7 ms·
This really opened my eyes to some historical context I never thought of before. My initial gut reaction was judgmental about the way billionaires spend their
by chamakits 2y ago
This really opened my eyes to some historical context I never thought of before.
My initial gut reaction was judgmental about the way billionaires spend their money; thinking it might involve some amount of hubris.
Then I realized I have no idea of how sculpture that are now show in museums as treasured historical art pieces were judge in the time they were created. Today we treasure them. But what did the general population think of them? I have no idea.
I imagine that at the time of their commissioning they were also paid by affluent people that could afford such luxuries. People that probably mirror today’s billionaires in influence and access. So what’s different about these?
- midiguy 2y agoThe difference is that Roman sculpture is revered for it's ingenuity and craftmanship at a time where that style of sculpture was being developed with the more limited resources they had back then, and it often depicted important motifs from religion, society, etc. Whereas this is just a copy of that with limited cultural relevance (no one is going to be talking about Priscilla Chan in 20 years, let alone a couple thousand).
- HeyLaughingBoy 2y agoThis is on a level with the thousands of Roman sculptures that we've never known about because they were unremarkable and crumbled to dust long ago.