statue of Marcus Aurelius” which portrays Marcus as a great horseman, which shows he is powerful and able to control a powerful steed and therefore a great leader.
-
Hey ckocsis,
I think you’re absolutely correct – most of the art that depicts any sort of ruler can be viewed as a propaganda for that ruler. The Egyptians did this, as you pointed out, but it is so prevalent in Roman art just due to the mass amount of fighting the society went through. A lot of it depicts things or call out to things that aren’t necessarily artistic, but stand strong as propaganda.
-
-
Much of all art has been used as propaganda purposes. Whatever is happening in that time period’s culture seems to influence its art and in turn influence the viewers. The gods and their influence affected all in Roman culture and the people viewed their leaders as being given their power through divine appointments. Art then used the gods to show this divine connection and propaganda to follow and trust their leaders. As Zoe pointed out in the videos there was also Christian faith propaganda as shown through the Arch of Constantine and the Colossus of Constantine. Arches were often used to show the glories in war and to exalt the rulers.
-
Valene – I completely agree with you that the way that individuals would portray themselves as likeness or even closer to the gods was a way of propagating their authority. This was a way of making them seem as if they were appointed by the gods, and this is why others should follow them. Honestly, I think it was a vain attempt at glory, and I wonder if others during this time thought so, too.
-
-
The Augustus of Primaporta was my personal favorite example, there are so many techniques being used to make this statue into a propaganda art piece. From him being shown in his military body armor showing he is a strong victorious warrior, yet the image on his armor showing him to be fair. the cupid and the dolphin showing his ancestry and divine right to rule by the gods approval. The statue itself was modeled using the proportions from of Polykeitos’ Doryphorus and then the pose of the Orator is also being used to combine these well known figures. All of these techniques are being used to portray Augustus in a particular way. The arch of Constantine and the Colossus of Constantine were examples of showing victory and making Constantine’s presence known even when he was not in Rome.
-
-
Much of the art that we have seen this semester was made (or later appropriated) for propagandistic purposes. How do you see this coming in to play with Roman art and architecture?
Often times roman art depicted everyday life alongside mythological ideas. We see this especially on the murals and architectural designs of the leaders. We see this in the arch of Titus, which depicts great gifts of Jerusalem being brought to him. This gives the public the impression that they are not only politically entitled to their position, but also spiritually. This type of art has a way of morphing the public’s minds, not much different than the propaganda utilized today.
-
Lacey, you are right that a great many of the pieces we have seen this semester involve some type of propaganda. Anywhere from making the subject of the piece larger than those around him, to making the subject equal to the gods. By drawing similarities between a mortal and a deity, the mortal was elevated to the rank of a god in the populaces eyes.
-
-
-
-
Using art to promote political agendas and ideas is absolutely not a new thing. Governments have been using art to push their perspectives and plans since governments have existed! The Romans were not exception to this rule. One example of this is seen in sculpture Augustus of Primaporta. In the sculpture, Augustus was communicating that he was a great orator and a military victor. His body is portrayed perfectly as an Greek athletes would be. Just beside his leg is Cupid riding a dolphin. This represents Augustus’ victory in the battle against Antony and Cleopatra. It also communicates Augustus’ is a descendant of the gods. On his breastplate, there is depictions of gods and goddesses. The message here is that Augustus has the god’s on his side. This sculpture carries the message that Augustus wanted to communicate. The he was a strong, capable, victorious leader, and that he had every right to be where he was, as he had been blessed by the gods. This is a common theme in Roman art. They did a great job of communicating their ideals and values in way that would have certainly been effective.
-
RE: Lucus
You’re so right. A lot of times the message is so low key people probably wouldn’t have naturally caught on, but those values would have slowly seeped into their minds unconsciously. This is such a sneaky way to alter the perspectives of the people, yet it can be so effective. Other times, the message is far more loud and clear. What an incredible tool!
-
I feel like a lot of Roman art could be considered propaganda art. Pont Du Gard, the road system, Hadrian’s Wall, all could be considered propaganda, as it spoke of how great and undefeatable the Roman empire was. The numerous portraits sculptures toated of age and wisdom, of experience. The Orator sculpture could silence someone with just a hand. Even the buildings spoke of the greatness of the Romans, given not only the architecture but their sometimes massive size and attention to details. All of this spoke of the importance of the Roman empire to the rest of the world, as well as to the Roman people. It tried to present this image that the Romans were the most powerful and deserved to rule anywhere they so desired. This not only maintained the power over the people, but it was also a message to the rest of the world that they dare not defy the Great Roman Empire.
-
-
A large number of Roman art pieces were designed for propagandistic purposes. Statues and portraits of leaders were created, as well as statues that depict the state of government. The Tetrarchy is a good example of this, as it not only shows the system of government in place, but also the unity, solidarity, and impact of such a governmental form. Another example would be the Equestrian Statue of Marcus Aurelius, as not only is an equestrian portrait a symbol of honor, it later shows another form of propagandism as the only reason it survived is due to the belief that he was Constantine, with ties to religion. These forms of propaganda are not in any sense new, and have lasted through the centuries to remain a commonplace product of governments around the world.
-
I have come to believe that the world around us is presented in a manner that is controlled by the people in power. Some of these presentations have intentional biases and fall under the definition of “propaganda.” Major pieces of art have always been financed a supported by those in power or the prophets of the afterlife, the religious faction. I think that the Arch of Constantine is a great example of the retelling of history to glorify the present leaders. The major theme is of the arch is to place Constantine on equal footing with emperors who also had arches in Rome. Examples are the Arch of Titus, The Arch of Septimus Severus and the Arch of Marcus Aurelius that didn’t survive. Constantine wanted to make sure that the citizens knew he was equal to the past leaders.
In addition, he borrowed scenes, actual sculptures, from earlier time frames. These sculptures were of Trajan, Hadrian, and Marcus Aurelius, three of the five emperors known as the good emperors. It is clear that he wants his reign associated with these benevolent and respected leaders. Other aspects are sculptures that clearly show the capture and subjugation of foreigners to the rule of the Romans. The “Barbarians’ are not the only conquered people. There is also a depiction of Constantine’s victory over a rival Roman leader Maxentius. I think one of the most interesting aspects of the construction was when the heads of past emperors were re-shaped to appear more in the image of Constantine. Finally, some of the last panels are formed in an entirely different shape a pattern. Those depictions are very similar to the way early Christians depicted characterizations a varied from the styles of the other statues. This may have been designed to show his conversion to Christianity. I think it is very interesting how subtle propaganda can be.-
LOVE your insight about people in power being the ones who shape how the world is seen! It’s scary to think how much of history has been recorded wrong or how different groups have been misrepresented simply because they stood against the winning side. I’m sure this holds true in Roman society as well. In the story of Cesar’s assassination, it is always made to seem like a huge betrayal, but what if it was a necessary evil? I guess we’ll never truly know who is in the right and who is in the wrong in the end.
-
-
I would almost think that the fact that political leaders would create statues in their likeness, and they way they would be presented, is a form of propaganda. For example, if we look at the Aulus Metellus (the Orator), and the stance that he takes. This stance basically signified persuading people to take ones side using persuasive arguments rather than force. By displaying this in this statue and displaying it where people can see it, will influence people to think highly of republican values that the Orator represented.
Similarly, if we look at the Augustus of Primaporta, he is taking a non-aggressive stance like the Orator, making him look like a man of persuasion without forcefulness. Then we have the fact that he is barefooted, to make him look holy. The cupid at his right leg is to represent his godly heritage, being of a lineage that traces back to Venus. I would think that all of these details were to impress the audience that gazed upon it.
Even the sculpture where Commodus is likened with Hercules. This is a way to show that he was of divine likeness and had endless strength. Although the attempt was this, he was still seen as vain.
I think that portraying individuals in a certain way in order to impress or influence the way that people see them is a form of propaganda. And this was seen a lot in Roman art.
-
-
In Roman art, we see Augustus idealized and deified to glorify his reign and existence, such as the Cupid on his side riding a dolphin. The use of propaganda was to “unite’ and inspire Rome and help them believe that the leaders are strong and endorsed by the Gods. This is similar to what we see in Egyptian art and Greek art– leaders equated or blessed by a God to legitimize their reign. Even on the Palette of Narmer we see similarities to Augustus’s chest plate– representation of the lands meant to unite and put it into the viewers mind that it’s good for the society.Often in roman art and architecture, we will have leaders surrounded by different gods or goddesses and some sort of personification of the lands to help push this narrative that they are good and strong rulers. Constantine had a pretty propaganda-ful reign as he brought Christianity to Rome.
-
I must say that art as a whole is propaganda rather its the art we have pervious learned about or if it is Roman Art. Some examples are the sculptures, paintings and even temples that we have covered. Say for instance during the Greek era with the Greek Wall painting, how the artist wanted to show the ideal of a war back then and what it look likes to defeat or confront someone during that time. Then you have Augustus of Primaporta statue and how in this statue is seems to show how he ruled during their era and how they were the best at it but also took care of their people in a sense. Most of the ancient art is just passing down their ideas information and so on to other eras and everyone is learning from or teaching each other. Art has been this way since the begin and I honestly do not see it changing any time soon.
-
RE: Miranda Johansson
Oh, very interesting that you pointed out their use of persuasion over use of force. I didn’t think of it that way. It seems that it worked, for the most part, rather than inciting fear by use of propaganda, leaders wanted to inspire and glorify themselves by likening themselves to the deities. It’s an interesting tactic that I daresay still survives to this day– our leaders will appeal to us by their religious beliefs. Great response. -
RE: Bob Hook
That tactic of using other leaders that inspired him is a very smart move– it shows that he wants to be equated with their rule, inspiration, and strength which may help appeal to the masses. I don’t think it’s out of line to say that Constantine knew what he was doing in reference to his propaganda. It sure did make an impact on history, after all. -
Just like earlier civilizations associated themselves with their gods in order to elevate themselves, we see Romans associating themselves with previous rulers in order to elevate themselves to the previous rulers popularity. One of the most noted examples of this propaganda is the statue of Augustus of Primaporta. The statue connects itself visually to both the Spear Bearer statue and The Orator statue. The breastplate that Augustus is wearing shows his military prowess, whereas the emblems on the breastplate associates him with leadership. The statue also shows Cupid riding a dolphin at Augustus’ feet to associate him with the gods.
-
While looking through the Roman art pieces, I noticed that a lot of these pieces portrayed a sense of power, justice, and fanciness. For example, when looking at the Augustus of Primaporta, you see a tall, strong man with a nice robe and what looks like armor. These pieces have a lot in common with characters in the videogames of today and movies. Entertainment companies use characters like these in order to attract people to watch their movie or play their certain game. For example, movies like Iron man, thor, captain America and videogames like call of duty, battlefield, and Halo. each one with distinctive characters like Augustus.
-
To me, the most notable piece of Roman propaganda-style art we looked at is the statue of Marcus Aurelius on horseback. I think this one is more subtle than some of the statues portraying heroes explicitly placed next to or decorated with gods, but the message – true or not – comes across that Marcus was enormous, powerful, calm, militaristic, and capable of enforcing his will on the world (shown via the calm control of a powerful, muscular warhorse). This is notable to me because it is the first surviving example of a statue on horseback, which we see all over the world in modern day as a way to show leader figures as lofty, powerful and larger than life.
-
-
Throughout the eras we’ve seen so far, a lot of art can be viewed as propagandistic art. Many previous civilizations, as well as the Romans themselves, would place their leaders on similar levels to their deities to show their influence and power over their people. Two examples of this for the Romans would be Augustus of Primaporta, in which Augustus is depicted as a descendant of Venus as well as a military victor, and Gemma Augustae, another piece showing his connection to the gods. The more closely related a ruler is shown to their deities and the more strength they have as being a victor, the more powerful they must be so they must be better than the previous rulers. The arches also play a huge role in the Roman propaganda, with their size and panels showing their triumph.
-
Obviously a huge part of Roman art and especially architecture was to impress and intimidate those who were subject to the sprawling empire. Roman authority was something not to be questioned, and this is conveyed in how imposing they made their structures and the statues of their leaders. It’s amazing that even to this day, some thousand years later, Roman style art and architecture are the standard for ‘impressive’ ‘official’ and ‘authoritative’ projects.
-
The sculpture of Augustus of Primaporta is a prime example of art being used as propaganda. His breast plate showed his war experience while the scene depicted on it was one of diplomacy. This showed he was not just a strong ruler, but also a wise and just one. The infant god riding a dolphin showed he claimed divine blood. As for the architecture, much like the pharaohs of Egypt the emperors of Rome built beautiful temples and other structures to show the splendor of not only Rome, but of their rule. Also, the building of the colosseum as well as other leisure building served to distract citizens from the corruption of politicians and to deter them from rising up and overthrowing the government.
-
The Veristic portraits are meant to teach the viewer that age is to be venerated, so they broke away from the idealized style of Greece and made them as realistic as possible. Roman public figures wanted to be taken seriously, so they wore their wrinkles as proof of how wise and hard-working they’ve been. Veristis portraiture was also a defense mechanism of the upper class when they saw foreigners with money moving into Rome. They wanted to distinguish themselves as having been there for a long time.
The statue of Augustus of Primaporta is a combination of the styles used to make the Greek statue of the Spear Bearer (symbolizing strength) and the Roman statue the Orator (symbolizing diplomacy). The intended effect was to get people on board with Augustus ending the Republic and beginning the Empire. He wanted to be seen as a strong but fair ruler, connected to the gods, with the power to bring about a golden age much like the time the Spear Bearer was created. This combination of two recognizable statues to communicate with the viewers seems like a meme…
Mussolini had the Altar of Augustan Peace rebuilt, because he wanted the public to see a connection between himself and Emperor Augustus. The Altar had been originally built as a symbol to Augustus’ people that he was returning Rome to old practices and traditions. The highly detailed and varied plant-life around the base of the altar was meant to communicate the abundance associated with Augustus’ golden age. Mussolini also wished to return to a traditional empire, a sort of golden age. He was responsible for 430,000 deaths under both his rule and military campaigns.
The Arch of Titus was used by the emperor to emphasize his victory over his enemies. He’d parade through it with the spoils of war, then execute the opposing leader ceremonially at the end. The inside of the arch has reliefs depicting the holy objects taken along with the Jews — such as the Menorah. Nearby, there was a museum built to house and show off the actual spoils of war. In a similar vein, the Forum of Trajan had statues of the peoples defeated by Rome. And in the theme of a ruler returning victoriously, there were many equestrian statues made of Emperors returning on horseback.
-
Much of the art that we have seen this semester was made (or later appropriated) for propagandistic purposes. How do you see this coming in to play with Roman art and architecture?
The Four Tetrarchs is a great example of how Roman architecture has played a role in propaganda. By putting the four sons of Constantine on display in Venice, the Romans were showing how great one may look or how powerful you could be. The statues were adorned with a traditional military cap, this could have been a way for the Romans to encourage young men to join the military. The shoes were even adorned with gems at one point. This could have shown the people of Rome just how important the young emperors were.
Source: https://www.thebyzantinelegacy.com/tetrarchs -
The definition of propaganda from Wikipedia is “information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.”
When I think propaganda politics comes to mind. The Roman art used this in many ways, the fact that statues depicted leaders as powerful and worthy of the public’s trust is in itself propaganda. It appears that the rulers always wanted to “one up” the previous ruler in order to gain popularity with the public, pure propaganda. Augustus of Primaporta mixes up messages, a breastplate is used for battle but his depicts diplomacy. The cupid and dolphin are meant to let the masses know that he was of divine blood. This all lends to the appearance that he was a strong and fair ruler that was born to be a ruler.
-
A lot of the art we have seen in the past and the present have a propagandistic effect on individuals. Art is a form of communication and many people have a purpose for their art. In Ancient Egypt, they used art to show their beliefs in the multiple gods they had which might attract others to believe in these gods. In Ancient Greece, the art created was to show the ideal form of human bodies. This could get into peoples heads and cause them to strive for this ideal body form. An example of the Romans using art as propaganda is the “Equestrian Statue of Marcus Aurelius.’ This statue portrays Marcus riding a horse. The statue shows that he is powerful and able to control the powerful creature. Therefore he could be considered a great leader.
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.