Heres a roman fresco painting of a woman, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maenad#/media/File:Pompeii_-_Casa_del_Criptoportico_-_Maenad.jpg
It looks pretty good considering this was the ancient era, now skip past the middle ages and to the renaissance art has re-emerged to the level of the romans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Supper_(Leonardo) [ The last supper]
Now skip forward about 300 years more, and we see the improvements made during that time with portraiture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lansdowne_portrait [George Washington Portrait]
How come from the period of 0ce - 300 ce were the romans not able to improve their paintings of people to reach the levels that people in the western civilization reached around 300 years ago? Why arent there paintings of Augustus or julius ceasar or even someone like Constnatine much later in the style and realism of George Washingtons lansdowne portrait or the portrait of Henry VIII, was there just no incentive for innovation in the art world for the romans?
We get questions like this fairly often so there are a bunch of previous answers that might be helpful:
Why do animals in Medieval manuscripts look so crazy? Did the painters not know what they looked like? Was it intentional? Did they have a hard time drawing? by u/CoeurdeLionne and u/sunagainstgold
Why did it take so long for artists to get to grips with perspective? by u/kastdenvaek
Why do professional paintings look photo-realistic in 1700s England yet look so awful 100-150 years earlier? by u/pipkin42
Why did pre-renaissance christian art degrade so much compared to the classical period? by u/Guckfuchs
And plenty more in the FAQ about visual arts
Hey there,
Just to let you know, your question is fine, and we're letting it stand. However, you should be aware that questions framed as 'Why didn't X do Y' relatively often don't get an answer that meets our standards (in our experience as moderators). There are a few reasons for this. Firstly, it often can be difficult to prove the counterfactual: historians know much more about what happened than what might have happened. Secondly, 'why didn't X do Y' questions are sometimes phrased in an ahistorical way. It's worth remembering that people in the past couldn't see into the future, and they generally didn't have all the information we now have about their situations; things that look obvious now didn't necessarily look that way at the time.
If you end up not getting a response after a day or two, consider asking a new question focusing instead on why what happened did happen (rather than why what didn't happen didn't happen) - this kind of question is more likely to get a response in our experience. Hope this helps!
