A Viewer's Position As an Integral Part in Understanding Roman Floor

A Viewer’s Position as an Integral Part in Understanding Roman Floor Mosaics

Elena Belenkova

Elena Belenkova is pursuing her BFA in Art History at Concordia University (Montreal). Her interest in dialogical approach toward visual art has engaged her with philosophy and theory of art history. She is also concerned with feminist critic of patriarchy for excluding women from the public realm, establishing male/female dichotomies in society, and the faulty socialization of male/female gender roles. he purpose of this paper is the mosaics in bath settings, in addition to analyze the study of Ro- to the meaning behind the images de- man foor mosaics and the picted within them. The foor labyrinth T role of the viewer through mosaic in the Baths of Theses and the the theoretical approaches proposed Minotaur at Belalis Maior Tunicia, dated by art historian Rebecca Molholt and from the early-fourth century, illustrates archaeologist Simon P. Ellis. Ellis’s her methodology (Fig.1).1 The mosaic monocular, modernist and Molholt’s of the Baths of Theses and the Mino- A Viewer’s Position as an phenomenological post-modernist ap- taur covers a foor, 4.8 square meters in proaches present opposing theories in surface area, in the frigidarium (a large Integral Part in Understanding which Molholt incorporates the viewer cold pool at the Roman Baths). The as an active participant in the construc- labyrinth convolutions lead the visitor to 23 Roman Floor Mosaics tion of meaning, while Ellis considers the image located at the centre. The en- the viewer as a passive contemplator. tire labyrinth is framed by stone blocks Elena Belenkova Molholt broadens the study of mosaics placed in two rows that take the form by providing an analysis of the viewer of a masonry wall, which reaches the as an active participant in the mosaic’s walls of the frigidarium. reality, unlike the passive repository of A scene from Greek mythology – fxed intrinsic meaning characterizing the battle between Theses and the Mi- Ellis’ approach. Molholt’s theory is not notaur - is at the centre. This scene is more or less useful, it is just different. composed of small tesserae in order This paper makes the argument that to produce a three-dimensional im- Ellis’s study would beneft from the ap- age. However, it is not visible from the plication of Molholt’s analysis. labyrinth entrance, since the view is Molholt’s aim is to understand the oblique. It becomes evident only when popularity of the labyrinth mosaics in the viewer approaches the centre. bath settings of the early-second to Molholt notes that the traditional wall early-fourth centuries in North Africa. paintings of the Greek myth of Theses She is interested in the proliferation of and the Minotaur are different to those A Viewer’s Position as an IntegralRoman Part Floorin Understanding Mosaics

depicted in the foor labyrinth mosaic. Benjamin.2 In her analysis, she consid- The images on the wall express the vic- ers the observer as placing themselves torious outcome of the battle and show in the labyrinth’s surroundings and Theses outside of the labyrinth instead actively participating. Molholt applies of inside the labyrinth, as in the mosaic. the notion of perception proposed by With this comparison in mind, Mol- Maurice Merleau-Ponty3 in which he holt was led to break from the typical considers the human body as a main monocular vertical position of observa- tool for cognition of an immediate real- tion proposing a horizontal site for the ity. Moreover, the human body itself is observer, an idea borrowed from Walter also a landmark, or point zero, by which

Fig. 1: Labyrinth Mosaic, baths of Theses and the Minotaur, Belalis Manoir, Tunisia, early 4th century CE the viewer registers their location with- contest. Molholt’s approach gives the in their surroundings: “My body, says viewer the opportunity to play an active Merleau-Ponty, is not for me a frag- role in creating a meaning: they are not ment of space; on the contrary, space a passive contemplator, but an active would not at all exist for me if I had no agent. body.”4 However, the position of the Russian intellectual Mikhail Bakh- observer within the space is not fxed, tin’s (1895-1975) notion of a horizon and they are able to change it through of vision is similar in theory to Mer- their movements. In this case, not only leau-Ponty’s espace vécu.8 Bakhtin has the starting point changed, but so theorizes that there is no fxed, intrinsic has the entire system of coordinates in meaning incorporated in a text which general.5 discusses a work of art. The meaning 25 Merleau-Ponty refers to this space of said work depends on the viewer’s as espace vécu,6 which implies a free- position within the horizon. Thus, a text dom of movement and a freedom of is not objective, but a subjective reality, interpretation.7 The guests or observ- and consequently should be read with ers who literally walk on the mosaic caution. Accordingly, intrinsic meaning surface, are able to touch it with their is not inherent in the labyrinth. Meaning bare feet, can feel the smoothness of is instead constructed by the viewers the tesserae, and can admire their who engage with it. colorfulness and three-dimensional ef- Moving from the bath milieu to that fect. By walking barefoot on the foor of the domestic setting, I now turn to of the labyrinth mosaic, the viewer is analyze Ellis’s approach to the study of directly involved in the construction of the mosaics. Ellis describes two case its meaning. According to Molholt, the viewer experiences the pavement like a kind of journey, imagining themselves as a mythical hero encountering the Minotaur or an adversary in an athletic Elena Belenkova A Viewer’s Position as an IntegralRoman Part Floorin Understanding Mosaics

studies of a foor mosaic, one residing man fgures and images of beasts be- in the House of Bacchus at Djemila, low, thus narrating a hierarchy. Though dating from the mid-ffth century (Fig. little information is available, we know 2), the other in Villa Romana del Ca- that this was not a unique subject mat- sale in Piazza Armerina, Sicily, dating ter for foor mosaics as hunting scenes from the early-fourth-century (Fig. 3). also adorned the foor in the corridor Like Molholt, Ellis also talks about the and in the large dining room of the Villa foor mosaic, but in the context of late Romana del Casale in Piazza Armerina. Roman houses; Ellis, however, views Despite the limited information given, these mosaics as a representation of Ellis identifes the fgure of the mosaic aristocratic power.9 He considers the design as one of the Labours of Her- foor mosaic as a part of the décor by cules, which would have refected the 26 which the Roman aristocracy gained strength and power of the proprietor of the admiration of their friends and cli- the house. Ellis concludes that the dé- ents. Both edifces consist of mosaics cor of the room was designed to draw depicting hunting scenes, which were the attention of its guests to recognize the most common subject of domestic the owner’s powerful position in society. mosaics at this time Thus, in contrast to Molholt’s approach, Unlike Molholt, Ellis examines the Ellis engages in an instructional, didac- foor mosaics vertically as if they are tic reading of the foor mosaics instead paintings, enabling a narrative of in- of engaging in a subjective and immer- structive reading. The foor mosaics sive interpretation. occupy the centre of a seven-apsed While both authors examine the art dining hall and depict a hunting scene of foor mosaics in relation to the view- wherein a man on a horse is located in er as an integral part of the analysis, front of a big house. Ellis assumes the they apply distinctive approaches. Mol- depicted fgure is a representation of holt’s approach, designed to examine the house’s owner since he is shown at the foor mosaic horizontally, explains the top of the mosaic, above other hu- the viewers’ opportunity to play an ac- 27

Fig. 2: Drawing after the mosaic from the seven-apsed dining hall in the House of Bacchus, Djemila, Algeria, mid 5th century CE

Elena Belenkova A Viewer’s Position as an IntegralRoman Part Floorin Understanding Mosaics

tive role in creating meaning in which Endnotes they are not contemplators passively 1 Rebecca Molholt, “Roman Labyrinth Mosaics digesting a pre-established meaning, and the Experience of Motion,” in Art Bulletin 93 3 but active agents walking barefoot on (2011), 287. the surface and imagining themselves 2 Molholt, “Roman Labyrinth Mosaics and the Experience of Motion,” 287. as participants in Greek myths. Ellis, 3 Ibid., 288. however, examines the foor mosaics 4 Alfred Schütz, Refections on the Problem of Relevance (New Haven: Yale University vertically as if they are paintings, asso- Press, 1970), 176. ciating the fgures in the upper location 5 Schütz quoted Merleau-Ponty “Through my in the mosaics to their powerful position movement, the centre of the system of coordinates in terms of which I organize the objects in in real life. Ellis considers the viewer’s orientational space is shifted; distances, aspects, position in his observations. He ques- and perspectives change. What was previously 28 distant and appeared relatively small is now of tions how the Roman aristocracy would considerable size, whereas what was formerly have appeared to their guests, and the near but is now distant seems to have lost in size. observers fnds themselves playing a Formerly hidden or covered aspects of things or objects become visible and vice versa, as I move passive role in his theory, and thus do around.” In Schütz, Refections on the Problem of not contribute to the construction of Relevance, 176. 6 Ibid., 174. meaning. It could be argued that Ellis’s 7 Ibid. study would beneft if he were to apply 8 Mikhail Bakhtin, “Author and Hero in Molholt’s approach, which might reveal Aesthetic Activity,” in Art and Answerability: early philosophical essays, ed. Michael Holquist and subtler interpretations of the scenes de- Vadim Liapunov (Austin: University of Texas picted in the mosaics: their meanings Press, 1990), 4-28. 9 Simon P. Ellis, “Power, Architecture, and Dé- would be developed by the spectator cor: How the Late Roman Aristocrat Appeared to as a mysterious journey blurring the his Guests,” in Roman Art in the Private Sphere: division between myth and reality and New Perspectives on the Architecture and Décor of theDomus, Villa, and Insula, in ed. Elaine K. would give rise to a more expansive Gaza (University of Michigan, 1994), 117-133. and innovative analysis. Bibliography

Bakhtin, Mikhail. “Author and Hero in Aesthetic Activity.” In Art and Answerability: Early Philosophical Essays, edited Michael Holquist and Vadim Liapunov, 4-28. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1990.

Ellis, Simon P. “Power, Architecture, and Décor: How the Late Roman Aristocrat Appeared to his Guests.” In Roman Art in the Private Sphere: New Perspectives on the Architecture and Décor of the Domus, Villa, and Insula, edited Elaine K. Gaza, 117-133. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1994.

Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. Phenomenology of Perception. New York: Routledge, 2012.

Molholt, Rebecca. “Roman Labyrinth Mosaics and the Experience of Motion.” Art Bulletin 93, 3 (2011): 287-303. Accessed October 23, 2015, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23046578

Elena Belenkova