That statue in your avatar... ancient Greece, or is that Roman?
(Or, you know. One of the many attempts at reviving antique)
I never was very good at art history. I'm glad I got the particular bit for free, and I do not intent to take up more of it.
The short answer is 'yes'.
The long answer is that it is a marble version of a relatively common classical statue-type, the goddess Eirene. Eirene was one of the Horai, time/seasonal deities, and her season was spring (
eiar). She was also the goddess of peace. Spring is a season of plenty, of renewal, of growth, all of which the Greeks associated with peaceful conditions. Eirene was sometimes, in this capacity, depicted with the god of wealth, Ploutos. According to the classical travelogue writer Pausanias, the sculptor Kephisodotos was the first to do statues of Eirene holding Ploutos as a baby, and the idea stuck. My avatar is a shot of Eirene's head from one of these sculptures. The "Kephisodotos Eirene" type is fairly common, but the most well-known example is in the München Glyptothek, where I saw it when I was younger and thought it was pretty cool.
Kephisodotos was one of the earliest sculptors of the Hellenistic period, i.e. the time after the death of Alexander the Great (323-31 BC). Hellenistic art and architecture was in large part driven by rich patrons. Alexander's generals and their descendants became kings with power and wealth out of all proportion to the city-states and petty kingdoms that had dominated Greek life before; these new kings wanted status symbols, and art was one of the main avenues they chose. Before, art had largely been the preserve of religious rites and ceremonial, and the sorts of art were correspondingly very limited: temples, memorial statues of the dead and deities, pottery. Then, civic exhibition and pride started to take prominence, but even then that only expanded subject matter to memorial statues of civic leaders. In the Hellenistic period, the money drove the subject, and the money said "we want everything": any subject, any style, any flourish was fair game.
When the Roman Republic started getting powerful, rich Romans went looking for their own status symbols. Greek art, architecture, and statuary were some of the easiest things to acquire, first through conquest and looting (the sack of Korinthos in 146 BC is supposed to have been particularly lucrative) and then through patronage and the fine art market. By the late second century BC, southern Italy was crawling with Greek artists and sculptors working for Roman money on Roman-ordered projects. In fact, it's essentially impossible to tell the difference between Hellenistic art ordered by Romans and Hellenistic art ordered by Greeks. Romans would buy anything: archaizing statues of
kouroi and
korai, more modern statues of important people, hyperrealistic depictions of random individuals, and 'the grotesque'. And more importantly, Roman financing allowed artists to experiment even more in subject matter and style.
For a long time, art historians used to differentiate between Greek bronze statuary (allegedly the "original") and Roman marble statuary (allegedly the "copy"). According to them, a Greek would make the first version of a statue in bronze, but then, for the Roman market, less-skilled sculptors would copy the work in marble for mass production. This consensus has slowly fallen apart over the past few decades. Carol Mattusch probably delivered the death-blow with her elaborate description of a Greek bronze-statuary manufacturing system, the lost-wax process, that enabled Greek sculptors like Lysippos to make vast numbers of
bronze copies; the bronze often hasn't survived as well as the marble has, but it seems clear that the bronze statues we have access to are a tiny fraction of the greater whole.
So now, we can't be so sure about the provenance of many an individual statue or the history of the type. There is no sharp distinction between 'Greek art' and 'Roman art'. Nowadays, many historians simply lump the two together under the general heading of 'Hellenistic art' or 'Greco-Roman art'. Greek and Roman patrons both ordered bronze and marble; either bronze or marble could be a copy, and either could be the original. "Copies" often had their own unique flourishes, done by the "copying" artist as a calling-card.
And yes, I would avoid art history if at all possible. It's hard to get a career going in it, and much of the art-historical academy seems to be more focused on the art and less on the history. (One might sardonically refer to it as 'art appreciation' in many universities.) Worst of all, it is expensive: even the most well-meaning professor needs to be able to refer to visual aids in an art-heavy course, and publishers will make you pay an awful lot of money for all those black-and-white (or, God forbid, color) plates. On the bright side, if you get a solid professor who really gets into the 'history' aspect, the classes can be quite good. But that's true of most fields.