This chapter described in detail the nature of Second Style Roman frescoes. It details the aesthetic and psychological impact such works must had exercised upon viewers. It provides examples, analysed in depth, of how often complex and subtle depictions of imaginary architecture were used to create a highly theatricalised ambience. It details the role of theatrical practice and example which may be identified in such painting and how the evidence for this can be seen reflected in both their design and meaning.

The primary subject of this chapter is the extensive ensemble of Second Style paintings found at two major ’Vesuvian’ villas: that of Fannius Synistor at Boscoreale and the Villa of Oplontis in Torre Annunziata. Together with our team of researchers, we were intensely involved in several international projects both in meticulously examining and analysing the organisation and decor of these villas, as well as creating highly detailed virtual reality 3D models of them. The chapter draws extensively upon the results of such research and work. We discuss further the striking relationship between the atrium paintings at Oplontis and the structural pattern of the scaenae frons, including that at the Large Theatre of Pompeii itself.

This chapter moves from painting to ’practice’. A particularly striking example both of theatricalised domestic space and activity is seen in the layout and decoration of dining rooms (triclinia), and in the range of entertainments presented within them. We examine how, responding to changes in the political, cultural and economic conditions of Roman society during this period, these private triclinium spaces and their decorative schemes were often systematic adaptations drawing upon the continuously evolving public discourse generated by theatrical entertainments. The chapter describes the range and nature of presentations that took place within the house, primarily as part of the dinner entertainments. Our focus is upon the likely venues as well as the decor of these spaces, and how, in combination, they created highly theatricalised and richly suggestive settings for performance and its reception. We include a detailed case study of the Pompeian House of Marcus Lucretius, detailing how these elements have been synthesised through the deployment of a pervasive theatricalism to create a highly appropriate setting for visitors as they move through its various rooms and spaces

This chapter details the historical development and cultural significance of theatre structures in Pompeii and Herculaneum. It describes the influence of earlier Hellenistic theatre architecture, as, over time, these theatres evolved into the ‘Roman format’. It cites the importance of theatre to artistic and political life. It details an interpretation of the spatial, kinaesthetic and aesthetic aspects of the Pompeian theatre-going experience inspired in part by studies of the Roman house. It begins an examination of the relationship between modes of perception and experience in the theatrical and the domestic spheres.

This chapter continues the discussion of Second Style paintings, concentrating on prominent examples at Pompeii and in Rome on the Palatine Hill. Paintings from the ‘House of Augustus’ and the adjacent House of Livia are examined and analysed in detail. The focus is upon examples of theatricalism and more overt theatricality evident in such works. Particular attention is drawn to stage-like structures and the suggestion of scenic facades (including depictions of townscapes) which feature prominently in several of the frescoes. There is also a close analysis of the systems of perspectival depiction deployed in these works.

This chapter discusses how the layout and organisation of the ancient Roman house comprised a veritable Mise-en-scène in which both patrons and guests expressed and were conditioned by a culture and aesthetic practices in which the theatre was a dominant influence. It analyses the spatial and decorative organisation of Roman domestic spaces, and describes how these created an intensely theatricalised ambience which directly impacted upon and was reflected in the behaviour of both patrons and guests.

This chapter focuses upon Fourth Style perspective painting. We outline the very extensive historic scholarly debate about the possible depiction in such paintings of Roman stages, while developing our own, more nuanced, assessment. We discuss the different types of theatrical influence we believe are evident in many of these works, including examples the composition of which we suggest were influenced by theatre architecture and scenery. Fourth Style walls often displayed ornamental architectonic structures strongly evocative of the theatrical scaenarum frontes (stage façades) that featured both as elements of actual Roman theatre architecture as well as appearing in cognate edifices such as nymphaea. The Fourth Style frescoes prominently featured the painted depiction of curtains, drapes and, ubiquitously, theatrical masks.

This chapter highlights and defines ‘theatricalism’ and ‘theatricality’ as critical terms, useful for understanding Roman culture. It provides examples of each, suggests how useful the terms are for describing Roman art, architecture, domestic décor, ceremonies and political life. It summarises how subsequent chapters will examine the concepts informing these terms and will use these to further out understanding of crucial aspects of Rome art and society. It also introduces the concept of ‘mixed reality’ and the practice of mnemonics, ekphrasis and phantasia as key examples of how theatricalism figured in Roman artistic, mental and cultural life.

This chapter moves from the physical and visual aspects of the theatre to discuss the nature and varieties of performance as these may have been experienced by ancient spectators, while taking into account too what we believe we know about the cultural role of theatrical and spectacle entertainments. The various diverse forms of theatrical performance are detailed included Atellan farce, mime and shows in the arena. We discuss the varieties of scenic provision, and also explore the nature of the theatricalised experience and perception of ancient spectators. We describe at length the particularly important and highly popular art of pantomime.

This chapter examines the nature of political activity at Pompeii and explores and describes in detail the central role that sponsorship of theatrical performance played in its political life. It identifies some of the prominent political figures at Pompeii, and the evidence for their sponsorship of theatrical entertainments. In looks at the houses and décor of several such politicians, and explores how their espousal of theatre may be reflected in their homes.

Introduction

This chapter has two primary concerns. First, it asks what the London Charter for the Computer-based Visualization of Cultural Heritage has to say that is relevant to the preservation of complex digital objects? Second, it looks at the nature of some of the complex objects (note, not just complex digital objects) that are produced by multifaceted projects – in this instance, projects with both humanities research and artistic dimensions – as well as projects that span digital and non-digital materials.

The London Charter

The London Charter started off in February 2006 with a symposium and workshop called ‘Making 3D Visual Research Outcomes Transparent’, which was held at both the British Academy and King's College London as part of our ‘Making Space’ AHRC ICT Strategy Project. There was, at that time, no international consensus or standard about the type or level of documentation needed to communicate to scholarly audiences the methods and outcomes of visualization-based research projects. A computer visualization of an historical monument or object is really no more than a picture unless we also communicate to people what has gone into the making of that visualization: what is the evidence, how reliable is the evidence, what decisions have been made in order to create this digital object. Without such information, the visualization cannot be properly understood or evaluated.

At this symposium in 2006, the question was posed: ‘How do we move from the idea of good practice to a culture of good practice within the heritage visualization domain?’ I suggested that we needed a ‘Charter’, which would enable us to draw the community's attention to a formal, consensus-based statement of best practice for heritage visualization. A working group was established and released the first version of the London Charter in March 2006, with a more detailed version (Draft 2.1) being published in February 2009 (London Charter, 2009). All the drafts of the Charter, together with its detailed history and an introduction, can be seen on the London Charter website.

The Charter has six principles, each of which addresses a specific topic:

• • Principle 1, ‘Implementation’, addresses the scope of the Charter's applicability.

• • Principle 2 discusses the importance of making aims and methods cohere with each other.

• • Principle 3, ‘Research Sources’, discusses the importance of publishing the evidence upon which research visualizations are based, and of demonstrating the systematic and rigorous evaluation of that evidence.

Introduction

The participants for each POCOS session were drawn from a wide range of professional contexts concerned with digital preservation (DP), including: scientific and cultural heritage projects; private consultancies; digital assets management, including creating digital preservation policy for, inter alia, 3D models and architectural drawings; digital repository management; DP research and development; development of research-based open-source tools; digital tool preservation; long-term digital preservation; emulation research; historical research; digital humanities research; and digital imaging and digital media technologies. With this eclectic mix of contributors from a variety of user and stakeholder communities, it was important not to make assumptions about prior DP knowledge, as some participants might be very knowledgeable about DP in general but be unaware of visualization and simulation initiatives, and vice versa. With this caveat in mind, William Kilbride reviewed the main categories of challenges regarding visualizations and simulations in the DP domain, and suggested initial key responses. The groups then discussed their ideas.

The main DP challenges and key responses

The first challenge to be faced is that the issue will not go away, nor will it resolve itself. A salutary note on this subject is delineated by Gartner's Hype Cycle on the introduction of new technology, which charts levels of optimism over time. The cycle starts on the trigger point of ‘not my problem’; moves on through ‘how hard can it be’ to the Peak of Inflated Expectations; descends into misery at the Trough of Disillusion, when the scale of the task becomes apparent; then advances onto the Slope of Enlightenment followed by the Plateau of Productivity, when realistic progress is eventually realized. To avoid this roller-coaster experience, it is vital that DP plans be set out at the start of the project.

In general, digital objects such as software, simulations, visualizations and documents have value (however such ‘value’ is calculated), and they create opportunities. However, access to such objects depends on software, hardware and human intervention, and these are liable to change over time, thus resulting in technology creating barriers to re-use. Therefore it is vital to manage data in the long term to protect digital assets and create opportunities for their re-use. In particular, DP is not just about isolated topics such as ‘data’, ‘access’ and ‘risk’: rather it is paramount that DP is understood to be about outcomes, especially regarding people and opportunity.