Why did they paint the statues?
It looks fucking awful. Assuming this is an accurate reproduction of what the original paint looked like then it's honestly one of the shittiest looking things I've ever seen.
It goes from looking incredible to suddenly looking like a shit tier toy that's produced in some fucking third world sweatshop. How did they think this looked good?
They looked for any excuse to to more detail work on the panus
>>2413821
That's a big clit
You'd think that if there were sculptors good enough to replicate a human body that accurately there was nobody who could paint over that anything beyond one simple layer for the skin tone and one for hair and pubes?
>>2413821
jesus fuck
why
>>2413843
>You'd think that if there were sculptors good enough to replicate a human body that accurately
Response:
>>2413850
Look at that fucking baby.
The masters were top tier but let's not pretend they aren't human who made some shitty artistic decisions before. Even the greats were capable of butchering their own work.
That being said, I'm sure the paintjobs were better back in the day and that bright vivid colors probably looked very appealing to them from a distance. Remember, a lot of these were meant to brighten up cities as a whole, not be stuck in a room side-by-side next to each other. Kind of like park statues. In fact, people back then probably think our boring black and bronze statues make cities dull.
>>2413821
I see that westerners are now trying to mimic our glorious superior nippon statues but western statues aren't meant to be colored and is inferior.
>>2413850
That looks like Kefka
>>2413858
Here's your (you). Enjoy it to your full hearts content.
>>2413858
holy shit wtf is going on with those abs?
Mediterranean cultures love to make everything as gaudy as possible. It's funny that history remembers them for the exact opposite because all of the awful paint has been stripped away, but look no further than modern Mediterranean people to see the same habit of spraying everything with garish colors.
The people who made those statues never would have appreciated the beauty that people later found in them once the paint was gone. Recognizing any sense of understated beauty is entirely lost upon the Mediterranean mind.
thanks OP, I barfed.
>>2413821
>10/10 sculpting
>1/10 texturing
is like they used zbrush for both, instead of mari
that, or the anonymous restoring people are clueless hacks
>>2413821
are they sure that they used only one color and didn't incorporate any shading? maybe that was just the base coat.
>>2413821
that's the lens of your own cultural bias, having learned that white marble statues are the pinnacle of sculptural beauty. and that's why many artists have chosen to make art that looks like the sculpture from greece and rome after they're dug out of the earth. they valued color- especially in a time where you couldn't go to the hardware store and buy a zillion colors of synthetic paint.
>>2413821
This is probably the most willfully ignorant thing I've seen on ic recently.
So, these statues were made and painted before the third world, sweat shops, and plastic toys existed as such.
They lived in a world where pigments were not mass produced and everything came in the color it was naturally, unless you were wealthy enough to afford pigment.
Seeing a garish statue in the street was the shit- it livened up the place and showed the society as affluent enough to afford public art.
They were limited by the pigments available, to boot.
>>2413959
this
>>2413952
Why would they paint on shading? Shouldn't the sculpture itself + sunlight incorporate natural shading like an actual human body would?
>>2413972
The materials you sculpt in rarely have the same properties as the subject.
Are these the exact colors they used?
>>2413873
This
>>2413996
yeah, they did sampling on the statues to find the specific pigments used. You think classical art restorers would have used these clown colors out of their own aesthetic choice?
>>2413871
it's called a twist. even though it was done horribly you can tell what they were going for
>>2413821
Yep. Ancient Rome probably looked more like asian temples rather than the white and clean look we are used to imagine.
>>2413873
/pol/ plz leave.
>>2413843
>>2413821
Yeah, I honestly feel like the restorers probably fucked up a little. I'd be curious to know about their process, but I can imagine it's easy to mis-interpret the colour based on nothing but some pigment traces.
>>2413850
This is actually pretty cool.. but again, the real thing was probably more subtle/nuanced.
>>2413967
No, there's plenty of art from that era that's painted nicely.
>>2414122
I read about the studies. what they sampled was more accuralty what pigments were made of rather then pigments themselves. like they sampled cobalt and such.
I dont buy that representation to be honest.
If we can paint 3 inch figures this well, I say do did the ancient dudes.
look at mosoics, they have a very fine understanding of shading and rendering. I bet they also have and proper understandig of usisng exaggerated paiting styles to bring statues to life. itstead of
>>2413850
fill in the lines stuff.
>>2413959
>>2413967
its not about relativity of appretiation.
>>2413821
>>2413850
these reproductions are really bad. thats the issue. technical expertise presented on sculpting and paiting is so far away from each other that its laughable.
these proposed painting styles are not only colored stuff left to us from 2k years ago. we got vase paintings, we have mosaics, we have frescos, and no they dont support this idea of "they wanted to liven up the place with base coating marble and leaving it at that."
>>2414201
It is entirely relative to availability of materials, the prevalence of vibrant colors in the rest of the world one inhabits, and the aesthetic values of particular times and cultures.
>>2414209
well we can push a theory to fit a situation as long as we want, instead of looking all the examples against it.
>>2414209
But as, >>2414201 stated, the materials were available and not used in this way, as evidenced by mosaics, paintings, etc.
>and the aesthetic values of particular times and cultures
So a culture obsessed with idealization of nature producing highly nuanced, detailed, realistic cultures would use a totally abstract and simplified paint application? Nigga please.
I mean, maybe, but not if what you say is true.
>>2414182
>>2414201
Yeah, now that I think about it, if the curators were being intellectually honest, they would just leave them blank and tell you "originally, they were painted, but we don't know exactly how they looked". But, it's not like anyone is saying this is 100% accurate, it should be taken as a hypothesis.
>>2414226
>realistic cultures
Slip o the toungue. I mean *sculptures*, of course.
>>2413873
Buen cebo, amigo
0/10
>>2414148
200% rad
>>2414201
>these reproductions are really bad
I'd imagine so.. I'd hope so.
Just seeing how so many reproductions are shit makes me always want to doubt the ones which appear bad like this.
>>2413821
Because greeks don't know the word subtle. It's always over the top with decorating.
>>2413873
Then why is Italian fashion the most exquisite, nigga?
>>2413972
nigga you legit think the human body is one solid and consistent and opaque color?
this is why no one on /ic/ has any future
>>2414753
They should have atleast painted the nose red
>>2414753
What you're describing isn't shading but skin pigmentation. But considering you're lurking around /ic/ and not /lit/, I can see how comprehension might not be your strong suit.
>>2413821
>Assuming this is an accurate reproduction
It's not.
It's reproductions made by archeologists who have no idea about art and just slap one layer of paint on it.
If statues were painted you can probably bet your ass on the fact that they were painted with some thought put into it.
You can even look at the fat nerds at /tg/ and see that they put some thought into painting their warhammer miniatures with shading and skintones.
tl;dr archeologists are aspies with no idea about how art works
>>2413821
at least tell me those are painted reproductions and not the original stuff
There's medieval carvings and sculptures. Chances are roman sculptures that were painted used a similiar technique
>>2414122
>yeah, they did sampling on the statues to find the specific pigments used
Oh yeah, let's have a science nerd repaint the mona lisa by the pigments they find.
protip:
There's more to coloring something than putting on one big fucking layer of plain color.
Ancient artists knew that just as much as today.
Painted on statue with preserved coat of painting.
If people in the late middle ages could do it, so could the romans.
The romans probably knew just as much about washes, dyes, oils and varnish as people in the middle ages.
Just finding particles of a pigment under a microscope wont tell you what techniques were used to apply it and preserve the coat of paint
>>2414953
I swear, If the artist did that today /ic/ would call him an edgy tumblrfag.
>>2414976
It's Jesus Christ you idiot.
>>2414985
Yeah, no shit, not what I was saying.
>>2414986
What were you saying? It makes no fucking sense.
>>2414989
this.
>>2414959
>Ancient artists knew that just as much as today.
guy on internet knows more than professionals working with valuable antiques
>>2414989
Sounds like he's saying the new testament is EDGY AS FUCK.
>>2413858
That's a sprained fucking ankle.
>>2415315
I dunno dawg, I think tanon has cited multipple good reasons why the real sculptures probably ddin't look this shitty.
1. Art historians and archaeologists are not artists.
2. It seems likley that finding traces of pigments would not give you a very good idea of how they were painted.. only that they were painted.
3. More nuanced application of paint was practiced by the same culture in other mediums, and by medieval culatures in the same medium.
4. If we assume the romans had a particular subjective standard of beauty, then one would expect the paint application to match the sculpture and follow its idealised naturalism.
>>2415315
And yet you are a guy on the internet and I'm a trained professional artist.
>>2415573
>I'm a trained professional artist.
many here are. are you a trained art historian, archaeologist, and art restorer too? how does being a "professional artist" qualify one on matters of ancient art history?
>Some very early polychrome pottery has been excavated on Minoan Crete such as at the Bronze Age site of Phaistos. In ancient Greece sculptures were painted in strong colors. The paint was frequently limited to parts depicting clothing, hair, and so on, with the skin left in the natural color of the stone. But it could cover sculptures in their totality.
>Some very early polychrome pottery has been excavated on Minoan Crete such as at the Bronze Age site of Phaistos. In ancient Greece sculptures were painted in strong colors. The paint was frequently limited to parts depicting clothing, hair, and so on, with the skin left in the natural color of the stone. But it could cover sculptures in their totality.
if they sometimes left the skin the natural color of the stone, we can assume total naturalism was not their goal
http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/prms/hd_prms.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polychrome
>>2413821
>>2413850
THIS IS THE FIRST COAT.
Can't they see that.
You paint over this shit
building up the paint like a figurine
>>2415613
you're comparing ancient polychrome sculpture to modern miniature painting. do you understand why this is not a viable approach?
they don't just guess at the colors. how exactly they looked can't be ascertained with certainty, but they've certainly utilized more science than /ic/ to come to their conclusion:
http://www.glyptoteket.com/explore/research/tracking-colour
>>2415591
The only thing that matters here is that they found pigments and then reverse engineered it in the most retarded way ever.
Unless they are trained artists they certainly didn't know what they were doing.
As proven by medieval painted statues the knowledge of a more subtle paintjob was already there in the middle ages and wasn't invented by fat neckbeards painting warhammer figures.
It's pretty easy to assume the romans had that same knowledge. If you are as skilled in capturing the human form you won't just splash one garrish tone of color over a statue that is supposed to be lifelike.
Those statues are works of great masters, unless the archeologists had the same skillset as those ancient masters it's fair to assume their restaurations are a poor 2 hour paintjob, while the proper artists probably worked for weeks, months or years perfecting their craft and passing it down to other generations of artists for hundereds if not thousands of years.
I think everyone with knowledge about art would know that it's highley likely those ancient statues had more subtle paintjobs.
Especially since pigments were more common in ancient rome thanks to their trade routes.
You don't spend a lifetime perfecting your craft and then fuck it up with a cheap paintjob, because you couldn't bother to go beyond form.
If you already go for perfection of form, you go for the rest as well. Since marble and stone has none of the properties of flesh they most likely used washes and varnish to create the effects of flesh on the stone, instead of giving it a coarse and rough quick paintjob like those restaurators of questionable qualification.
attached pic, another beautiful late medieval painted statue
>>2415613
I mean, do they have any evidence supporting one way or another? Their paintings were pretty flat in terms of color variation, I'm not sure how varied they would be on their statues.
>>2415619
>>2415613
To continue, historians were able to recreate complex coloring such as on this Aphaia Trojan Archer. I can't imagine they were able to recreate this without being able to detect if they were using a range of pigments as well.
>>2415619
90% of roman paintings have long rotted away.
The surviving ones look pretty loomis to me.
pic related.
Actual surviving roman portrait painting.
>>2413821
Just because something that is considered in bad taste now doesn't mean it wasn't fashionable in the past.
Just look at the 80s.
>>2415630
Hmmm is OP's thing greek or roman?
>>2415624
no, but apparently you can, and know exactly how they were painted, because that's how people paint some similar things thousands of fucking years later.
and had you bothered to read the link I'd posted, you'd have discovered that color shadows give an indication of what paint was lost. I get it though, reading is hard.
>>2415635
>no, but apparently you can,
Yes I can.
Discussion is over, unless you get a time machine and we go back and see how it's done.
Right now it's your butthurt autism and appeals to authority against my expertise and I declare you unfit to discuss this subject matter any further because you lack both the skill and understanding of the CRAFT of art to properly comprehend what you are talking about.
>>2415625
and indeed they have
Of the pigments known, some of the most important are:
>Cinnabar, mercuric sulphide, was a popular, expensive red mineral pigment.
>Ochre, an earth colour containing iron oxide, is found in hues from orange to reddish brown.
>Red lead, lead tetroxide, is also known as ‘minium’ and is of course red.
>Madder lake, or alizarin, is a pinkish red organic pigment from the root of the madder plant.
>Orpiment and realgar are both arsenic sulphide minerals used to produce yellow pigments.
>Azurite is a copper mineral and the source of a deep blue. It can turn into a greenish hue through weathering to malachite.
>Egyptian blue is the oldest known synthetic pigment, made from calcium, silicium and copper.
>Malachite, a green copper carbonate mineral closely related to azurite – and just as expensive.
>Bone black and vine black are organic pigments resulting from carbonization.
>Lead white, a lead carbonate, is a synthetically produced white pigment.
>>2413850
watch out, that baby's holding a gun!
>>2415635
Not the guy you're replying to but quick question. Could color shadows indicate the pigments/colors/paint used beyond what was directly touching the stone? Such as there being a one-color base coat and then additional paint added on top once that was dry.
>>2415631
>Just look at the 80s.
/thread
>>2415640
Wait, why is there a tiny baby in that statue?
>>2415644
They found microscopic traces of paint on the stone and then assumed the entire statue was painted in that exact monotone pigment.
They could have had layers, washes, varnish and nobody would know because the elements would have long removed those layers except for a few microscopic traces of the base coat.
>>2415646
and why's it sitting on an egg that ceasar has just pooped out?
>>2415634
Second one is augustus. So now take a wild guess.
>>2415646
better question: why is it riding a dolphin? research augusta prima porta.
also, on a practical level, it stabilizes the heavy statue
>>2415653
to be fair a lot of roman sculpture were just copies of greek sculpture. the OP image certainly owes a debt to Doryphoros.
>>2415655
dolphin? holy shit
>>2415655
>Hey boss, if we remove this chunk the statue's gonna be kinda rocky, want us to just leave it?
>Fuck no, we got some time. Let's turn that sumbitch into a baby.
>A little small for that, isn't it, boss?
>Fine, a tiny baby then.
>>2413972
that's what I asked myself.
Why can't you just shade a drawing using black white and gray, add saturation to it and call it a day? why it doesn't work?
>>2415657
No, not see.
What you posted is a greek decorative wall painting and not a roman one.
We are talking about roman statues here, the second statue is clearly augustus.
pic related, roman era portrait painting.
There is just very few surviving actual roman paintings, because they were done on wood.
>>2415661
>hey boss, doesn't this rough-hewn stone kind of look like a baby riding a dolphin?
>now that you mention it... go with it!
>>2415649
So I guess the long and the short of it is "who the fuck knows"
>>2415663
greeks made polychrome sculpture as well. hell, sometimes they can't even tell if a sculpture is greek or roman. we're discussing classical polychrome sculpture in general.
>>2415649
they did much more than just "find microscopic traces of paint", that's only one of many different methods used in analysis of the sculpture.
>>2415657
>just because you can model doesn't mean you can paint
That's exactly what a projecting, no-talent, no-skill dipshit like you would say.
If you go for realism, you go for realism.
If you go for abstract you go for abstract.
Art back then was a business, with workshops.
Certainly they had masters of trade and entire schools of artists.
It's also likely that the skills were in some ways passed down along artists all to the rennaisance.
pic related. Another late medieval jesus
>The monochromatic appearance of these works gave rise to new, modern canons of sculpture characterized by an emphasis on form with little consideration of color. In antiquity, however, Greek (50.11.4
) and Roman (81.6.48
) sculpture was originally richly embellished with colorful painting, gilding, silvering, and inlay. Such polychromy, which was integral to the meaning and immediacy of such works, has largely been lost in burial and survives today only in fragmentary condition.
>>2413840
Small man bits were more valued in greek and roman societies, which isn't really a surprise because boinging little boys was common at the time.
>Depictions of statuary in Roman wall paintings
(03.14.13
) provide an indication of their diverse appearances in antiquity. Some marble sculptures were completely painted and gilded, effectively obscuring the marble surface; others had more limited, selective polychromy used to emphasize details such as the hair, eyes, and lips and accompanying attributes.
Roman artists used a wide range of pigments, painting media, and surface applications to embellish their marble sculptures. Ancient authors, especially Pliny the Elder and Vitruvius, provide important information about these materials and express great admiration for the virtuoso technique of contemporary sculptors who developed a technical refinement unparalleled in classical antiquity. White marble itself was prized for its brilliant translucency, ability to take finely carved detail, and flawless uniformity. A vast array of colored marbles and other stones were also quarried from throughout the Roman world to create numerous colorful statues (09.221.6
) of often dazzling appearance
>>2415670
Greeks painted portraits too. None surviving either.
What survives is mostly abstract decorative painting.
If you look at surviving ancient art, it's extremely similar to rennaisance painting.
To claim those people had no understanding of color is so beyond retarded it's not even worthy of discussion.
pic related:
another surviving ancient piece of art
Burial, early modern restoration practices, and historic cleaning methods have all reduced the polychromy on Roman marble sculptures. Many works, however, preserve important evidence of their original polychrome decoration. Such remains are inevitably fragmentary and have altered over time, making it difficult to reconstruct their exact appearance in antiquity with certainty. Nevertheless, through a host of techniques—including microscopic examination, ultraviolet and infrared photography, and different types of material analysis—it is possible to gain valuable insight into the original appearance of these ancient works of art.
>>2415674
who said their goal in painting the statues was realism? that's all you buddy. the fact that they would leave the skin the color of stone, or just accent nipples/lips/eyes tells you that their goal was not the same as a wax celebrity museum.
>>2414170
This. I'll explain my point of view though. Consider lipstick. Makeup is made with pigments too to add color. Sometimes when some of that pigment won't come off, such as in this red lipstick I have, it leaves behind a color on my lips and skin that in no way is representative of the actual color of the lipstick, but that's still from the pigment.
So I don't think that these pigments (Such as the cobalt) used were used alone. They could've been mixed with other things to change the colors and make them not such a bright primary color display, just like my lipstick.
Yeah I know that the ingredients are different between my lipstick and greecian statues, but the theory is the point here.
>>2415685
why would you assume that they painting their sculpture like their wall paintings, and not like their architecture (which the sculpture was likely integrated with)?
>>2415697
related:
it seems weird to me that, disregarding colors themselves, a good sculptor would shape the iris and pupils this way when painting them.
>>2413858
>made in Europe
>"Western statues"
>>2415701
Because that's a bad restoration hackjob.
pic related
>>2415663
doenst matter if its roman or greek any way. helens got that shit down too
>>2415816
>ancient pixel art
Basically sf2 character select
>>2415891
eh, it lacks the grid that really defines pixel art.
>>2415674
>That's exactly what a projecting, no-talent, no-skill dipshit like you would say.
are you fucking kidding me?
what makes you think someone who's good at drawing is just as good at painting and just as good as modeling? and just because they were advanced in one field it doesn't mean at all they are supposed to be advanced on another.
biggest bullshit I read on /ic/ recently.
>>2415957
you realize a team of artists worked on all these statues right? It wasn't just one dude slaving away for 7 years. Even today marble sculpture making is an entire house of students and artists working and teaching on another.
I think a lot of people simply dont understand how different art supplies and the perception of colors were now and then, colors were mosty expensive or sometimes simply really rare like blue for example. Painting a statue in rather bright colors might look odd in a todays world, but back then it was something special and showed wealth. Also the quality was quite different, different colors bleached differently in sunlight or through rain, no one would pay someone to renew details of a statue every year or so, beside minor repairs. >>2414148 shows a good example of what i mentioned.
The roman and greek ancient culture laster way over 1000 years. It's preposterou to assume that one guy created every single marble statue and painted them all in the same way.
There were probably statues created and painted by masters that looked like living beings, with perfect coats and layers of paint.
We hardly know any names of the millions of artists those high cultures produced. They had workshops, schools and everything.
Duerer, DaVinci and Michelangelo all lived in the same time and embraced ancient techniques.
Now imagine a culture that had the same level of art skills but stretched to over 1000 years.
There were probably all kinds of styles, fads and techniques being used, perfected and experimented on. We can only look at some of the few pieces that survived, there is no telling of how many masterpieces were lost, altered or destroyed by iconoclasts during the ages
The whole assumption that every single statue was painted in the exact same method, because of some pigments that were found under a microscope is so fucking retarded it boggles the mind.
I would think of an equally retarded metaophor but I cant even think of one so fucking silly and pretentious
>>2416079
>I think a lot of people simply dont understand how different art supplies and the perception of colors were now and then,
No, you fucking retard. Trade routes in ancient rome were better than in the middle ages and even in the middle ages they managed to do just fine.
>>2415690
this is cool as fuck
>>2416083
Did you read that on a beer tab or came up with it while sitting on the toilet?
>>2416086
Muslim conquest blocked the silk road and large parts of the mediterranean
>>2416149
And before that everything was fine? Just look up blue on wikipedia before you emberass yourself any further. I can almost hear historian giggling in the backround about your simple minded assumptions. Just so you get the idea: in ancient rome there were even law limiting the use of some specific types of pigment for temples or state buildings because they were so rare.
>>2416083
That insult, the cocksure claims, that retard statement. You are one of those "experts" of /ic/ who like to make "quality" critiques, arent you?
>Colour (polychromy) is known to have been an inherent part of sculpture and architecture in the ancient world. Over time, through unfavourable environmental or burial conditions and human intervention, much of this original colouration has been lost.
>If colour survives at all it usually does so in very minute traces, often invisible to the naked eye. As a result our understanding of such pieces and their place in ancient cultures has been quite fragmentary. With the help of new imaging technology developed at the British Museum, startling evidence of previously invisible colour has been revealed.
They're working off of very minute evidence. It's hard to say how accurate their reproductions are.
We have actual surviving paintings from them, from frescoes and mosaics, and they'd never use such tacky colors. You don't exhibit a great sensibility and attention to detail in your marble work only to destroy it with flat, plastic looking colors, applied with no sensitivity to the subject.
There is obvious contradiction between seeking ideal proportions and using monotonous colors. It just doesn't fit. Finding traces of color doesn't account for lack of technique.
Personally, I think whoever did the reproductions is a shitty artist. The ONLY information about how these statues were colored they have is very slight traces which does not speak to HOW they were painted, just what some of the colors were used in some of the areas.
I mean, just look of the treatment of the hair in this one. There are multiple colors applied, but how they're applied is fucking awful.
>>2415697
exact same statue, different colors. even different pattern on the skirt. wtf?
I believe there is sufficient evidence to support the use of pigments to "enhance" classical sculpture. However, I do not believe the current reconstructions are accurate. It is hard to believe that such talented artists as those that made the sculture would be such poor colorists. It seems obvious to me that the goal was trompe l'oeil both in form and in color. These examples demonstrate a heady enthusiasm for the new research. Taken down several notches in saturation, with more attention to detail, modulation and shading would probably bring these examples closer to the real talent and vision of the original artists.
There is more to color than slapping paint on. These polychrome imatations / simulations are not artistic in a way that matches the skill of the carvings. The color would emanate from the forming process and the paint would be in response to that with the sensitivity seen in the best classical mosaics and paintings.
These look more like a coloring book treatment. If you set some coloring pages and the same color crayons before a child and a skilled artist, you would most definitely see a difference in the way those same colors are applied.
>The polychromy on the antefix is rather well-preserved. The colour palette is comprises calcite, yellow ochre, red ochre, umber, carbon black and Egyptian blue. Nuances are achieved by superposition of layers of different hues rather than mixing of pigments. Mineral clays constitute an essential part of the entire stratigraphy suggesting that diluted clay has been used as a binder for the pigments.
>The female head has bright white skin. The eyelids, cheekbones, alas, nostrils, mentolabial groove, and necklace lines are accentuated in a pale, peachy color. The lips are painted red with broad, fluent, yet less attentive brush strokes. The eyes are brown with black pupils, rims, and brows. The hair is painted a reddish brown with yellowish highlights. The earrings and diadem are painted a bright yellow. The latter has gemstones in red. The textile draping the female’s neck is also red merging with the inner part of the shell frame. The palmette petals and the lotus flowers are painted in white, light blue, and a yellowish brown contrasting with a murky, bluish background color. The latter has been rather carelessly applied. The base is decorated with a geometric pattern in black, white, and red separated from the base by a brownish line.
>mfw the progenitors of western civilization had the same taste in garish, ostentatious color schemes as modern day beaners
>mfw I have no face
Kind of reminds me of how Egyptian statues were painted.
>>2415675
It look's like Joffrey Baratheon
Is it possible that only the strongest pigments were able to leave a trace and if more subtle colors/washes were used, they faded/were worn away more quickly/completely?
>>2416159
>And before that everything was fine?
Yes. Romans had trade routes to china and india.
You're the one making a fool out of yourself here.
Trade in the middle ages was way more restricted than in roman times and they still got their pigments to paint properly.
>>2416374
That is entirely possible, yes.
>>2416380
because it hardly talks about art
it's
>MUH PIGMENTS
>MUH HISTORICAL RESEARCH
>MUH ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE
>MUH TRADE ROUTES
>>2413959
cultural relativists pls go.
>>2416548
well, the thread derailed, who are you gonna blame? the OP for making a painted sculptures thread on an art critique board?
>>2414226
It's the same as the fact we thought dinosaurs had scales for fucking ages. We can guess, but people and the media want to sound more impressive than "this is a guess and is probably wrong"
>>2416018
Which is why it's even more retarded for that one anon to act like if an artist can paint the human form, they can automatically sculpt it.
it looks bad
>>2413821
>>2413850
I don't think these were aiming for accuracy in values/details.
They did it only to show the statues were painted and which colours were used, everything else is details most likely only an artist could capture.
They got what they wanted:
>1st; prove the status were painted
>2nd; make an estimation of which colours were used
It was mostly a science project with art as subject and not just an art project.
>>2415685
>These beautiful Roman frescos
How was it possible for so much information to be lost in such a relatively short amount of time?
Everything got so shitty so quickly. It's like they completely forgot how to paint anything other than shitty stick figure people and collectively regressed to the artistic ability of a 10 year old.
>>2416549
that one looks like it's carved with far less skill than say op's full body sculpture. Would the level of skill used to paint this one be the same level as on the other though?
>>2416760
Many techniques such as perspective were either lost by the decline of the Roman Empire or weren't developed until the Renaissance. Living condition in the Medieval times were harsh for most people. If you look at history, art and literature tend to flourish when the economy is doing well and people don't have to worry about starvation, then they have time and effort to study art and develop their work. This didn't happen until the Renaissance.
Most importantly, for us art is synonymous with "beautiful", however that was not the point of art back then. The vast majority of Medieval art were religious themed and those art are for religious devotions rather than pleasing the eyes. Mary and baby Jesus were purposely made to look unhuman because they are suppose to be above mortal beings. This changed during the Renaissance with the rise of the idea of humanism, artists wanted to create the image of Mary who is more like an everyday human being. She lives in normal dwelling, capable of great emotions and shows great empathy.
>>2416080
whole lot of "probably"s in that paragraph
>>2416561
they're upfront about it dumbass, they tell you to your face we don't know for sure what this shit looked like.
what you tards seem to miss is that, regardless of what you think of the reproductions, they're using ACTUAL science to arrive at the most likely result. the kids ITT are using no data/evidence, just making guesses in the dark that it must have looked awesome because reasons.
>>2416760
influence of migration period art and other less realistic styles, a need for more didactic and thus symbolic images, etc.
>>2413972
>Shouldn't the sculpture itself + sunlight incorporate natural shading like an actual human body would?
If you've figured a way to have solid marble immitate the properties of human flesh then by all means go ahead and do that.
>>2416917
>immitate the properties of human flesh
Why not use the real thing?
>>2416917
sounds like a problem with texture and subtle color variation rather than shading.
>>2416964
No you fucking retard. If your goal is to have marble look like a person then your best bet is just to ignore light completely and paint on it as if you were doing a painting on a canvas. Marble and whatever shit your coating it with doesn't react to light the same way a human body does.
>>2416964
isnt this all tomato tomatoe? I think we all agree that there may have been some sort of color variation applied that the traces of paint did not disclose that could've improved the look of the painted statues
>>2417038
>we all agree that there may have been some sort of color variation applied that the traces of paint
a LOT of things -might- have happened. but if there's no actual evidence to support the theory, it shouldn't become the automatic assumption.
re:tomato- no. texture and color variation (think ham&cheese mottled skintone) are different than shading.
>>2416987
no shit, you fucking retard
>>2417065
it seems to me that you guys are arguing over varied pigmentation vs shading when really, since this is all up in the air, either one could've been something they applied. and yes, I agree those are two different things, though they both address the same issue which is application of color beyond the base coat.
>>2416760
>How was it possible for so much information to be lost in such a relatively short amount of time?
Nothing was lost.
There's different artists and different styles.
Jan van Eyck is a medieval painter.
You don't realize how many different schools, artists and styles there were around. You can't just look at one fresco and one painting and say EVERYONE PAINTED LIKE THIS in the same way that there are thousands of styles today
>>2416760
>>2416771
the church had a sort of monopoly on commissioning art and was dictating artists what to produce and to believe. (along with the rest of the population) the only topic was religion, jesus and saints. the only thing that was important to them was symbolism and worship. things like correct anatomy.perspective and the beauty of the human form were neglected since they were standing in the way of getting the message across. the human race was looked at as unworthy scum that had to obey the church and pay them money so they wouldn't burn in purgatory. nobody else back than had the money or guts to commission artists to paint anything else other than religious stuff. there was just no more "market" or tradition for that (left)
>>2417168
There was so much ballin medieval art
>>2416539
>hurr durrr they traded, so everything must be like i told
Its not getting, better when you just keep repeating it. Your are simply making faulty assumptions between those two things, while you dont actually understand the context.
>>2416883
>the most likely result
To arrive at the conclusion that has the highest probability of being correct you would need to take into consideration such things as the techniques known and widely in use or the pigments available at that time and in that place, even when aren't present in an individual piece belonging to that time and place. When scientists try to reconstruct dinosaur skeletons they don't do it by trying to piece together the few bones they have, they make assumptions about the things they don't know, based on similar species they have data on. The problem with restauration is that the people you get your money from don't want you to make any assumptions, because they might be wrong. I'm not talking out of my ass here, I worked for a restaurator for a few years, and this is actually the common business practice. The obvious problem is that the endresult you arrive at by not being willing to make assumptions is as ridiculous as sticking a few dinosaur bones together without filling in the blanks.
>>2413821
the really fucked up part is they tried to make a greek into a nord the fuck is wrong with historians...
>>2417323
>you would need to take into consideration such things as the techniques known and widely in use or the pigments available at that time and in that place
they're way ahead of you. for pigments, see
>>2415638
as for techniques, most of what I've seen ITT is stuff from the medieval era (aka irrelevant), as well as a few select paintings and mosaics from the greco-roman era (with absolutely no evidence that 2D painting techniques would be applied to sculpture, or that sculpture wouldn't follow the painting style of the surrounding architecture).
nothing wrong with assumptions, just with baseless assumptions.
>>2417329
>implying greeks didn't prize blonde hair
>>2417279
>Its not getting, better when you just keep repeating it. Your are simply making faulty assumptions between those two things, while you dont actually understand the context.
You're doing an awful lot of projecting here.
Humans have been using pigments to paint since roughly 400,000 years.
Trade routes for those kind of substances that could be used for "exotic" colors were really busy in ancient times.
They had access to all the pigments they needed to mix colors.
This is not secret knowledge, the only one being a huge retard here is you.
Just let go, admit to yourself that you were wrong. You are anonymous, nobody will know how wrong you are, just let it go.
>>2417465
>Humans have been using pigments to paint since roughly 400,000 years.
That is just so nothing saying, it is like telling people got clothing for thousands of years, therefore they didnt had any problems making almost all types in every time.
>Trade routes for those kind of substances that could be used for "exotic" colors were really busy in ancient times.
Yes "exoctic", stuff that needed to be transported over vast distances, just you could have something half decent to use.
>They had access to all the pigments they needed to mix colors.
Again this is such a nothing saying sentence, did they had the colors they needed? Were they aviable in the desired amount? Were they reliable or did the paint crumble, bleached with time or simply changed color?
>This is not secret knowledge, the only one being a huge retard here is you.
No, the retard simply is you, because you see pigments as pigments, not as a material with different characteristics and without actually knowing anything about them.
>>2417476
Because he likes to avoid to talk about specific stuff, as long as stuff is kept on a vague level, he can act like he is making sense.
>>2417505
>>2417476
Look at you two losers completely talking out of your ass like the 14 year old autists you are.
Basically everything you had a hard time getting your hands on in medieval europe was in ample supply available in ancient rome.
We already know romans also did lots of painting too. Just hardly any survived.
You guys are complete fools, almost mentally retarded.
>>2417595
>everything you had a hard time getting your hands on in medieval europe was in ample supply available in ancient rome.
citation still needed
>>2417595
Yes, everybody is an idiot but you, that must also be the reason why your post get multiple negative responses and literally no support by other people. Also the amount of insults you throw around combined with your utterly simplistic claims brought for with total arrogance, completes a pretty good picture of you.
>>2417595
You got a pretty simple minded view on those things, it almost looks like you just keep projecting from todays perspective of broadly aviability and multiple choicings, with use and forget useability of todays paints. Middle ages and ancient times were times of constant different supplies aviability and quality. Ultramarine made with lapis lazuli used for a painting could easily made up half of the whole price of the painting in the middle ages, thats why it almost only was used and reserved for the cloth of virgin mary. Some colors were not so broadly aviable, while others e.g. earth tones were dirt cheap, through this some colors became status symbols. Painiting stuff in such bright colors may look odd from a todays perspective, but in those times they simply were something special.
>>2415619
Their art back then took time to develop all the same, several recognized phases actually. Paintings from the Archaic period were largely influenced by Egyptian art and figures were generally flat, rigid and lacking perspective, as well as given bright but unnatural colours to make things look more lively.>>2415625 is from this period, as is your fresco. It's not until after that phase, when you get to the Classical Period, that they really started developing their art and sculpture. Things got more dynamic and natural, poses had weight to them, pieces of art started depicting actual persons rather than nameless people.
Then finally in the Hellenistic period they started putting a lot of effort into the expressiveness of their art and went crazy on details (esp. hair and fabric) and motion as well. That's when they started things like pic related.
>>2417756
My bad, wrong image.
>>2415701
Pupils that don't touch the upper eyelid or don't get properly concealed in shadow make a person look spooked, scared or otherwise uneasy. So you could either just leave the eyeballs blank, make them look to the side, or sculpt them with these bedroom eyes. When viewed from a lower angle it's not as apparent (and a statue of a man with that sort of fame/authority would be elevated/enlarged in some way).
Other than that it does look like a figurehead of some damn carnival wagon with that quality of painting.
well~
>>2417197
the dude on the right dropping his mom's spaghetti
They just detected paint particals on the statue "said ahah, that's yellow!" and had jonny from the janitorial staff paint it yellow. The actual painters were probably plenty competent. Considering nerds the wrold over paint 3 centimeter men to a suprisingly high standard I'd be suprised if the ancients couldn't figure out layers and shadow.
>>2414789
>>2417123
Jan van Eyck was early Netherlandish, part of the Northern Renaissance.
>>2418063
>They just detected paint particals on the statue "said ahah, that's yellow!" and had jonny from the janitorial staff paint it yellow.
they literally did not -just- do that, they used several different methods.
http://www.glyptoteket.com/explore/research/tracking-colour
>>2418101
>le autism
it's obvious what he meant, and you'd think it would be obvious to you that those people disagree with what he said. but apparently you're a bit too dense.
>>2413821
I have the feeling that the actual paints the ancient greeks / romans used were less glossy than that.
They should have seen it looked crappy and not very realistic to have that kind of gloss on the statues.
>>2415663
you should post that pic when someone talks about tumblr nose.
>>2416760
it's stylized you betacuck
