The Metropolitan Museum’s Greek and Roman Wings

by Art Fag City on January 4, 2008 · 19 comments Blurb + Reviews

Greek and Roman wing
Greek and Roman wing, at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Image via the Met.

Is nobody else bothered by the fact that the Greek and Roman exhibition at the Met is organized with no discernible chronology? I was reminded of this question once more this morning after having read Edward Winkleman’s post about the renewed interest in antiquities. Winkleman mentions Jerry Saltz’s article in New York Magazine, which some what surprisingly names the Met’s new Greek and Roman wing as the best exhibition of the year. Saltz is right of course, the status are great, but for all the art and scholarly resources available to the Met, very little is done to establish a time line regarding how it all progressed. Call me old fashioned, but trying to piece all the details together on my own isn’t what I call a good time, particularly when the aesthetic arrangement of the sculptures isn’t designed to give the viewer a sense of artistic development.

Update: Blogger Tom Moody adds this comment to the discussion:

This much I have figured out from a few visits (and the Met website):

“The Leon Levy and Shelby White Court”¦designed to evoke the ambulatory garden of a large private Roman villa”¦[features] nearly 20 Roman sculptures created between the first century B.C. and the third century A.D.”

These are all in a hodgepodge, facing every which way, lovely but disorienting.

“The galleries surrounding the new Roman Court present a substantial number of works from the Museum's rich collection of Hellenistic art as well as the arts of South Italy and Sicily.”

These are roughly chronological in a clockwise circuit around the Leon Levy and Shelby White Court.

Etruscan art, and other areas of specific focus, are grouped outside the chronology.

That's the best I can come up with.

{ 19 comments }

tom moody January 4, 2008 at 3:37 pm

This much I have figured out from a few visits (and the Met website):

“The Leon Levy and Shelby White Court…designed to evoke the ambulatory garden of a large private Roman villa…[features] nearly 20 Roman sculptures created between the first century B.C. and the third century A.D.”

These are all in a hodgepodge, facing every which way, lovely but disorienting.

“The galleries surrounding the new Roman Court present a substantial number of works from the Museum’s rich collection of Hellenistic art as well as the arts of South Italy and Sicily.”

These are roughly chronological in a clockwise circuit around the Leon Levy and Shelby White Court.

Etruscan art, and other areas of specific focus, are grouped outside the chronology.

That’s the best I can come up with.

tom moody January 4, 2008 at 3:37 pm

This much I have figured out from a few visits (and the Met website):

“The Leon Levy and Shelby White Court…designed to evoke the ambulatory garden of a large private Roman villa…[features] nearly 20 Roman sculptures created between the first century B.C. and the third century A.D.”

These are all in a hodgepodge, facing every which way, lovely but disorienting.

“The galleries surrounding the new Roman Court present a substantial number of works from the Museum’s rich collection of Hellenistic art as well as the arts of South Italy and Sicily.”

These are roughly chronological in a clockwise circuit around the Leon Levy and Shelby White Court.

Etruscan art, and other areas of specific focus, are grouped outside the chronology.

That’s the best I can come up with.

tom moody January 4, 2008 at 3:37 pm

This much I have figured out from a few visits (and the Met website):

“The Leon Levy and Shelby White Court…designed to evoke the ambulatory garden of a large private Roman villa…[features] nearly 20 Roman sculptures created between the first century B.C. and the third century A.D.”

These are all in a hodgepodge, facing every which way, lovely but disorienting.

“The galleries surrounding the new Roman Court present a substantial number of works from the Museum’s rich collection of Hellenistic art as well as the arts of South Italy and Sicily.”

These are roughly chronological in a clockwise circuit around the Leon Levy and Shelby White Court.

Etruscan art, and other areas of specific focus, are grouped outside the chronology.

That’s the best I can come up with.

tom moody January 4, 2008 at 10:37 am

This much I have figured out from a few visits (and the Met website):

“The Leon Levy and Shelby White Court…designed to evoke the ambulatory garden of a large private Roman villa…[features] nearly 20 Roman sculptures created between the first century B.C. and the third century A.D.”

These are all in a hodgepodge, facing every which way, lovely but disorienting.

“The galleries surrounding the new Roman Court present a substantial number of works from the Museum’s rich collection of Hellenistic art as well as the arts of South Italy and Sicily.”

These are roughly chronological in a clockwise circuit around the Leon Levy and Shelby White Court.

Etruscan art, and other areas of specific focus, are grouped outside the chronology.

That’s the best I can come up with.

Denny Greenway January 4, 2008 at 3:53 pm

I’m guessing the reason for a lack of chronological data regarding the G/R wing x simply issues from the fact of Greek/Roman scholarship and the Met’s intended audience. As everyone knows the role of the Met is that of social mixer. Spend any amount of time studying the spectators on a weekend and u quickly get the idea all that nudity inspires the homo/hetero’s swirling around the pedestals. Why would u want to interuptus this vini vidi vici w/ asexual didactics of scholarly drone about provenance, recent digs, blah blah blah? Secondly, anyone who has had enough Greek/Roman survey courses, such as myself, has heard that most of what ‘we’ know about Greek free standing figure monuments comes from Roman copies, Polyklitos and the Doryphorous or Canon, e.g. Marble copies of earlier bronze examples or vice versa done in antiquity further compound the situation. The famous Praxiteles Hermes w/ Dionysos, I’m guessing , still has issues of late Greek, Hellenic or later excellent Roman copy attending its understanding. So, scholars might not agree on the geneologies. The tortuous amount of didactics and docent filler needed would kill any libido or school bus tour.

Denny Greenway January 4, 2008 at 3:53 pm

I’m guessing the reason for a lack of chronological data regarding the G/R wing x simply issues from the fact of Greek/Roman scholarship and the Met’s intended audience. As everyone knows the role of the Met is that of social mixer. Spend any amount of time studying the spectators on a weekend and u quickly get the idea all that nudity inspires the homo/hetero’s swirling around the pedestals. Why would u want to interuptus this vini vidi vici w/ asexual didactics of scholarly drone about provenance, recent digs, blah blah blah? Secondly, anyone who has had enough Greek/Roman survey courses, such as myself, has heard that most of what ‘we’ know about Greek free standing figure monuments comes from Roman copies, Polyklitos and the Doryphorous or Canon, e.g. Marble copies of earlier bronze examples or vice versa done in antiquity further compound the situation. The famous Praxiteles Hermes w/ Dionysos, I’m guessing , still has issues of late Greek, Hellenic or later excellent Roman copy attending its understanding. So, scholars might not agree on the geneologies. The tortuous amount of didactics and docent filler needed would kill any libido or school bus tour.

Denny Greenway January 4, 2008 at 3:53 pm

I’m guessing the reason for a lack of chronological data regarding the G/R wing x simply issues from the fact of Greek/Roman scholarship and the Met’s intended audience. As everyone knows the role of the Met is that of social mixer. Spend any amount of time studying the spectators on a weekend and u quickly get the idea all that nudity inspires the homo/hetero’s swirling around the pedestals. Why would u want to interuptus this vini vidi vici w/ asexual didactics of scholarly drone about provenance, recent digs, blah blah blah? Secondly, anyone who has had enough Greek/Roman survey courses, such as myself, has heard that most of what ‘we’ know about Greek free standing figure monuments comes from Roman copies, Polyklitos and the Doryphorous or Canon, e.g. Marble copies of earlier bronze examples or vice versa done in antiquity further compound the situation. The famous Praxiteles Hermes w/ Dionysos, I’m guessing , still has issues of late Greek, Hellenic or later excellent Roman copy attending its understanding. So, scholars might not agree on the geneologies. The tortuous amount of didactics and docent filler needed would kill any libido or school bus tour.

Denny Greenway January 4, 2008 at 10:53 am

I’m guessing the reason for a lack of chronological data regarding the G/R wing x simply issues from the fact of Greek/Roman scholarship and the Met’s intended audience. As everyone knows the role of the Met is that of social mixer. Spend any amount of time studying the spectators on a weekend and u quickly get the idea all that nudity inspires the homo/hetero’s swirling around the pedestals. Why would u want to interuptus this vini vidi vici w/ asexual didactics of scholarly drone about provenance, recent digs, blah blah blah? Secondly, anyone who has had enough Greek/Roman survey courses, such as myself, has heard that most of what ‘we’ know about Greek free standing figure monuments comes from Roman copies, Polyklitos and the Doryphorous or Canon, e.g. Marble copies of earlier bronze examples or vice versa done in antiquity further compound the situation. The famous Praxiteles Hermes w/ Dionysos, I’m guessing , still has issues of late Greek, Hellenic or later excellent Roman copy attending its understanding. So, scholars might not agree on the geneologies. The tortuous amount of didactics and docent filler needed would kill any libido or school bus tour.

steve January 5, 2008 at 6:33 am

who cares if its chronological or not. they fkin rock. i got high and walked thru that shit and had an awesome night.
peace

steve January 5, 2008 at 6:33 am

who cares if its chronological or not. they fkin rock. i got high and walked thru that shit and had an awesome night.
peace

steve January 5, 2008 at 6:33 am

who cares if its chronological or not. they fkin rock. i got high and walked thru that shit and had an awesome night.
peace

steve January 5, 2008 at 1:33 am

who cares if its chronological or not. they fkin rock. i got high and walked thru that shit and had an awesome night.
peace

Denny Greenway January 5, 2008 at 7:10 pm

Dope is a terrible thing to waste.

Denny Greenway January 5, 2008 at 7:10 pm

Dope is a terrible thing to waste.

Denny Greenway January 5, 2008 at 7:10 pm

Dope is a terrible thing to waste.

Denny Greenway January 5, 2008 at 2:10 pm

Dope is a terrible thing to waste.

steve January 6, 2008 at 3:49 pm

word denny’s

steve January 6, 2008 at 3:49 pm

word denny’s

steve January 6, 2008 at 10:49 am

word denny’s

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: