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.