The construct of 'Roman copy' in the history of art has deeply rooted and extensive origins. Although this prejudice has been associated with Roman sculpture since the early days of modern archeology and art history, the construction viewed in a current context reveals problems with both its development and contribution to historical understanding and education. The construct is based on several major factors that have recently been questioned by revisionist historians. First, the development of the construct by conservative historians during the 18th century, a context that valued artistic originality and authenticity, led to its popularization and diffusion as a respected model. Secondly, the construct is based entirely on the assumption that Greek art is actually aesthetically and artistically superior, insinuating a negative predisposition towards Roman artistic workmanship and aesthetics. Finally, technological advances in support of historiography have affirmed the fact 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 seen as flawed, or otherwise seriously questioned in terms of accurate and reliable history, the construct of "Roman copies" of Greek originals has remained a legitimate understanding and interpretation for centuries of Roman art. . The question may therefore be raised whether the attention given to this aspect of history is worth the fact that much of the history taught is now heavily questioned. One of the main areas of debate surrounding the theory of the Roman “copy” of a Greek “original” is the perception that Greek art is intrinsically superior. This view was initially… halfway through the article… or understanding and appreciating Greek art is significant, but as seen through the writings of Gazda, Marvin, and Ellen, the practice of appreciating Greek sculpture presented by Conservative historians are harmful 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 during the period in which they were writing, the methodology including Kopienkritik has remained a valued and prevalent approach to judging and analyzing both Greek and Roman sculpture, despite growing criticism. All of these factors serve to undermine the validity of the construct and demonstrate that, while the construct may have adapted and served the purposes of those who created it, it does nothing to legitimately advance the correct and rational history of Greek sculpture and, more specifically, Roman..