The essay discusses the complex connection between Pompeian illusionistic wall–painting — the so–called Second Style — and architecture, proposing two keys to its understanding. The first deals with the relationship between wall decoration and built architecture, and provides an opportunity to think about how decoration affects both the character of the rooms of a domus as well as how these rooms were used. The second refers to the connection — as it pertains to the fictitious dimension of the painting — between representation and that which is represented, between the trompe–l’oeil and its subject matter, which, in the case of the Second Style, is strictly architectural in nature. The hypotheses as to the origins of the Second Style’s figurative repertoire — for which the Theatre seems one of the most probable sources — are explained with reference to the main interpreters of a long–standing debate, full of cultural implications. Moreover, Theatre — the quintessential ‘stage of vision’ — recalls the complex issue of perspective in antiquity in two well–known Vitruvian passages. Different scholars see ancient perspective, either as an early imperfect beginning of modern perspective, or as the result of a different idea of spatial representation rooted in ancient culture and not without a certain theoretical rigour.
Il saggio tratteggia le complesse relazioni tra la pittura parietale pompeiana a carattere illusionistico – il cosiddetto II stile - e l’architettura, proponendo due chiavi di lettura. La prima riguarda il rapporto tra la decorazione parietale e l’architettura nella sua dimensione reale, ed offre occasione di riflettere sul modo in cui la decorazione partecipa della funzione e del carattere dei diversi ambienti della domus. La seconda riguarda invece il rapporto, tutto risolto nella dimensione fittizia del dipinto, tra la rappresentazione ed il rappresentato, ovvero tra il trompe-l’oeil e i suoi soggetti, che nel caso del II stile possiedono carattere squisitamente architettonico. Le ipotesi sulle origini di tale repertorio figurativo vengono esposte in riferimento ai principali interpreti di un dibattito lungo e denso di implicazioni culturali, che individua nella scena teatrale una delle fonti più probabili. Il tema del teatro, ‘luogo della visione’ per antonomasia, richiama inoltre immancabilmente – attraverso due noti passi vitruviani – quello assai controverso della ‘prospettiva’ degli antichi, che scuole di pensiero diverse hanno interpretato o come un esordio imperfetto della teoria prospettica a noi familiare, o come il frutto di una diversa idea di rappresentazione dello spazio, espressione della cultura del suo tempo e non priva di un certo rigore.
“Scaenographia” E “aedificatio” nell'architettura delle città vesuviane / Pierattini, Alessandro. - In: BOLLETTINO D'ARTE. - ISSN 0394-4573. - STAMPA. - 14(2013), pp. 1-24.
“Scaenographia” E “aedificatio” nell'architettura delle città vesuviane
PIERATTINI, ALESSANDRO
2013
Abstract
The essay discusses the complex connection between Pompeian illusionistic wall–painting — the so–called Second Style — and architecture, proposing two keys to its understanding. The first deals with the relationship between wall decoration and built architecture, and provides an opportunity to think about how decoration affects both the character of the rooms of a domus as well as how these rooms were used. The second refers to the connection — as it pertains to the fictitious dimension of the painting — between representation and that which is represented, between the trompe–l’oeil and its subject matter, which, in the case of the Second Style, is strictly architectural in nature. The hypotheses as to the origins of the Second Style’s figurative repertoire — for which the Theatre seems one of the most probable sources — are explained with reference to the main interpreters of a long–standing debate, full of cultural implications. Moreover, Theatre — the quintessential ‘stage of vision’ — recalls the complex issue of perspective in antiquity in two well–known Vitruvian passages. Different scholars see ancient perspective, either as an early imperfect beginning of modern perspective, or as the result of a different idea of spatial representation rooted in ancient culture and not without a certain theoretical rigour.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.