Recycled art and imperial legacy in Constantine's triumphal arch

¶ … Travel in Art

Time traveling art Historian Book Chapters

Travels in artistic time: Ancient Rome, Renaissance Florence, the Islamic world

Early Roman recycled art

I begin my time-traveling journey through art history where all roads lead -- to Rome. There stands the triumphal Arch of Constantine, built to honor the great emperor. In Rome, it was common to build these stone structures to commemorate great battles and leaders. Here the Arch is made from bleach-white stone, a square hollowed out into three arches. Constantine's commemorated victory took place over the leader Maxentius during the battle of the Milvian Bridge in 312 CE. Constantine entered Rome victoriously, and the Roman Senate awarded him a triumphal arch in return (Seindal 2003, p.1).Constantine was the first Christian emperor, and it was said that before the battle, he saw a vision of a cross, and heard the words: 'by this sign you shall conquer.' However, the arch still has a great deal of architectural and stylistic resonance with previous pagan Roman structures -- much like the Roman emperors who had ruled before him, Constantine still loved pomp and circumstance. The arch as a whole is decorative rather than functional.

Like the triumphal arches that preceded it, this Arch uses symbolic images in relief to show the value of its intended honoree. As well as Constantine's glories, it also illustrates the previous triumphs of Roman emperors and leaders such as Marcus Aurelius' victory over the Samaritans. Demonstrating continuity with past leaders and Roman values was still very important to the Romans, even during the later years of the empire -- perhaps more so than ever before. But there may be a practical reason for the sculptural recapitulation of the glories of many of the emperors that had lead before Constantine: there was a scarcity of materials, so reusing the physical relics from previous monuments enabled a speedier construction as well as a way to create a sense of continuity between past and present. However, emphasizing a lack of creativity and funds can be taken too far -- the specific selection of particular old monuments to reuse was clearly strategic. "Many parts of the decorations of the Arch of Constantine are taken from other monuments erected by earlier emperors: Trajan, Hadrian and Marcus Aurelius, who were known already in the time of Constantine as the Good Emperors. That the reused parts come from precisely these emperors is definitely not a coincidence. Constantine wanted to be likened to them" (Seindal 2003, p.2). All three emperors were noted for their military victories, great philosophy and service to Rome, or both. As well as depicting historical victories, there are also symbolic depictions of the great piety these emperors showed to the gods. This illustrates once again the balance Constantine was trying to strike in his regime -- on one hand, he was reconfiguring Rome under new leadership and faith, but he also saw himself as fulfilling and upholding an earlier, better legacy and past for which there was great nostalgia.

The central inscription reads: "To the emperor Caesar Flavius Constantine Maximus, Pius Felix Augustus, since through divine inspiration and great wisdom he has delivered the state from the tyrant and all his factions, by his army and noble arms, the Senate and the Roman People, dedicate this arch decorated with triumphal insignia" (Seindal, 2003, p.3). These words indicate how the Arch of Constantine is intended to be a stirring work of political propaganda, yet beautiful and awe-inspiring. To command a triumphal arch signified a leader's power in Rome. The Arch of Constantine is a testimony to both the jingoism and the grandeur of Rome.

Many see the arch as inferior to previous Roman triumphal arches, because of its more blatant political focus and the lack of naturalism in the new figures. There are many distorted perspectives and figures that are intended to be symbolic, rather than realistic in nature that clash with the older forms of physical representation. Overall, "the change in artistic style when compared to the earlier works is clear. The Hellenistic naturalism of the classic imperial period has given way to a much more symbolic approach. Persons and monuments are no longer shown in their normal sizes and proportions as dictated by perspective and depth in the composition. Instead the sizes of the figures are dictated by the importance of each person, the emperor being physically bigger than the dignitaries, who in turn are bigger than the commoners" (Seindal 2003, p.2). This distortion of perspective in sculpture to communicate a symbolic truth would be used later on to convey other ideas during the medieval and modern period, of course, and this work of architecture remains critically significant to the ages for that reason, even though the power of Constantine is no more. "Emphasis is less on 'this is Emperor Constantine,' and more on 'this is the Emperor'…Only the emperors are shown frontally, while the others face towards them in symbolic submission." (Seindal 2003, p.2).

Chapter 3: Islamic detour

It must not be forgotten that many great, artistically-inclined civilizations existed beyond that of the borders of West: for example, remember the Islamic world during the Middle Ages. But upon gazing at the works of this great civilization it is essential to remember that artistic conventions differ greatly than from their Western counterparts -- pictorial and figurative representations of individuals were not prized as they were in Italy, for example, because of the Islamic injunction against perfect reproductions. But this does not mean that human likenesses were not represented at all, as can be seen in a typical depiction of a tympanum, from a fifteenth-century tombstone of the town of Kubachi, commandeered by an unknown source, to commemorate the dead. There, a sculpted rider wears a cloud collar that covers the rider's chest, as is traditional in images of Central Asian nomadic archers. It is said to be symbolic of the Mongol roots of the Golden Horde (1227 -- 1502) (Tympanum, 2009, Met). The representation is deliberately stereotypical, and designed not to represent a literal or specific human being -- so long as human representations were not an attempt to encapsulate real life, they were allowed. Thus, to look at Islamic art and say 'this is not realistic' is to impose Western individualism and aesthetic standards upon another civilization, but to generalize and say that human forms were never represented at all is also inaccurate.

"The strongest statements on the subject of figural depiction are made in the Hadith (Traditions of the Prophet), where painters are challenged to 'breathe life' into their creations and threatened with punishment on the Day of Judgment. The Qur'an is less specific but condemns idolatry and uses the Arabic term musawwir ('maker of forms,' or artist) as an epithet for God. Partially as a result of this religious sentiment, figures in painting were often stylized and, in some cases, the destruction of figurative artworks occurred" (Figural representation in Islamic art, 2001, Met) When crafting human and animal forms, highly stereotyped and often fantastic motifs that were obviously unrealistic in their proportions and design were favored.

The artist is not identified; similar to that of a triumphal arch -- for a funerary work, the person being honored rather than the artist is important. Indeed, throughout Islamic art, few famous artists are known, as working within a tradition, rather than asserting the self is of greater value. Thus, there is always complexity in every civilization when formulating an artistic tradition. Islam is never a monolith -- not then and not today. The carved stone with traces of paint does not have the individuated figurative definition and motion of David or even the older works of the Arch of Constantine, but the motion of the horse dancing across the frieze is compelling. The figure is clearly a design, not a figure with the breath and life of human being like David. But individualism is not what is valued in Islamic art -- this illustrates the negotiation between ideology and art inherent within all civilizations.