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.

23

A Viewer’s Position as an

Integral Part in Understanding

Roman Floor Mosaics

Elena Belenkova

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the study of Ro-man floor mosaics and the role of the viewer through

the theoretical approaches proposed by art historian Rebecca Molholt and archaeologist Simon P. Ellis. Ellis’s monocular, modernist and Molholt’s phenomenological post-modernist ap-proaches present opposing theories in which Molholt incorporates the viewer as an active participant in the construc-tion of meaning, while Ellis considers the viewer as a passive contemplator. Molholt broadens the study of mosaics by providing an analysis of the viewer as an active participant in the mosaic’s reality, unlike the passive repository of fixed intrinsic meaning characterizing Ellis’ approach. Molholt’s theory is not more or less useful, it is just different. This paper makes the argument that Ellis’s study would benefit from the ap-plication of Molholt’s analysis.

Molholt’s aim is to understand the popularity of the labyrinth mosaics in bath settings of the early-second to early-fourth centuries in North Africa. She is interested in the proliferation of

the mosaics in bath settings, in addition to the meaning behind the images de-picted within them. The floor labyrinth mosaic in the Baths of Theses and the Minotaur at Belalis Maior Tunicia, dated from the early-fourth century, illustrates her methodology (Fig.1).1 The mosaic of the Baths of Theses and the Mino-taur covers a floor, 4.8 square meters in surface area, in the frigidarium (a large cold pool at the Roman Baths). The labyrinth convolutions lead the visitor to the image located at the centre. The en-tire labyrinth is framed by stone blocks placed in two rows that take the form of a masonry wall, which reaches the walls of the frigidarium.

A scene from Greek mythology – the battle between Theses and the Mi-notaur - is at the centre. This scene is composed of small tesserae in order to produce a three-dimensional im-age. However, it is not visible from the labyrinth entrance, since the view is oblique. It becomes evident only when the viewer approaches the centre. Molholt notes that the traditional wall paintings of the Greek myth of Theses and the Minotaur are different to those

24

depicted in the floor labyrinth mosaic. The images on the wall express the vic-torious outcome of the battle and show Theses outside of the labyrinth instead of inside the labyrinth, as in the mosaic.

With this comparison in mind, Mol-holt was led to break from the typical monocular vertical position of observa-tion proposing a horizontal site for the observer, an idea borrowed from Walter

Benjamin.2 In her analysis, she consid-ers the observer as placing themselves in the labyrinth’s surroundings and actively participating. Molholt applies the notion of perception proposed by Maurice Merleau-Ponty3 in which he considers the human body as a main tool for cognition of an immediate real-ity. Moreover, the human body itself is also a landmark, or point zero, by which

A Viewer’s Position as an

Integral Part in Understanding

Roman Floor Mosaics

Fig. 1: Labyrinth Mosaic, baths of Theses and the Minotaur, Belalis Manoir, Tunisia, early 4th century CE

25

the viewer registers their location with-in their surroundings: “My body, says Merleau-Ponty, is not for me a frag-ment of space; on the contrary, space would not at all exist for me if I had no body.”4 However, the position of the observer within the space is not fixed, and they are able to change it through their movements. In this case, not only has the starting point changed, but so has the entire system of coordinates in general.5

Merleau-Ponty refers to this space as espace vécu,6 which implies a free-dom of movement and a freedom of interpretation.7 The guests or observ-ers who literally walk on the mosaic surface, are able to touch it with their bare feet, can feel the smoothness of the tesserae, and can admire their colorfulness and three-dimensional ef-fect. By walking barefoot on the floor of the labyrinth mosaic, the viewer is directly involved in the construction of 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

contest. Molholt’s approach gives the viewer the opportunity to play an active role in creating a meaning: they are not a passive contemplator, but an active agent.

Russian intellectual Mikhail Bakh-tin’s (1895-1975) notion of a horizon of vision is similar in theory to Mer-leau-Ponty’s espace vécu.8 Bakhtin theorizes that there is no fixed, intrinsic meaning incorporated in a text which discusses a work of art. The meaning of said work depends on the viewer’s position within the horizon. Thus, a text is not objective, but a subjective reality, and consequently should be read with caution. Accordingly, intrinsic meaning is not inherent in the labyrinth. Meaning is instead constructed by the viewers who engage with it.

Moving from the bath milieu to that of the domestic setting, I now turn to analyze Ellis’s approach to the study of the mosaics. Ellis describes two case

Elena Belenkova

26

studies of a floor mosaic, one residing in the House of Bacchus at Djemila, dating from the mid-fifth century (Fig. 2), the other in Villa Romana del Ca-sale in Piazza Armerina, Sicily, dating from the early-fourth-century (Fig. 3). Like Molholt, Ellis also talks about the floor mosaic, but in the context of late Roman houses; Ellis, however, views these mosaics as a representation of aristocratic power.9 He considers the floor mosaic as a part of the décor by which the Roman aristocracy gained the admiration of their friends and cli-ents. Both edifices consist of mosaics depicting hunting scenes, which were the most common subject of domestic mosaics at this time

Unlike Molholt, Ellis examines the floor mosaics vertically as if they are paintings, enabling a narrative of in-structive reading. The floor mosaics occupy the centre of a seven-apsed dining hall and depict a hunting scene wherein a man on a horse is located in front of a big house. Ellis assumes the depicted figure is a representation of the house’s owner since he is shown at the top of the mosaic, above other hu-

man figures and images of beasts be-low, thus narrating a hierarchy. Though little information is available, we know that this was not a unique subject mat-ter for floor mosaics as hunting scenes also adorned the floor in the corridor and in the large dining room of the Villa Romana del Casale in Piazza Armerina. Despite the limited information given, Ellis identifies the figure of the mosaic design as one of the Labours of Her-cules, which would have reflected the strength and power of the proprietor of the house. Ellis concludes that the dé-cor of the room was designed to draw the attention of its guests to recognize the owner’s powerful position in society. Thus, in contrast to Molholt’s approach, Ellis engages in an instructional, didac-tic reading of the floor mosaics instead of engaging in a subjective and immer-sive interpretation.

While both authors examine the art of floor mosaics in relation to the view-er as an integral part of the analysis, they apply distinctive approaches. Mol-holt’s approach, designed to examine the floor mosaic horizontally, explains the viewers’ opportunity to play an ac-

A Viewer’s Position as an

Integral Part in Understanding

Roman Floor Mosaics

27

Elena Belenkova

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

28

A Viewer’s Position as an

Integral Part in Understanding

Roman Floor Mosaics

tive role in creating meaning in which they are not contemplators passively digesting a pre-established meaning, but active agents walking barefoot on the surface and imagining themselves as participants in Greek myths. Ellis, however, examines the floor mosaics vertically as if they are paintings, asso-ciating the figures in the upper location in the mosaics to their powerful position in real life. Ellis considers the viewer’s position in his observations. He ques-tions how the Roman aristocracy would have appeared to their guests, and the observers finds themselves playing a passive role in his theory, and thus do not contribute to the construction of meaning. It could be argued that Ellis’s study would benefit if he were to apply Molholt’s approach, which might reveal subtler interpretations of the scenes de-picted in the mosaics: their meanings would be developed by the spectator as a mysterious journey blurring the division between myth and reality and would give rise to a more expansive and innovative analysis.

Endnotes1 Rebecca Molholt, “Roman Labyrinth Mosaics and the Experience of Motion,” in Art Bulletin 93 3 (2011), 287.2 Molholt, “Roman Labyrinth Mosaics and the Experience of Motion,” 287.3 Ibid., 288.4 Alfred Schütz, Reflections on the Problem of Relevance (New Haven: Yale UniversityPress, 1970), 176. 5 Schütz quoted Merleau-Ponty “Through my movement, the centre of the system of coordi-nates in terms of which I organize the objects in orientational space is shifted; distances, aspects, and perspectives change. What was previously distant and appeared relatively small is now of considerable size, whereas what was formerly near but is now distant seems to have lost in size. Formerly hidden or covered aspects of things or objects become visible and vice versa, as I move around.” In Schütz, Reflections on the Problem of Relevance, 176.6 Ibid., 174.7 Ibid.8 Mikhail Bakhtin, “Author and Hero in Aesthetic Activity,” in Art and Answerability: early philosophical essays, ed. Michael Holquist and Vadim Liapunov (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1990), 4-28.9 Simon P. Ellis, “Power, Architecture, and Dé-cor: How the Late Roman Aristocrat Appeared to his Guests,” in Roman Art in the Private Sphere: New Perspectives on the Architecture and Décor of theDomus, Villa, and Insula, in ed. Elaine K. Gaza (University of Michigan, 1994), 117-133.

29

Elena Belenkova

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