![]() It comments on the relevance of the Arch of Constantine and the Basilica Lateranensis in creating a tradition of meanings and ways of the reuse. This paper is a historical outline of the practice of reuse in Rome between the 4th and 13th century AD. Finally, I will propose a third way in which the monument relates to memory, suggesting an analogy between in- dividual memory and national history similar to that described by Schlesinger in the citation above." This idea of a two-way relationship between a monument and viewer dovetails with those theories that describe memory as distributed between individuals and the physical or social environment in which they operate. Secondly, I suggest that the arch actively impacted the memory of viewers, shaping the way in which they thought about the past, in the future. First, I emphasize the fact that viewers approached the monument with a suite of existing memories, which shaped their own unique responses to the imagery and configured its meaning in ways that could both consolidate and subvert the intentions of its creators. I focus principally on two aspects of the complex and mutually formative relationship that existed between the arch and the Roman viewers who contemplated it. The figure of the Roman viewer is thus central to my analysis, and one aim of this chapter is to show how work in the interdisciplinary field of memory studies can bring us closer to understanding the dynamics of viewing monuments in antiquity. However, in contrast with most earlier commentators, here I am particularly interested in memory as a human, cognitive faculty. The present chapter builds on this rich tradition of scholarship on the Arch of Constantine. ![]() The fact that these scholars go on to offer rather different interpretations of the arch’s program reflects the inherent ambiguity of reused images, which can simultaneously indicate both change and continuity, and which can assert supremacy over the past at the same time as appropriating its numinous power. Most commentators now agree that the decision to recycle old sculptures was motivated by an ideological agenda rather than a (purely) financial one, taking it to be deeply significant that the older reliefs come from the monuments of the “good emperors,” Trajan, Hadrian, and Marcus Aurelius. ![]() These earlier discussions deal primarily with themes that might come under the heading of “Cultural Memory” or “Collective Memory,” since they consider how the arch’s makers selected, preserved, and re-presented elements of a “usable past” to serve their own, contemporary purposes. Indeed, much of the existing scholarship on the arch already addresses the topic of memory, although the word memory itself is not always explicitly invoked. 312), but it was also constructed from pieces of sculpture and architecture that had, at some point, been taken from the monuments of earlier Roman rulers. Not only was its primary function commemorative (it celebrated Constantine’s tenth year of rule and his victory over Maxentius in A.D. "In many ways, the Arch of Constantine in Rome is an obvious choice of subject for an exploration of Roman memory.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |