TMA 03 Art History, Literature and Philosophy

TMA 03

Art History, Literature and Philosophy

Part 1: Short Answer

Colosseum is an example of a building in which its form and function are inextricably linked. To prove this, let us take a look at some of the orders, the wall-like structure and the vaults of the Colosseum as part of its form and functions.

With reference to the Illustration Book Colour Plate 19,28,72,75,76 and 78, and Block 2 The Colosseum Figure 6.1 and 6.2, the Colosseum evidently uses five orders: ‘Doric’, ‘Tuscan’, ‘Ionic’, ‘Corinthian’ and ‘Composite’. The function of these orders is to provide a framework for the divisions of the whole building. A different order is used for different levels, portraying the subtlety of the building. Both ‘Doric’ and ‘Tuscan’ orders give an appearance of sturdiness to a building while ‘Ionic’, ‘Corinthian’ and ‘Composite’ orders tend to make a building appear rich and elegant.

In studying the ground plans on Plate 56(a), we can see that the Colosseum stands up by it wall-like structures, consisting of walls and pillars arranged in a pattern that spreads out from the centre of the arena. As shown on Plate 29, these walls were made thick enough to serve its function, which is to support the many tons of concrete used in the structure and also accommodate the weight of fifty thousand spectators of the Colosseum.

Apart from these load-bearing walls, the real strength of the Colosseum was the vaults, which functions as to roofs to the spaces between each radiating wall as referred to Illustration Book Colour Plate 42 and 77. The Romans, being very experienced in constructing vaults and domes, built vaults for the Colosseum that were remarkably strong. This is significant as it was perceived that strong roman concrete vaults seem to symbolize the strong Imperial Rome.

With all the evidences that have been presented, it is thus clearly show that the form and function of the Colosseum are indeed inextricably linked.

( 302 words)

Part 2: Essay

This is a preview of the whole essay

With all the evidences that have been presented, it is thus clearly show that the form and function of the Colosseum are indeed inextricably linked.

( 302 words)

Part 2: Essay

For something to be considered wicked, it must be a deed that is intended to harm or have the capability of harming. In other words, it must be something morally bad. However, the Romans did not see what went on in the amphitheatre as ‘something wicked’ or morally bad at all. Instead, the Romans glorify and consider what went on in the amphitheatre as form of entertainment and public pleasure rather than a wicked show. In C1 Martial, On the Spectators, Martial supports this view by describing one of the shows as a very clever and original piece when he includes: ‘How ingenious are sudden chances!’, clearly thanking the Caesar for putting up such a wonderful show for his people. Apuleius and Pliny on the other hand, even express their regrets for the missed public pleasure due to the death and loss of the animals rather than feeling sorry. This is evident through the article of C3 Apuleius, The robbers’ tale:

‘But such grand and splendid preparations for the public’s pleasure did not escape the baleful eyes of Envy… You could see the animal wreckage of their moribund carcasses lying scattered in most of the streets’

and C4 Pliny the Younger, Letter to Valerius Maximus:

‘I am sorry the African panthers you had bought in such quantities did not turn up on the appointed day…’

Pliny expresses his approval of gladiatorial shows and even considers this as a funeral tribute to the wife of Valerius, whom he considers as generous for hosting such a show.

Apart from the pleasure that lies in watching the shows, gambling is another reason that draws the Romans to the show. They see the show as part of a public practice that allows and encourages gambling on top of its entertaining elements. This is evident in C 14 Keith Hopkins, Murderous game:

‘… what drew the crowd was not merely the spectacle and the slaughter, but also gambling.’

Since the approved vice by the government is allowed in the amphitheatre, it cannot be viewed as wicked.

Another reason as to why the Romans did not see what went on the amphitheatre as something wicked is that they perceive the gladiatorial shows as a way of restoring social order. The Romans thrive to find a balance between crimes and punishment in the legal system and have hence used public executions in the form of gladiatorial games as the deserving punishment. Martial again justifies these games and through his believes that the game is an effective way of communicating to the people on the deserving punishments committed, be it by criminals or animals. This is evidenced through the following:

‘… a treacherous lion had harmed his master with his ingrate mouth… but he paid a fitting for such a crime.’

Wiedemann supports the same view when he added in C11 Emperors, gladiators and Christians:

‘Rebels deserved execution…’

and in C13 (a) Emperors and Gladiators:

‘…burning alive of an adult convicted of setting fire to a temple…’

Such examples strongly support the argument that the Romans did not see it as something wicked but, rather, a deserved and appropriate penalty or punishment to such criminals.

C16 K.M Coleman, Fatal charades provides evidences that in the process of punishing the criminals, the Romans include mythology role-play by the criminals to spice up the show. This tied to the evidences that are found in C2 Apuleius, The ass in the arena that also includes role-play as part of the show. The Romans find the punishment a variation to the normal deserved criminal punishment. It is also a way to enable the Romans to witness myth verified by the emperor and of course to them, any mythology created by the emperor cannot be perceived as something wicked.

Suetonius, admires the gladiatorial shows and considers them as magnificent contribution by the King to his people, who have shown their affection and admiration for him. Gifts in a form of grand scale, lavish and massive gladiatorial shows are the King’s public way of honoring his people and displaying his true spirit of generosity. The Romans are hence more than delighted to accept such a generous gift from the beloved King.

Even though the gladiatorial show is a form of gift from the King, the punishments were determined by the Romans. A criminal gladiator may be granted his life back if he ever comes back alive and victorious. The power granted to the Romans to give or take the gladiators’ lives in the arena is an added attraction to the Romans as it highlights the ultimate form of democracy in the amphitheatre. This is evident through Wiedemann’s article on C11 Emperors, gladiators and Christians:

‘ … the community might be sufficiently impressed to be prepared to grant them their life back… That was not in the gift of the president of the games, magistrate or even emperor, but in the gift of society as a whole; of the Roman people, present in the amphitheatre.’

He also sees the executions as a community involvement since the whole society took up the responsibility to meet up the punishments to the criminal. Since democracy is involved, the show cannot be seen as wicked.

During these punishments, the animals killed in the arena however, have helped in the development of science and art by the Romans. This is evident in C 15 G.Jennison, Animals for show and pleasure in Ancient Rome which states:

‘…physicians assembled at the dissection of a large elephant; the heart was taken out by the imperial cooks. Drugs were also concocted out of the parts of wild animals. Artists also studied their shapes…’

Simultaneously, more animals were needed in the show and the hunt for wild animals had driven the animals into wilderness. One modern writer, Wiedemann, believes that the Romans find the elimination of wild beasts a struggle with nature. Thousands of hunters have volunteered and hunt for the animals to furnish the demands of the amphitheatre and animal extinction was not even considered then. To kill wild beasts means to protect mankind by enabling the people to cultivate the rich land without fear of beast attacks. Hence this is something a good ruler would be proud of since it is perceived as performing the services for humanity. It provides new ground for civilization and agriculture and direct or indirectly, contributes to the new industries and improved economy. Since it provides revenues and the development of science and arts to the country, it blinds the Roman from seeing it as wicked.

Yet another reason why the Romans did not view the shows as something wicked is the link that these shows have with bravery. The Romans respected and upheld bravery as one of the most important virtue of man. For someone who had committed crime, there is no other way of coming out of crime except proving in the arena that he is brave. This virtue was so significant that a criminal gladiator may be granted his life back and may receive a crown if he ever comes back alive and victorious, regardless of what crime he had committed. Statius is another writer who admires the bravery, majesty and strength of a dying animal more than having any compassion towards it at all and Hopkins finds that bravery and victory of the aggressor matters more to the Romans than suffering of the vanquished.

With all the related references and opinions that have been presented, it is thus clear to us as to why the Romans, as Thomas Wiedemann says, “did not see what went on the amphitheatre as something wicked”

( 953 words)