Oh cool.
I thought you did it on purpose to stop an argument. I wrote a reply to Seventh and sent it to him because I was in the middle or writing it when this topic locked.
Here it is.
Also, I feel the need to mention that busts of Roman emperors were characteristically inaccurate because their sculptors had to make the emperor look more attractive and powerful than he probably was. If anything, the busts of people with less political power and less social standing were probably more accurate to their imperfections, like poor, poor Mr. Roman Playwright Seneca:
This is mostly true of emperors, but not always.
Traditionally the idea was to make them look heroic and powerful, and the best method for doing this, was to base their look after that of Alexander the Great or Hercules, using the many busts and statues of those as inspiration.
So it's closer to say that Putin looks more like Hercules (who is mythical).
Furthermore, busts of roman's weren't always accurate because, as with most statuary, the subject didn't stand around the entire time.
Statues could take months to make, and the sculptor would get little time with their patron, particularly an emperor. THis meant for large parts they would go by memory, plus incorporating details from other work where their memory failed.
On top of this you get the fact that many busts were commissioned by families (particularly the Imperial Family in honor of the emperor) following the death of the person depicted. In these circumstance a sculptor would have to base their work off of other already existing statues/busts/friezes/coinage of that person, essentially creating a visual version of Chinese Whispers.
The point about busts protraying imperfections however isn't strictly a concept based on wealth.
Infact, sometimes it's the opposite.
In order to purchase a sculpture of yourself you'd have to have money anyway.
For someone to create a sculpture without imperfections, they would make things smoother. There might not be as much attention to detail on musculature, or pose, but the statue would look generic and normally of fine quality. (most of the detail actually came from the painting of a statue, but we know very little of what most statues looked like, as the paint is worn away and it's guess-work when we used trapped pigments in the marble).
Instead, if you wanted to have a statue depicting you as you were, with pox marks and scars and facial hair, wrinkles and all, it would be more expensive. That's a lot more detail and work for someone to do.
And while having a vain statue was a goal for many, for other Romans their sence of piety and stoicism made them choose the raw grittier looks of themselves, rather than the pampered, plump, smooth-skinned images they could go for.
That's part of the reason why the bust used in the video depicts caesar as rather skinny, clearly aged and with visible wrinkles and lacking in hair (which was a trait that JC was in fact particularly displeased about having).
I don't know this statue in particular, but it was likely commissioned by Caesar's adopted son, the first emperor Augustus, who was keen to use Caesar's name and promote the deification of Caesar.
He was also in the act of great social reforms in Rome and the then republic, particularly regarding religion and society, promoting piety and stoicism. In particular was the aim of not working towards the avant-garde, but instead the reserved and truthful.
This would be the reason why that particular statue of Caesar isn't majestic or powerful, but rather realistic in capturing the age (yet wisdom) of Caesar.
