Well,
portraits made east of
Italy and by sculptors trained east of
Italy used to be called sinply 'eastern style', but what should be said instead was where they were found and what kind of marble (if that is obvious) they are made of. Of course, 'eastern' and 'oriental' are as perfect synonyms (none is quite perfect) as can be found. Edward Said (RIP) was mistaken in objecting to the word as such, though
his feelings were understandable. The real problem with both words is that they are equally vague and relative (how far east? NE or SE?, etc.). And some of the styles that used to be called 'eastern' might actually be, well, Siscian or thereabouts. It is one of the pities of the www that the use of out-of-copyright "sources" has put some terms thought dead (and a
good thing) back into circulation.
It is inconsistent with the understanding of the second half of the 20th c. and of the 21st c. to use the 19th-century terms, the whole 'Orient oder Rom' thing, because these terms of Strygowski's generation (I may have misspelled
his name) just don't say anything real, while
still tempting the uninformed to think of invidious old associations.
As for the engraving of the iris and pupil of the eye, it has, as I said, nothing whatever to do with easternness, anyway.
On one of the photos I sent you (in the File Info, written for my undergraduates), I wrote something like, Here we see the first clear hints of what will evolve into Early
Byzantine style. I was thinking that it began to look a
bit like the
Aelia Flacilla in Copenhagen, for example. And even so, I ought to have been more concrete; I ought to have said, Here we already may compare the Early
Byzantine style of
portraits of
Aelia Flacilla.
Pat L.
