Hi there!

I'm going to preface my answer by saying that there really isn't a scholarly consensus as to what specifically caused the change in art style during the third century. Many theories have been presented, but one main cause has not been agreed upon, and may never be. This was a complex period in history with many changes taking place over a relatively short span. That said, I'll try to break down a few possible contributing factors.

​

The first possibility is a rapid disintegration in the empire's financial situation. The Third Century Crisis, a tumultuous period in Roman history following the fall of the Severan dynasty, dealt a devastating blow that the empire never fully recovered from. There were periods of success under Aurelian and the Tetrarchy, but the reality was that Rome's finances were suffering overall. The situation only worsened with time, and by the age of Constantine, emperors were recarving old relief sculptures into new faces rather than erecting their own monuments. This inability to fund the arts in the same way earlier generations had may have led to a decline in the level of refinement possible in artwork. We can see this is the significant difference between the Column of Trajan and the Column of Constantine. The relief sculpture on Constantine's is noticeably rougher and more stylized. It appears the a lack of funds may have made it difficult to pay the highest caliber artists for their craftsmanship. Instead, the readability and functionality of a piece were prioritized over aesthetics. The harsh heaviness of this style also reflected the mood of the period, a visual representation of the hard, disillusioned militarism that was so prevalent at this time.

​

Secondly, this decline in finances and increase in hardships and conflict moved the Empire away from its solid roots in Hellenism. The art of the Principate and later Republic drew heavily on the Greek world, as did the culture overall. With the situation in Rome deteriorating, this dedication to upholding Classical values took a backseat. The Romans were in survival mode. Art still played a role in society, but the lack of stability took a toll on Rome's traditions. Additionally, an influx of barbarians into Roman society (even more pronounced as time went on) brought with it new types of material culture to begin to replace the waning Greek influence. You mentioned clothing in your question, and you're right. These new arrivals brought an entire culture with them that left its mark on Rome, and surely the more stylized art of barbarian Europe impacted the artistic transition. Rival cities such as Antioch and Alexandria also had independent art styles that were developing, and exchange with Rome may have also contributed to the change.

​

Finally, the rise of Christianity likely played a role in the artistic changes of the later Empire. This shift in art style came shortly before the official adoption of Christianity by Rome, and the art being created in this period is a direct predecessor to the Late Antique and Byzantine style. In 313, Constantine made it legal for Christians to worship publically, and this new freedom allowed the distinct genre of Early Christian art that had been kept out of sight to flourish in the open. Constantine's adoption of the faith was also important, as he began to commission art that blended earlier Roman styles with the Christian style. This mix became quite prolific and solidified the shift. The Hellenized style became heavily associated with paganism as time went on, and the more the old religion fell out of favor, the more marginalized the Classical style became.

​

By the time of the Tetrarchy, most Romans knew the Classical style of the Principate only through artifacts from another time. It was not completely dead, but it was not a part of their world in the same way it had been for their ancestors. There were still those who longed for the past, often those in the military who admired the values of the Republic and early Empire. The nostalgia for a "better time" was mainly focused on cultural values and perhaps past prosperity, with art taking a back seat. Writers of the Late Empire who waxed poetic about the past wrote of the bravery of men, the valor of soldiers, the prosperity of the people, and of ethnic pride. So to answer your question, no, art is not often mentioned in this capacity. That's not to say that no one felt that way, as I'm sure some did. Unfortunately, we have very little to indicate their presence.

​

I hope that helped! Let me know if you have any questions!

​

Sources/Further Reading:

The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon

Byzantine Art In the Making: Main Lines of Stylistic Development In Mediterranean Art, 3rd-7th Century by Ernst Kitzinger

A History of Roman Art by Steven Tuck

Art and Identity in the Roman World by Eve D'Ambra