(artist unknown, originally created in Constantinople). (c.300). The Tretrarchs [porphyry statue]. Currently in Cathedral of Saint Mark, Venice.

I already have exposure to this work so this cannot be an “initial impression”. Taken in whole, the four figures do bind together well to symbolize the Empire because of their equal size, detail development, dress, expressions, etc, not to mention native similarities like surface texture roughness and color. An effective division is made between East and West in how the pair of the two figures embrace. The figures themselves seem to be the same generalized person; the title of Augustus is actively interlocking with the passive title of Caesar. | 
Visual reality conforms to the simple, ordered message of the patron. With the exception of facial hair, the individuals could be four copies of the same person. Their dress, facial features and height are equal, suggesting the respect the Tetrarchs in practice share for each other in managing the Empire. This is a calm and measured combination of statues. 

This work is basically perceptual; of course all propaganda is visually compromised to serve the message. It also shows some of the trends of the time period of moving away for realistic idealism toward abstraction in an attempt to “clear the clutter” somewhat from that same message. |

The nature of the medium has restricted supporting elements to lines and textures; even value is muted. This only serves to emphasize the message even more. In the most general sense, this is a work of symmetry: A single figure is forged out of two that, in an idealistic sense, are equal in the sum of their parts. Those two secondary figures are further divided into neat halves that are, again, equal in utility and weight. When visual details are brought into this “fifty-thousand foot view”, pure symmetry breaks down into approximate because of minor differences in formatting and orientation.

Overly-generous use of formal harmony is employed. Hieratic scale is unintuitively used to emphasize the equality of authority the four figures share. Line treatment, in this case minor volume edges, is used to provide superficial surface embellishment and texture. Either way, they are all but straight, rapid, narrow and lengthy in character.

The closeness of the figures heads, framing of the area by the limb, direction of textured lines and the natural tendency to recognize faces place primary interest in that area for both pairs. This supports the meaning of this work quite well, because it suggests that each figure is of similar mind in their vision for the Empire. 

Clearly the arms-locked embrace, repeated dress and shared directional gazes are meant to communicate to the population that does not have access to those in control that they are, in fact, in control, supporting each other, and equals. In fact, this work is seminal in that it marks a change in the styles, if not tastes, that would prevail in western art: More emphasis on content over form, which results in sacrificed optical detail and a simplification of forms. If this work is compared to other Imperial works, such as the reliefs of the Ara Pacis, this formal migration is clearly seen.