Compare/Contrast

Though at first glace the periods of Roman Painting and Neo- Classicism would be considered polar opposites, but after investigation could be called one in the same. The period of Roman painting was considered “adopted” also known as stolen from Greek architecture, though I must admit they did put their spin on things, one upping the Greeks at their own game with their discoveries such as, the arch, the aqueduct and concrete which created new ways of erecting buildings. Now when you get down to the pen and paper aspect of what they did the trade of painting excelled within elite societies crave for portraits, unique to ones personality or etiquette of power. Another high paying job was gigantic wall paintings portraying events or landscapes. A badge of honor in any home. But probably the most mysterious part of this time in history is that some of it is missing due to the eruption of Mount Vesuvius, it is said that only 200 years out of the 900 were preserved. Now, Neo-Classicism on the other hand could be considered the snobby upper class of Roman painting. These were not stumbled upon artists they were well school in the techniques of it all. Neo- Classicism embodied the constant need for something new and fresh, something better than the last. They strived to portray a type of unpredictability, with muses such as a society’s revival or renaissance. Taking a keen liking to the latter Roman Style with their arches and concrete. I guess you could say it was a way for elite society to get their piece of the pie.