The construction of the “Roman copy” in art history has deep-rooted and far-reaching origins. Although this prejudice was attached to Roman sculpture very early in modern archeology and art history, the construction considered in a current context reveals problems both related to its development and its contribution to the historical understanding and education. This construction relies on several main factors that have recently been questioned by revisionist historians. First, the development of this construct by conservative historians in the 18th century, a context that valued artistic originality and authenticity, led to its popularization and circulation as a respected model. Second, this construction relies entirely on the presumption that Greek art is in fact aesthetically and artistically superior, insinuating a negative predisposition toward Roman artistry and aesthetics. Finally, technological advances aiding historiography have affirmed that many conclusions drawn by conservative historians through their methodology are in fact irrefutably incorrect. While the basis of much of the argument of conservative historians has been considered flawed, or seriously questioned in terms of accurate and reliable history, the construction of "Roman copies" of Greek originals has remained a legitimized understanding and interpretation of Roman art for centuries. . We can then ask ourselves whether the attention given to this aspect of history is worth it when much of the history taught is today strongly questioned. One of the main areas of debate surrounding the theory of a Roman "copy" of an "original" Greek text is the perception that Greek art is inherently superior. This view was for the first time... middle of article...... o understanding and appreciating Greek art is important, but as the writings of Gazda, Marvin and Ellen show, the practice consisting of appreciating Greek sculpture as presented by The conservative attitude of historians is detrimental to the writings and perceptions of historians, as well as to the general education of the public. Unfortunately, due to the popularity of the above-mentioned historians at the time they were writing, the methodology including Kopienkritik has remained a popular and popular approach to judging and analyzing Greek and Roman sculpture, despite growing criticism. All of these factors work to undermine the validity of the construction and show that while the construction may have suited and served the purposes of those who created it, it does nothing to legitimately advance the proper and rational history of the sculpture Greek and more particularly Roman..