Any reason in particular?

I have spent the last ten minutes looking for a fucking floor plan to tell me where in this fucking villa a particular mosaic is in

because apparently everyone who has ever written about the ALEXANDER MOSAIC thought mentioning its location in the house is irrelevant

sorry, i get really angry with stupid people

Art historical perspectives make me want to punch people

I admit I'm not an art historian, so I don't know how the discipline differs exactly.

it's okay

I suspect it's because they're writing about the art itself and not necessarily the architecture. Sounds like something that could use a bit of an interdisciplinary approach.

Yeah, that's basically the case.I'm an anthropologically trained archaeologist, so I'm super obsessed with context and function, so I get easily irritated

I feel like I should note at this point that I'm actually a history Ph.D candidate, so.

That said, and this is just my suspicion, I suspect because they're focusing on a SPECIFIC piece, they're more interested in the history attached to the art piece itself.

There might be architectural histories which are more focused on the location of artistic pieces in a specific locale.

Or it could be a gap in the historigraphical picture! You never know.

</history nerd>

I managed to find a detailed, although a bit outdated floor plan of the building with notes about the location of the artworks

...Now I'm almost interested to see an architectural/art history with an archeological/anthropological perspective written.

it's like "OMG pretty things! And here is how people used them! Wow! Ancient/Medeval/Other people aren't really all that different from us!"

It's super exciting because it's kinda the closest thing we have to time travel