Abstract:
Until recently, the study of Roman art has been heavily weighted in favour of official art and architecture. Unless the context indicates otherwise, the terms art and architecture can perhaps be best thought of as mutually inclusive. To save unnecessary confusion, the adjective Roman is used as a generic term although it may not always be strictly accurate and, to avoid complications of grammar, Man is also used in the generic sense. Similarly, I have not used the currently correct his/her terminology. I am aware that the conventional names for room-types is coming under question, but as it is so entrenched in the literature, it seems the simplest method to use. The great state monuments and dazzling building programmes undertaken by successive imperial patrons reverberate with the grandeur that was Rome and provide a wealth of archaeological data invaluable to the documentation of the rise and fall of this great Empire. Less well defined is the art belonging to the private life of the ancient Roman. In 1969, Otto Brendel urged that the future direction of research on Roman art take greater note of art made for private contexts. Otto J. Brendel, ‘Roman Art in Modern Perspective’ in his Prolegomena to the Study of Roman Art, (London, 1979), p.153. Twenty years later, Elaine Gazda notes that, although much progress has been made in this direction, the situation remains essentially the same:
