Hi people, help me decide between these two images. The first one is more topical, while the second is more magnificent.
or
![]()
temple1
temple2
Hi people, help me decide between these two images. The first one is more topical, while the second is more magnificent.
or
![]()
Last edited by SigniferOne; June 10, 2009 at 04:04 PM.
second
I can see why you have a problem. I'm gonna have to think about this.
“The human eye is a wonderful device. With a little effort, it can fail to see even the most glaring injustice.”
They both look fantastic, but I'm going to have to go with number 2. It seems to be more in keeping with a classical theme (not as exotic) and I believe it would help in creating the appropriate immersive quality you are looking for.
Just my thoughts. Take it easy,
Wow people so far seem one sided... hmmm.
2nd looks like it's atop something, the first like a very stylish entryway into a cave. 2nd conveys the awe and respect better, to this modern anyway
Should do a spelling check on the temple description though.
To me the second looks more late / Empire period.
The first looks more appropriate to the period.
![]()
Both Awesome but i go for the second one![]()
i voted for 2 before reading the text, now i wish i voted for 1
the second one doesnt look like its on a top of a mountain, it looks more like its in rome...
Last edited by Mediteran; June 10, 2009 at 07:25 AM.
Disbursed = Dispersed.
Romans = the Romans
Can't see the first one![]()
Ceterum autem censeo, MTV esse delendam
For animals, the entire universe has been neatly divided into things to
(a) mate with, (b) eat, (c) run away from, and (d) rocks.
Some of the foundation stones of the Temple are still there on Monte Cavo, but I don't know if there are any representations of the original shrine. I'm willing to bet that it was pretty small and rustic: the second picture seems to be altogether way too monumental and, well, Augustine for the mid 4th century BCE. I believe that Camillus' Temple of Concord (in Rome) would have been one of the biggest of the day, and I think that the second picture would be a tad too grandiose even for that. It does look great, though.
So, vote for number one and reasonable historical accuracy.
οἵη περ φύλλων γενεὴ τοίη δὲ καὶ ἀνδρῶν.
Even as are the generations of leaves, such are the lives of men.
Glaucus, son of Hippolochus, Illiad, 6.146
No, the temple on the Capitoline would've been the biggest, and not just in Rome but essentially in all of Italy. Only about 2-3 Greek temples ever had sizes bigger than the Jupiter Optimus Maximus temple (200 feet on every side). Parthenon was practically dwarfed by it:
PS. I'll reupload the screenshots shortly. So far I'm inclining with going with the first one. Those thirsting for a sense of Roman grandness will get it from the Capitoline Jupiter screenshot, which I'll post asap.
Last edited by SigniferOne; June 10, 2009 at 02:42 PM.
I may be way off base here, but for some reason I thought at some point the temple of Jupiter was hit by lightning, burnt down, and rebuilt much grander, so I'm wondering if that comparison was between the Parthenon and the second temple of J.O.M. and if the first temple of J.O.M. is what fits the timeframe.
Nope, they have found the foundations of the original J.O.M. temple, together with the antefixes and the archaic statues of Hercules and Minerva that stood at its top. So archeologically they are justified in making that comparison. The only things different upon rebuilding were the more Classical proportions of the roof etc, and the expansion of the rest of the Hill with more magnificent extra little temples and shrines all over the Capitoline. You'll see when I post the Capitolium screenshot.
Last edited by SigniferOne; June 10, 2009 at 03:20 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)