Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-d8cs5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-30T15:41:30.377Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Roman viewers in context: displaying, enjoying, and explaining Roman art - B. Longfellow, and E. Perry, eds. 2017. Roman Artists, Patrons, and Public Consumption: Familiar Works Reconsidered. Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.

Review products

B. Longfellow, and E. Perry, eds. 2017. Roman Artists, Patrons, and Public Consumption: Familiar Works Reconsidered. Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 February 2023

Anna Anguissola
Anna Anguissola*
Affiliation:
University of Pisa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Book Review
Information
Journal of Roman Archaeology , Volume 35 , Issue 2 , December 2022 , pp. 979 - 993
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allison, P. M. 2005. Pompeian Households: An Analysis of Material Culture. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology.Google Scholar
Anguissola, A. 2012a. Difficillima imitatio. Immagine e lessico delle copie tra Grecia e Roma. Studia Archaeologica 183. Rome: L'Erma di Bretschneider.Google Scholar
Anguissola, A. 2012b. “Greek originals and Roman copies.” In Oxford Online Bibliography in Classics. https://doi.org/10.1093/OBO/9780195389661-0213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anguissola, A. 2015. “Idealplastik and the relationship between Greek and Roman sculpture.” In The Oxford Handbook of Roman Sculpture, ed. Friedland, E. A., Grunow Sobocinski, M., with Gazda, E. K., 240–59. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press (2nd ed. 2018).Google Scholar
Anguissola, A. 2018a. Supports in Roman Marble Sculpture. Workshop Practice and Modes of Viewing. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anguissola, A. 2018b. “Tempo e spazio della metamorfosi. Osservazioni sull'iconografia di Ermafrodito.” Eidola 15: 41–55.Google Scholar
Anguissola, A. 2019. “Ergon and parergon. Osservazioni su attributi e sostegni nella serie copistica del Diadumeno.” Mare Internum 11: 25–42.Google Scholar
Anguissola, A. 2022. “Colore e materia dell'ambiguità: pareti nere, giardini notturni e specchi ingannevoli a Pompei.” In Prospettive per lo studio della iconografia romana. Ambivalenza delle immagini, ed. Bazzechi, E. and Lang, J., 67–78. Bari: Edipuglia.Google Scholar
Anguissola, A., Legnaioli, S., Odelli, E., Palleschi, V., Raneri, S., and Tortorella, A., 2021. “Pompeii's black mirrors: Art-historical and scientific investigations of obsidian and related materials in the Roman world.” Marmora 17: 67–87.Google Scholar
Barker, S. J. 2021. “Marble aesthetics in two sea-front houses at Herculaneum.” Marmora 17: 89–149.Google Scholar
Bartman, E. 1992. Ancient Sculptural Copies in Miniature. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartman, E. 2002. “Eros's flame: Images of sexy boys in Roman ideal sculpture.” In The Ancient Art of Emulation. Studies in Artistic Originality and Tradition from the Present to Classical Antiquity, ed. Gazda, E. K., 249–71. Supplements to the MAAR. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Bergmann, B. 2007. “A painted garland: Weaving words and images in the House of the Epigrams at Pompeii.” In Art and Inscriptions in the Ancient World, ed. Newby, Z. and Leader-Newby, R., 60–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bravi, A. 2012. Ornamenta urbis: opere d'arte greche negli spazi romani. Bari: Edipuglia.Google Scholar
Cadario, M. 2009. “Salmacide ed Ermafrodito tra Alicarnasso e Roma.” In Ninfe nel mito e nella città dalla Grecia a Roma, ed. Giacobello, F. and Schirripa, P., 115–31. Parabordi 71. Milan: Viennepierre.Google Scholar
Cadario, M. 2012. “L'immagine di Ermafrodito tra letteratura e iconografia.” In Il gran poema delle passioni e delle meraviglie. Ovidio e il repertorio letterario e figurativo fra antico e riscoperta dell'antico, ed. Colpo, I. and Ghedini, F., 235–46. Padua: Padova University Press.Google Scholar
Cahill, N. 2002. Household and City Organization at Olynthus. New Haven: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cain, H.-U. 1995. “Neoatticismo.” In Enciclopedia dell'Arte Antica. Suppl. V, 413. Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana. https://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/neoatticismo_(Enciclopedia-dell'-Arte-Antica).Google Scholar
Cain, H.-U., and Dräger, O., 1994. “Die sogenannten neuattischen Werkstätten.” In Das Wrack. Der antike Schiffsfund von Mahdia, ed. Hellenkemper Salies, G., 809–29. Cologne: Rheinland.Google Scholar
Carrella, A., D'Acunto, L. A., Inserra, N., and Serpe, C.. 2008. Marmora Pompeiana nel Museo archeologico Nazionale di Napoli. Gli arredi scultorei delle case pompeiane. Studi della Soprintendenza Archeologica di Pompei 26. Rome: L'Erma di Bretschneider.Google Scholar
Cirucci, G. 2009. “Antichità greche a Pompei. Tre esempi di reimpiego di antiche opere d'arte greca nelle abitazioni di Pompei.” Prospettiva 134–35: 52–64.Google Scholar
Cline, L. K. 2014. “Imitation vs. reality: Zebra stripe paintings in the Fourth Style at Oplontis.” In Antike Malerei zwischen Lokalstil und Zeitstil. Akten des XI. Internationalen Kolloquiums der AIPMA, ed. Zimmermann, N., 565–70. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Colzani, G. 2014. “Le cosiddette Pudicitiae: formazione, diffusione e ricezione in età ellenistica e romana.” In Agoge 10/11: 115–46.Google Scholar
Colzani, G. 2021. Statue in piccolo formato nel mondo greco e romano. La scultura ideale. Florence: All'Insegna del Giglio.Google Scholar
Dickmann, J.-A. 1997. “The peristyle and the transformation of domestic space in Hellenistic Pompeii.” In Domestic Space in the Roman World. Pompeii and Beyond, ed. Laurence, R. and Wallace-Hadrill, A., 121–36. JRA Suppl. Ser. 22. Portsmouth RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology.Google Scholar
Di Franco, L. 2017. I rilievi neoattici della Campania. Produzione e circolazione degli ornamenta marmorei a soggetto mitologico. Studia Archaeologica 219. Rome: L'Erma di Bretschneider.Google Scholar
Dobres, M.-A., and Robb, J., eds. 2000. Agency in Archaeology. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Donderer, M. 2011. “Nicht immer wörtlich zu verstehen: Wie Bildhauer mit griechischen Inschriften Werbung betrieben.” BABESCH 86: 185–207.Google Scholar
Elsner, J., ed. 2020. Figurines. Figuration and The Sense of Scale. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eristov, H., and Burlot, D.. 2017. “Le fond noir en peinture: marqueur du luxe et gageure technique.” Pictor 6: 225–49.Google Scholar
Galinsky, K. 2014. Memoria Romana: Memory in Rome and Rome in Memory. Supplements to the MAAR 10. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gazda, E. K., assisted by Haeckl, A. E., ed. 1994. Roman Art in the Private Sphere: New Perspectives on the Architecture and Decor of the Domus, Villa and Insula. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Gazda, E. K. 1995. “Roman sculpture and the ethos of emulation: Reconsidering repetition.” HSCP 97: 121–56.Google Scholar
Gazda, E. K., ed. 2002. The Ancient Art of Emulation. Studies in Artistic Originality and Tradition from the Present to Classical Antiquity. Supplements to the MAAR. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gazda, E. K., and Clarke, J. R., with the assistance of McAlpine, L. J., eds. 2016. Leisure & Luxury in the Age of Nero: The Villas of Oplontis near Pompeii. Ann Arbor: Kelsey Museum of Archaeology.Google Scholar
Giuliani, L. 2020. “Il problema delle copie romane. Un dissenso transatlantico.” Eidola 19: 49–68.Google Scholar
Goulet, C. C. 2001–2. “The ‘zebra stripe’ design: An investigation of Roman wall painting in the periphery.” RStPomp 12–13: 53–94.Google Scholar
Haug, A., Hielscher, A., and Lauritsen, M. T., eds. 2022. Materiality in Roman Art and Architecture Aesthetics, Semantics and Function. Berlin and Boston: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. 2012. Entangled: An Archaeology of the Relationships between Humans and Things. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inwood, B., ed. and transl. 2007. Seneca. Selected Philosophical Letters. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Knappett, C., and Malafouris, L., eds. 2008. Material Agency. Towards a Non-Anthropocentric Approach. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Kreikenbom, D. 2013. “Originale und Kopien. Signaturen an späthellenistischen und kaiserzeitlichen Skulpturen.” In Künstlersignaturen von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart, ed. Hegener, N., 60–73. Petersberg: Imhof.Google Scholar
Laken, L. 2001. “Wallpaper patterns in Pompeii and the Campanian region: Towards a Fifth Pompeian Style?” In La Peinture funéraire antique, IVe siècle av.J.-C. – IVe siècle ap. J.-C., ed. Barbet, A. 295–300. Paris: Errance.Google Scholar
Laken, L. 2003. “Zebra patterns in Campanian wall painting. A matter of function.” BABESCH 78: 167–89.Google Scholar
Lauritsen, M. T. 2021. “Ornamental painting on Campanian house façades.” In Principles of Decoration in the Roman World, ed. Haug, A. and Lauritsen, M. T., 123–40. Berlin and Boston: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, S. R., and Langin-Hooper, S. M., ed. 2018. The Tiny and the Fragmented. Miniature, Broken, or Otherwise Incomplete Objects in the Ancient World. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Marvin, M. 2008. The Language of the Muses: The Dialogue Between Greek and Roman Sculpture. Los Angeles: The J. Paul Getty Museum.Google Scholar
Newby, Z. 2012. “The aesthetics of violence: Myth and danger in Roman domestic landscapes.” ClAnt 31, no. 2: 349–89.Google Scholar
Oehmke, S. 2004. Das Weib im Manne. Hermaphroditos in der griechisch-römischen Antike. Berlin: Arenhövel.Google Scholar
Osborne, R., and Tanner, J., eds. 2007. Art's Agency and Art History. Malden: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Panayotakis, C. 2019. “Slavery and beauty in Petronius.” In Slaves and Masters in the Ancient Novel, ed. Panayotakis, S., Paschalis, M., and Panayotakis, C., 181–201. Eelde: Barkhuis.Google Scholar
Perry, E. 2005. The Aesthetics of Emulation in the Visual Arts of Ancient Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Piazzi, L. 2007. “Poesie come didascalie di immagini: tre casi pompeiani.” In Lo sguardo archeologico. I normalisti per Paul Zanker, ed. de Angelis, F., 181–98. Pisa: Edizioni della Normale.Google Scholar
Platt, V. 2019. “De l'original perdu à la série: nouvelles approches des multiples gréco-romains.” Perspective 2: 165–78. https://doi.org/10.4000/perspective.15200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powers, J. 2006. “Patrons, houses and viewers in Pompeii: Reconsidering the House of the Gilded Cupids.” PhD diss., The University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Powers, J. 2011. “Beyond painting in Pompeii's houses: Wall ornaments and their patrons.” In Pompeii: Art, Industry and Infrastructure, ed. Poehler, E., Flohr, M., and Cole, K., 10–32. Oxford: Oxbow.Google Scholar
Ragone, G. 2001. “L'iscrizione di Kaplan Kalesi e la leggenda afrodisia di Salmacide.” Studi Ellenistici 13: 75–119.Google Scholar
Rauws, J. E. 2015–16. “Zebra stripes: Minimal art as Fifth Style wall painting in Roman Campania.” RStPomp 26–27: 53–59.Google Scholar
Rebaudo, L. 2016. “Originali, copie e copisti nel mondo ellenistico e romano.” Eidola 13: 63–74.Google Scholar
Rebaudo, L. 2020. “Le firme dei copisti.” RdA 44: 169–96.Google Scholar
Reinhardt, A. 2019. Reproduktion und Bild. Zur Wiederholung und Vervielfältigung von Reliefs in römischer Zeit. Monumenta Artis Romanae 41. Wiesbaden: Reichert.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romano, A. J. 2009. “The invention of marriage: Hermaphroditus and Salmacis at Halicarnassus and in Ovid.” CQ 59: 543–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutledge, S. H. 2012. Ancient Rome as a Museum. Power, Identity, and the Culture of Collecting. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Santini, M. 2016. “A multi-ethnic city shapes its past. The ‘Pride of Halicarnassus’ and the memory of Salmakis.” AnnPisa s. 5, 8, no. 1: 3–35.Google Scholar
Squire, M. 2013. “Ars in their I's: Authority and authorship in Graeco-Roman visual culture.” In The Author's Voice in Classical and Late Antiquity, ed. Marmodoro, A. and Hill, J., 357–414. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Squire, M. 2016. The Iliad in a Nutshell: Visualizing Epic on the Tabulae Iliacae. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Staub Gierow, M. 1994. Casa del Granduca (VII, 4, 56) und Casa dei Capitelli figurati (VII, 4, 57). Häuser in Pompeji 7. Munich: Hirmer.Google Scholar
Stewart, P. 2003. Statues in Roman Society. Representation and Response. Oxford Studies in Ancient Culture and Representation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stirling, L. M. 2005. The Learned Collector: Mythological Statuettes and Classical Taste in Late Antique Gaul. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trimble, J. 2011. Women and Visual Replication in Roman Imperial Art and Culture. Greek Culture in the Roman World. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vollmer, C. 2014. Im Anfang war der Thron: Studien zum leeren Thron in der griechischen, römischen und frühchristlichen Ikonographie. Tübinger archäologische Forschungen 15. Rahden: Leidorf.Google Scholar
von Mercklin, E. 1962. Antike Figuralkapitelle. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuchtriegel, G. 2013–14. “Das Begehren von dem Ovid nicht spricht: Hermaphroditos in der hellenistisch-römischen Kunst.” Ostraka 22–23: 255–69.Google Scholar