I want to show you lastly, and thought we could talk about this for a few minutes ourselves together, one last fourth style or part of a fourth style, Roman wall painting. It is a fragmentary wall that we attribute to the fourth style. That came from Herculaneum and dates also to this latest phase, sometime to 70 to 79. And it's quite interesting, in view not only of what we discuss today but in everything we have talked about with regard to the four styles of Roman wall painting in the last you know week or so. I wondered you know what part of the wall you think this came from. And what you find interesting about it, vis a vis our the general discussion of Roman wall painting. Someone like to volunteer to begin? Yeah? >> [INAUDIBLE] >> Yes. >> [INAUDIBLE] >> Yes. Now, we've been debating this whole question of the black curtains, and there's a post now online, and I hope that you'll all add to that as we continue that conversation. This one, in this particular case, it seems incontrovertible that what is represented here is a curtain. There's no question that's a curtain, it's hanging up there, so we get the sense that it, that it has been raised on what is a kind of a stage set that lies behind. So great point, what else strikes you about this? Yeah. >> [INAUDIBLE] >> Yes, based on the perspective that's used here. Based on the fact that there is a white background. Which isn't always the case in fourth style painting, but it tends to be the case for most of it. One could speculate that this is either one of those elements that has been re-introduced in the main zone, on either side of the central panel, or what else might it be? Yeah? >> The illogical space in the. >> Right, the illogical, the, the, part, part of a building in illogical space. But it might be in the central zone as one of those side wings, but it might also be, way up in the top, as one of the architectural cages. That we see in the upper most part that's also possible. So what is being depicted here? Obviously, a stage set of some sort. How would you describe this architecture in the foreground? You all know, just state the obvious. >> Second style. >> It looks like sec-, Wendy Wise, looks like second style because? >> It's projecting that. It's substantial, it's retrospective, it's projecting its. >> Good. We have substantial architectural elements. It's clear that these are, are real columns with real capitals at the top, that, those capitals project into our space. The artist has made an effort to depict recession into space as well, because you can see the way in which these piers are angled, for example, back to give one the sense that we are looking at something depicted in space. You can see the coppered ceiling up here the projecting entablatures, the mask which is another reference to things theatrical. But is there one point perspective here or is there any attempt to depict one point perspective? Or is it some other kind of perspective, and if so what kind of perspective? What kind of perspective? No one knows? Yeah? >> [INAUDIBLE] >> No. What? Yeah? >> [INAUDIBLE] >> Yeah, but, but it's more like atmospheric perspective, no? Disagree? Atmospheric perspective? So again, what's in the foreground is the outlines are firm. What's in the background is very, very fuzzy. And gets fuzzier and fuzzier. Let me show you a detail of this. If you blow it up you can see, I mean, try to count, I don't know if you're counting at all. If you try to count the zones of space here you'd go berserk. I mean, clearly they are trying to conjure up space, something that perhaps recedes. But it seems to be done by means of atmospheric perspective, while, where, the objects in the foreground are represented with the firmest outlines and those in the background with the fuzziest outlines, as you can see here. If you blow it up, you can see that there, the details are incredible, and you can see the decoration, and the friezes, you can see some of the figural decoration, the way, the capitals, and so on and so forth. But it is lost in this, it is lost in, in something of a haze, as you can see here. So it's, it's a very good example of fourth style Roman wall painting. It is some, as has been suggested. It is a piece of the wall. It could be one of the wings. It could be in the uppermost zone. It certainly makes reference to things theatrical. It certainly conjures up, in some ways, second style but it is, it is clearly it is clearly an example of fourth. And again, I'm glad that the cre-, wre-, the issue of the curtains was raised because I think that's a particularly interesting one. Because here, we can really see a full bodied curtain. I think it will help to add to the speculation that is already going on in the online forum and about which I hope we can continue to engage In the days ahead. We will have one last lecture on Roman painting on Thursday. In which is entitled special subjects. And I'm going to deal there with everything I haven't dealt with in the four styles. And then we are going to get back fully to architecture, we'll go to Rome and we'll begin to look at the architecture under the emperors, Augustus and so on. Thanks.
