Alchemic fuckery or consummate skill?
another...
contd...
contd..
please be sure you understand what you are looking before you comment...
>That netting
WHAT IN THE ACTUAL FUCK
Probably dipped an actual net in some kind of liquid clay/calcifying agent.
>>2328686
This is what life was like before the internet
You did your thing and that's all you fucking did
Now it's just videogames and shitposting
>>2329079
Oh look we have a 1200s kid over here
>>2329072
probably a real person just dipped in clay.
>>2329120
Well, doing it to a net is pretty easy and practical, so I don't see why they wouldn't have done it. Artists back then weren't autistic neets obsessed with not "cheating". All they cared about was the end result.
>>2329079
enjoy your malaria
>>2329120
Reductio ad absurdum.
>>2329072
Did you even click on the pictures retard? It's obvious that's not how it was done.
>>2330239
Prove it.
>>2330268
Not the same anon
If it was dipped in a calcifying agent it would have more imposed surface texture rather than the smooth finished result maybe?
>>2330281
>>2330268
those grooves are hand filed. It's either from the same block, a second block, or some sort of clay tubes filed after it hardened. It's probably all the same block for everything that touches the model and some extra materials on top, there are places you wouldn't be able to reach without making it a torture to work with.
>>2329072
>>2330239
>>2330268
>>2330281
Stone sculptures used to be polished with files and then a sand and water mixture. It wasn't just all hammer and chisel, so smoothing it wouldn't be a problem. Also the lines could be scored by hand after.
Honestly I'm not sure how it was made, a quick google on the subject throws up some interesting articles.
http://philipcoppens.com/sansevero.html
This one, especially the second to last paragraph, goes into detail about the method I suggested as a possible way of creating the net.
Here's the relevant section for the lazy:
"Like the statue of Disillusionment, by the Genoese sculptor Francesco Queirolo, the net completely surrounds a statue that has already been sculpted, while nevertheless being an integral part of it. How can that be done – sculpting underneath the tiny holes of the net, yet without breaking the net and still being able to sculpt the body to its finest detail? In both cases, the question is how these sculptors were able to cover their works with veils and nets made of marble, for it is clear that there is no other method of achieving the final product? To find two such examples in one chapel suggests that it was di Sangro’s chemical mastery that may have contributed to the solution. How? Some claim that the veils were obtained by crystallizing a base solution of calcium hydrate or slaked lime. Supposedly, the statue was placed in a tub and covered with a wet veil (or net), over which a diluted calcium solution was poured, before the liquid was sprayed with carbon oxide coming from a coal burning oven. The end result is calcium carbonate, i.e. marble, which would then be joined to the rest of the statue."
Not definite proof by any means, but something to think about, rather than resorting to silly name-calling.
>>2329128
>Artists back then weren't autistic neets obsessed with not "cheating"
How would you know, retard?
>>2330312
This is the equivalent of photobashing in sculpture then
>>2330312
That's a really cool theory. Wouldn't it be possible to x-ray the sculptures or use some other technology to verify this theory? Also there are tons of veiled statues done over the centuries, so I don't really buy it. The net looks sculpted as well. But it's a fun idea.
>>2330330
It's way more badass than it, but it true I guess it's comparable?
>>2330348
I think it's more the quality of the veils/netting of these particular sculptures. Though there are a few example of similar things, most are much more simplistic or crude in comparison.
The net can still be sculpted onto after it's calcified. All the fibres of the rope would be filled in by the process and left smooth. I definitely think the lines/groves around the netting have been carved by hand.
Regarding x-raying. I'm not sure if it'd be effective, as the x-rays would probably just pass through a soft structure like rope. I also think it's in an awkward place and unlikely they would risk moving and damaging it.
Also I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't want to test it, as proving it was just a chemical/technical process would take away some of the mystique and impressiveness. Which is a very big selling point, especially to tourists.
As I said though, I really don't know for sure. I think it's cool to be aware of the possibility and alternative explanations though.
>>2330388
I dunno, I feel it would be interesting to test. They probably haven't for practical reasons like you say though. But they x-ray paintings all the time, even take small chips of paint off directly to better understand the layering and measure chemical makeup. I don't think them proving it was done with a chemical process would change anything. They proved Sargent repainted Mme X's face like 8 times, no one cares. And if they prove it was done all by sculpting normally wouldn't that increase the value of it?
>>2329120
damn...
This really does sum up /ic/.
>>2328687
what a fucking master....
>>2330941
Actually try reading the thread.
>>2328686
imagine in the distant future where there is no more photoshop and no artists, everyone is trying to figure out whether you made that chromatic aberration by hand or with magic...
>>2330321
It's a known fact that the old masters did all they could to make shit easier for them. Camera obscura is a great example of that.
>>2329082
top fucking kek
That's all Italian art :)
You anglocucks can only wish you had even a single artist of that level.
>>2329082
kek
