|
|
 |
|
Monumental vs. The Everyday |
|
written
by justinvf / 10.24.2005 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Monumental Architecture vs. the Everyday |
1 of 1 |
|
| |
Assignment |
| |
Though ancient Romans would not likely have bumped their heads quite as many times as I did in the Case Romane del Celio, I suspect that even they would have felt a bit cramped. The house, though ornate in parts, definitely lacks the intention and grandeur of the monumental architecture seen elsewhere in Rome.
The house, a moderately wealthy one as seen by the invitingly large bath, did not have in it a sense of direction. You were not supposed to move a certain way through the space, as routine already establishes the usual ways to move through a house. Even in the more stately rooms, such as the one first discovered by the excavator, the figures were all arranged symmetrically about the room. Having symmetry in all directions, there is no line to trace out when one is in this room and one is not being manipulated to fix one’s gaze on some symbol of power. The architecture and ornamentation is designed with the viewer in mind, to give comfort rather that command. That is not to say that the house was not designed to be impressive, for surely it was with its largest and most decorated rooms being near the entrance, while the more practical and plain rooms were squished together further in. It is just that the house, though designed to reflect status, does not attempt to enforce it.
The monumental architecture is a grave contrast to this, being all about enforcing status. In the form, one is supposed to be drawn in certain directions, the eye and foot to follow certain lines dictated by massive columns. There is no rest within the temples and basilicas of the Forum, as there is always a location to move to or focus attention upon. In this way, the individual looses himself. He is part of a collective, submitting to a greater power in each movement through the grand structures.
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
