Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2000.09.

09
Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2000.09.09.htm[9.10.2014. 10:57:58]
Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2000.09.09
L. Richardson Jr., A Catalog of Identifiable Figure Painters of Ancient Pompeii,
Herculaneum, and Stabiae. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000.
Pp. 143. ISBN 0-8018-6235-3. $49.95.
Reviewed by Diane A. Conlin, University of Colorado
Word count: 2568 words
Over a century ago, Giovanni Morelli presented the fundamental principles of connoisseurship. Most
familiar to classicists through Beazley's work on Greek pot painters, the Morellian method for
attribution distinguishes individual artists and workshops by careful, close study of certain repeated
details, especially anatomical forms reproduced regularly in preliminary sketches and drawings of
human figures. The more works with very similar or particularly idiosyncratic stylistic signatures,
then the more convincing the attribution, especially when techniques and materials remain relatively
constant and when figure types are repeated in different pieces. Since Morellian analysis relies on
criteria that can be described, counted and, most important, documented through photographs, many
have regarded it a precise and scientific method for identifying personal styles and regional traditions.
Yet, despite some claims to "scientific rigor," connoisseurship is as inherently subjective as any other
sub-discipline of classical archaeology or classics in general for that matter.1 The acceptance of an
attribution relies in great measure on the scholar's reputation and ability to verbalize visual
characteristics, on the supporting documentation and on the critical acumen of an experienced reader.
Until relatively recently, attribution dominated the study of Greek sculpture and vase painting, two
media that generally conform to the desired conditions in those periods unburdened by the
troublesome copy problem. For Roman art, on the other hand, attribution studies have been sporadic,
overshadowed by iconographical, typological and contextual questions. Attempts to isolate painters or
sculptors through stylistic signatures have met with varying degrees of acceptance or interest. Perhaps
this is due in part to judgements that the Morellian method is too unfashionable or inapplicable for the
Roman material. While it is true that connoisseurship has not been trendy lately, its potential for
further clarifying the dynamics of Roman patronage and artistic processes has yet to be thoroughly
explored.
It is against this background that Richardson's study of Campanian figure painters stands out as one of
the few recent attempts to apply Morellian analysis to Roman imagery in order to isolate individual
artists. Yet, the scope of this book goes well beyond simply assigning figure panels to distinct yet still
anonymous painters. Although R. makes it clear in both the title and preface that the focus is the
substantial, 156 page catalog, the introductory chapter offers several thought-provoking observations
on the working conditions of wall painters in the Campanian region, especially in Pompeii. Since this
twenty-two page chapter summarizes the implications of R.'s painting attributions, I will spend most
of this review discussing this portion.
Divided into two sections, the "Introduction" consists of a brief discussion of the dating and
classification of Mau's Four Styles and a longer section on the purposes, methods and results of R.'s
identifications. The author begins by emphasizing the structural damage caused by the 62 earthquake,
reminding readers that most buildings in the region were at various stages of repair and re-decoration
Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2000.09.09
Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2000.09.09.htm[9.10.2014. 10:57:58]
when Vesuvius erupted. According to R., painters were not commissioned as fixed teams to decorate
the entirety of individual homes; rather, different artists worked in different rooms (or even the same
room) in spurts as repairs and wall resurfacing permitted. While R. concedes that painting styles were
often influenced by the requirements of the room, he argues that the juxtaposition of different styles or
variations within a style was more often the "consequence of time and different painters" (2).
Considering recent theories on the contextual significance of stylistic groupings and Roman attitudes
of decor, R.'s statement might meet some resistance. Certainly any number of factors, including
scheduling problems, artist availability, intended ambience and room requirements, caused stylistic
variations in the decoration of Pompeian homes -- variations which R. observes were aesthetically
appealing to Roman patrons. Unfortunately but not surprisingly, textual records offer little substantial
information on the more practical aspects of painting commissions in the Campanian region.
Problems of style regularly lead to problems of date, and R. devotes much of this first section to a
review of the chronology and classifications of Mau's Four Styles. A word of caution is warranted
here because R. assumes that the reader is already thoroughly familiar with basic design
characteristics of each style. Without a description of the Four Styles, I wonder whether the
"intellectually adventurous tourist" targeted as a potential reader in the jacket blurb could follow R.'s
succinct summary of complicated and conflicting typological arguments.
Since figure panel painters are the focus, R. gives most space to the classifications of the Third and
Fourth Styles. After a rapid-fire run through of the First Style (starting c. 200 B.C. with no end date
given) and the Second Style (Sullan period to sometime after A.D. 3), R. dates the end of the
"Transition" phase between Second and Third (often referred to as Late Second Style Phase 2B) well
past the traditional point of c. 20 B.C. to the early Tiberian period.2 Meanwhile, the chronological
development of the Third Style continues to be problematic. Rejecting much earlier dates for the "full
blossoming" of the Third Style to the last decade of the first century B.C., R. argues instead for some
time after Tiberius' accession -- quite late indeed! The problem centers on which phase one defines as
the blossoming: the monochromatic walls with sacral-idyllic landscapes of Boscotrecase or the bold
color blocks and large figural panels, for example, in the Casa di Cecilio Giocondo. Preferring the
latter as the height of the style, R. goes on to suggest that, despite certain definable characteristics, the
Third Style was exceptionally experimental and thus inherently resistant to modern classification
systems. More skeptical readers might question the entire process of classifying wall paintings when
they learn that it "is almost impossible to decide whether certain simple decorations are Third or
Fourth Style" (6).
Finally, the Fourth Style receives its due, and the case begins straightforwardly enough. R. assigns the
invention of the Fourth Style, already conclusively dated before 62 by M. de Vos,3 to the painters of
Nero's Domus Transitoria.4 Once invented, however, its further development cannot be traced,
according to R., who ends by refuting various attempts to divide the Fourth Style into periods based
on stylistic deviations from Third Style paintings. Given that most of the identified artists in the
catalog are Fourth Style painters (a total of 17, with 4 artists assigned to the Second Style and 15 to
the Third), I expected a more comprehensive discussion of the phases or manners of Fourth Style
ensembles.
In the second section of the introductory chapter, R. spells out the purposes and methods of his
project. By identifying individual hands, he hopes to shed some light on the economics and
organization of the decorating industry as well as the tastes of Campanian patrons. Here we discover
what factors are considered most important: the quantity of work produced by a specific artist, its
location and evidence for collaboration with other painters. In order to identify specific painters, he
applies the Morellian method and examines details of form, overall syntax and, to a lesser extent,
palette. On the other hand, composition is deemed largely irrelevant. For so-called famous
masterpieces or popular subjects like the marriage of Venus and Mars, R. argues that composition was
determined more by models available in copybooks than by the painters; as such it is not a trustworthy
indicator of personal style. Later in the chapter, however, we read that artists did not attempt faithful
Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2000.09.09
Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2000.09.09.htm[9.10.2014. 10:57:58]
reproductions of masterpieces but instead adapted pre-established paradeigmata to suit the needs of
the patron and the decorative program of the space. Likewise there are conflicting statements
concerning technique. Since brushwork is significant for Morellian analysis, painting technique is an
important criterion for any panel attribution (20). Yet, later in the same paragraph, the "niceties of
brushwork" are of no value due to the deteriorated condition of most painted surfaces.
Interspersed throughout this discussion of the potentials and methods of attribution are several
disconnected, oftentimes debatable, but nonetheless interesting observations on the working
conditions of Pompeian painters. While Romanists generally acknowledge the separate specialties of
the panel painter (pictor imaginarius) and the decorative wall painter (pictor parietarius), R. suggests
that many of the subsidiary characters populating architectural frames were added by the panel
painters who arrived after the wall decoration was complete. Since there are no plaster seams around
these figures, they were probably painted in fresco secco or by a tempura technique. I find R.'s notion
of focused specialization intriguing although I admit it requires the panel painter to have at his
disposal not only a range of techniques but also the proper tools and materials. Unfortunately, there is
little discussion of the relationship of the panel painters to the decorative painters, except to suggest
that the panel painter was usually an independent artist advertising his skills and samples on market
day. "The decorating industry was essentially a thing apart, but this is a question that must be explored
by concentration on it alone" (16). Most perplexing here is the lack of references to J ohn Clarke's
work on Roman interior decoration, certainly essential for understanding the practicalities and
economic implications of painting workshop organization.5
Based on the quantity and quality of attributed paintings, R. suggests that painters could work together
without necessarily being members of the same shop. While workshop studies have shown such
collaboration is possible, I was not convinced by R.'s conclusion that paucity of production indicates
an itinerant painter. Ancient artists frequently traveled for commissions, but certainly the limitations
of the remains so far exposed and the unknown circumstances of artists' lives have also influenced the
numbers. With respect to patron's tastes, the author argues that Pompeians were satisfied to have
quality panels by a good artist in only one significant room of their homes (an exception being the
Casa dei Vettii). The connections drawn between the quality of the paintings, their location in the
house and the tastes of the patron need further explanation. The notions that patrons "did not care
enough about their pictures" (17) and that paintings were "furnishing rather than art" and "background
for other activity" (180) should spark conversation about the social functions of painted images in
Roman homes.
The numerous sweeping conclusions offered in this relatively brief section highlight many of the
methodological controversies associated with attribution studies. Some readers may find the
qualitative assessments highly subjective and frustratingly vague. Those more familiar with
connoiseurship will recognize that "skilled masters" and "incompetent hacks" frequently populate a
Morellian world. For his part, R. believes that the majority of Pompeian painters were mediocre artists
and that this, along with the poor state of preservation of many decorations, impedes attribution. Yet
there is hope since "sometimes the sheer mass of a mediocre painter's work in the ancient cities can be
used to give a definite character to his mediocrity" (14). The introductory chapter ends with a
chronological review of past attempts to identify specific painters, and most are criticized rather
harshly, especially if the scholars under fire did not apply the Morellian method successfully. I found
it odd that the entire paragraph reviewing the work of M. T. Andreae (20-21) is repeated verbatim in
the catalog discussion of the painter connected with the signature Lucius (147-48).
This observation brings me to the substantial catalog of painters, the details of which cannot be
discussed at any great length here. Suffice it to say that there are well over 700 images assigned to 36
painters. With this formidable and valuable collection of data, R. again proves himself a careful and
skilled connoisseur. The descriptions of features are clear and precise, though there is a tendency
toward repetition -- an unavoidable consequence of any comparative study of visual details. Although
I found many of the attributions sound, there were a few that I felt were less convincing. For example,
Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2000.09.09
Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2000.09.09.htm[9.10.2014. 10:57:58]
R. assigns a winged caryatid herm in IV Ins. Occ. 41 to the Villa dei Misteri Painter, the same artist
responsible for both the famous megalographic figures in oecus 5 and the Bacchic figures in
cubiculum 4 of the Villa dei Misteri outside of Pompeii. In my judgement he is correct here, since the
herm appears very similar stylistically in a number of ways to the female figures in the megalographic
frieze, especially in their facial features, expressions and the disposition of the heads. Yet I was not
convinced by his attribution of several winged caryatid herms in oecus 12 of the Casa di Cesio Blando
to the same artist. Despite the fact that the Cesio Blando figures are very poorly preserved, enough
survives to see that the facial designs and proportions are significantly different. In terms of stylistic
signatures, the herms in the Casa di Cesio Blando are probably all the work of the same painter. In my
view, this painter is not the same artist as R.'s Misteri Painter.
One of the most prolific painters in R.'s catalog is the Boscotrecase Painter, to whom the author
assigns nearly one hundred figural, landscape and naumachiae panels decorating both public and
private structures in Pompeii, Boscotrecase, Herculaneum, Stabiae and Boscoreale. Based on stylistic
and especially technical similarities, I agree that the mythological panels in triclinium b of the Casa
del Sacerdote Amando are by the same painter (R.'s Boscotrecase Painter). However, in this long list
of attributions, R. also assigns the panels of Diana and Acteon, Eteocles and Polynices, Fall of Icarus
and the Punishment of Dirce in triclinium 11 of the Casa del Frutteto to the Boscotrecase Painter. To
my eyes, these paintings are distinctly dissimilar with respect to overall figural proportions,
highlighting techniques and the execution of repetitive details such as wave designs. On the other
hand, R.'s connection of the Origins of Rome painting in triclinum R of house V, iv, 13 with the
painter of triclinium b in the Casa del Sacerdote Amando seems sound. No doubt other readers will
discover attributions they feel are more or less convincing as they delve into the dense catalog.
However, the publishers have not made testing R.'s attributions easy. There are no illustrations in this
book on Roman painting; thus, readers should have handy at least all the hefty volumes of Pompei:
Pitture e mosaici.6 Thankfully, R. has supplied references to available illustrations for nearly every
image. I appreciate that substantial photographic documentation would have raised the price of the
book enormously. Nevertheless, a few black and white reproductions for selected painters could have
been provided for an acceptable cost. For this reason alone, I suspect only specialists in Roman
painting or in ancient workshop organization will have the resources and patience to fully investigate
the catalog.
R.'s study is a monumental achievement, clearly the result of a lifetime of careful scrutiny and
sensitivity to painted forms. Due to the sheer mass of data collected and the practical difficulties in
assessing his comparisons, it will take some time before Romanists can fully appraise R.'s application
of Morellian analysis for understanding Campanian wall painters and their patrons. And until many
eyes test the attributions, the conclusions drawn from them must remain speculative. Certainly the
author is both aware of the limitations of the remains and cautious about the conflicting implications
of his attributions. "The results have been a maze of contradictions, both large and small, and much
work still needs to be done on sorting out the implications of anomalies" (16). R.'s significant
contribution should inspire students to rediscover Morellian analysis and attempt the arduous sorting
that is needed.
Notes:
1. Connoisseurial methods and much of the jargon of attribution (for example, such qualitative terms
as "master", "genius", "hackwork") continue to receive criticisms from all regions of the academic
spectrum. Richard Neer provides a succinct and provocative discussion of related issues in BMCR
00.01.02.
2. Second Style Phase 2B paintings are generally dated to 30-20 B.C. See R. Ling, Roman Painting
(Cambridge 1991) 31-42, and J . R. Clarke, The Houses of Roman Italy, 100 B.C.-A.D. 250: Ritual
Space and Decoration (Berkeley 1991), 49-53.
Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2000.09.09
Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2000.09.09.htm[9.10.2014. 10:57:58]
3. M. de Vos, "Primo stile figurato e maturo quarto stile negli scarichi provenienti dalle macerie del
terramoto del 62 d. C. a Pompei," Mededelingen van het Nederlands Intsituut te Rome 39, n.s. 4
(1977) 29-47.
4. The well-preserved vaulted ceiling and lunette painting fragments from a corridor of the Domus
Transitoria are on display in the recently reopened Museo Palatino in Rome.
5. J . R. Clarke, The Houses of Roman Italy, especially 30-77.
6. G. Pugliese Carratelli and I. Baldassarre, eds., Pompei: Pitture e mosaici. Istituto della
Enciclopedia Italiana. 10 volumes to date. (Rome 1990). Because almost 44% of the paintings
attributed are not in PPM (for example, any painting from outside the town of Pompeii proper,
Herculaneum, Stabiae, Boscotrecase, Boscoreale, and several unidentified buildings in the Campanian
region), readers must also turn for illustrations in several publications on wall painting, including R.
Pedicini and L. Pedicini, Le collezione del Museo Nazionale Napoli, i mosaici, le pitture,... (Rome
1986) and both volumes of G. Cerulli-Irelli, M. Aoyagi, S. De Caro, and U. Pappalardo, eds., La
Peinture de Pompi (Paris 1993).
Read
Latest
Index for
2000
Change Greek
Display
Archives
Books Available for
Review
BMCR
Home
HTML generated at 13:27:00, Friday, 03 April 2009