Although said in a different context, John Clarke’s comments regarding the advantages and disadvantages of the social historians approach is also relevant here, “…the accomplishments of social art history in other periods rest on questioning why a patron paid to have an artist create specific visual representations.” ...and... “My experience with this approach has revealed both its advantages and its pitfalls. No art or architecture exists in a vacuum, and it is the task of the social historian to recreate the fullest possible context surrounding the art. He or she must ask: Who paid for it? (patron); Who saw it? (viewer); Who made it? (artist/architect); Under what circumstances did the viewer see it? (reception and ritual); What other artistic forms does it resemble? (iconographic models). Although these questions seem simple, they are difficult to answer well. The art historian must go out on a limb if he/she wishes to pursue such a line of inquiry.”
(from Clarke’s Bryn Mawr Classical Review (98.1.20) of Roger Ling et al The Insula of the Menander at Pompeii. Vol. 1. 1997.)

Finally, in this critique let us not loose sight of the fact that wall-painting was not a cheap option like 1960s stick-on fablon, which it was claimed could enhance any surface with faux finishes or idyllic views. In Pompeii the transforming potential of paint enabled the inhabitants to 'invite' their gods and ancestors into their domestic environment and paint enabled mythological narratives to mix with day-to-day events and, perhaps even more importantly, it made cathartic visions of Elysium visible beyond the spatial confines of their rooms.

And herein lies the Roman artist’s (some of whom may well have been Greek or of Greek origin) most important contribution to the history of painting – they created a visual-dynamic that was so spatially sophisticated that its equal was not seen until the Renaissance and the advent of computer aided virtual reality.