Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Classical statues were not painted horribly

worksinprogress.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 351 posts

Re: Classical statues were not painted horribly

#311

Post by IAmBroom »

Geonode wrote: post #28

I will die on this hill, because I'm right. Painters put on the first layer in saturated colors like this, then add detail, highlight and shadow. The base layer stuck to the statues, and the rest was washed away. This whole thing just won't go away because many people are operating outside their area of expertise on this subject. Painters layer paint, starting with a saturated base color. These archaeologists are sim…

Agreed.

Armor historians from the 1960s, all the way back to Victorian age, sat in their offices smoking pipes and imagining what purpose the armor served, and and what constraints molded it.

Then the SCA and Renaissance Faires sprang up, and it was no longer purely theoretical. Recreationist research became a thing. And historical analysis became practical.

The most glaring example are the rectangular epaulets on funereal brasses and sarcophagi. Historian used to claim they were used to deflect blows from the shoulder.

Nothing is flat after a blow. All real armor is built on pressure-spreading arches, often first two-dimensionally, but ultimately in three dimensions (the armor over a 16th-century knight's legs are never conic sections, but more fluid curves).

So, those rectangles? Not defensive metal, but purely decorative, and probably leather or paper-mache. (None survive, and in fact there's some argument they exist only in art.)

Any historian who tried to make one and use it would learn this in a short exercise. But the fallacy survived for decades, because the people were operating outside of their area of expertise, while falsely claiming otherwise with no criticism.

Another example is the still-pervasive myth that medieval people used spice to mask the flavor of spoiled meat; I've heard it used by academics a couple decades ago at a conference presentation. Ever eaten spoiled meat? Ever think to yourself, this bellyache wouldn't be so bad if I didn't taste the source of my poisoning? That myth was tracked back to a singular author in the 1950s, IIRC, and copied without any rational criticism ever since.

Re: Classical statues were not painted horribly

#312

Post by IAmBroom »

griffzhowl wrote: post #163
wisty wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reconstructioniats say that they only show th colours they can prove existed. The article suggests they obstinately do this because they know it creates a spectacle. I think there's another explanation - if they use their own judgement to fill in the gaps (making the statues more classically beautiful) then everyone will accuse them of making it all up, even if they were to base it on fairly rigorous study of e.g. th…

Yes, the suggestion that they're trolling goes too far. However, I did a tiny bit of investigating, and according to this write-up it does seem like Brinkmann presents his work as resembling the originals https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/true-colors-1788... But they still don't add anything without direct evidence - where there's evidence in later statues for more subtle colouring, they include that.

It is possible for Brinkmann to be guilty of showboating, while other researchers are simply being fastidiously proper in what they communicate.

Re: Classical statues were not painted horribly

#313

Post by IAmBroom »

xg15 wrote: post #147
wisty wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reconstructioniats say that they only show th colours they can prove existed. The article suggests they obstinately do this because they know it creates a spectacle. I think there's another explanation - if they use their own judgement to fill in the gaps (making the statues more classically beautiful) then everyone will accuse them of making it all up, even if they were to base it on fairly rigorous study of e.g. th…

The problem is that there is no "missing data" color, so that discipline would default to marble white, which is just as made up as the rest. I think the Augustus statue is a good example of that: Part of the garish effect comes from the contrast between the painted and nonpainted areas. The marble of his face and harness work well if everything is marble - but in contrast to the strong colors of the rest, the face s…

Architectural restoration often solves this by using an inoffense, but still visibly detectable, "new material color". Some British castles have been rebuilt this way.

Re: Classical statues were not painted horribly

#314

Post by IAmBroom »

amarant wrote: post #204
griffzhowl wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, this is what tfa says, and it's a good point. But tfa also points out that the archaeologists/reconstructionists know that what they're producing differs from the original. The thing is the discipline of reconstruction means that they only use pigments that they have direct evidence of, and this is just the saturated underlayers. The problem is this is seldom explained when the reconstructions are presented to t…

Is there someone who tries to achieve beauty similar to what the original might've looked like? Would be interesting to see a painted statue that's actually pleasant to look at, rather than these "let's smear this one pigment we found in the armpit all over the face"-style "reconstructions"

See mkehrt's link ITT.

Re: Classical statues were not painted horribly

#315

Post by IAmBroom »

Geonode wrote: post #286
justinator wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a degree in fine art painting and drawing and that's not correct for oil painting. We would first put on a layer of earth tones, and work from the shadows to the mid tones. Once you got the form correct, you would work on things like adding color, details, and highlights. In no way would you start with saturated colors. One, they're very expensive, so why would you apply them, just for most to be painted over?…

friendly knuckle cracking I wouldn't normally do this, but I did say I'd die on this hill. I'm a tenured professor of art at a major research university. Firstly, maybe I shouldn't have said "saturated," but then again, you wouldn't argue that your earth tones, for example Yellow Ochre or Burnt Sienna aren't saturated in color? I have a particular expertise in historical scenic painting, (granted, largely for theatri…

> Firstly, maybe I shouldn't have said "saturated," but then again, you wouldn't argue that your earth tones, for example Yellow Ochre or Burnt Sienna aren't saturated in color?

I think you are confusing a definition of saturation meaning "unable to absorb more" with the visual perception definition.

Optical Engineer here, but AFAIK artists use the term the same way: "saturation" refers to how the color is free of both white- and black-shading, "degree of non-grayness" if you will.

The outer ring of this image is fully saturated; you'll see that "muddy" colors like ochre and sienna don't occur there.

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi...

Re: Classical statues were not painted horribly

#316

Post by IAmBroom »

bethekidyouwant wrote: post #282
justinator wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a degree in fine art painting and drawing and that's not correct for oil painting. We would first put on a layer of earth tones, and work from the shadows to the mid tones. Once you got the form correct, you would work on things like adding color, details, and highlights. In no way would you start with saturated colors. One, they're very expensive, so why would you apply them, just for most to be painted over?…

Romans didn’t have oil paints

That wasn't claimed.

Re: Classical statues were not painted horribly

#317

Post by IAmBroom »

the_af wrote: post #44
fsloth wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"many people are operating outside their area of expertise on this subject." Exactly. I takes years of really hard work to get good at this stuff. Decades. I do realize research budgets are not that awesome, but when claims are of aesthetic in nature (explicitly and implicitly) and deal with human craftmanship there should definetly be collaboration with also craftsmen subject experts. A good example where this was e…

> I do realize research budgets are not that awesome, but when claims are of aesthetic in nature (explicitly and implicitly) and deal with human craftmanship there should definetly be collaboration with also craftsmen subject experts. Do we know for a fact this didn't happen in this case?

The article makes very explicit proofs, in showing paintings of painted sculptures, where the sculptures are painted with very appealing, naturalistic hues.

Re: Classical statues were not painted horribly

#318

Post by IAmBroom »

philistine wrote: post #210
Geonode wrote: post #28

I will die on this hill, because I'm right. Painters put on the first layer in saturated colors like this, then add detail, highlight and shadow. The base layer stuck to the statues, and the rest was washed away. This whole thing just won't go away because many people are operating outside their area of expertise on this subject. Painters layer paint, starting with a saturated base color. These archaeologists are sim…

I will die on an adjacent hill: when the details had washed away with time leaving behind merely the sturdier and ugly base, people removed the garish base coat cause that thing is uuugggo! Our ancestors were thinking what we're thinking: It looks better white than with only a base.

Like spraypainting over graffitti with a drab color that doesn't match the original stone perfectly.

Re: Classical statues were not painted horribly

#319

Post by IAmBroom »

twelvechairs wrote: post #217
Geonode wrote: post #28

I will die on this hill, because I'm right. Painters put on the first layer in saturated colors like this, then add detail, highlight and shadow. The base layer stuck to the statues, and the rest was washed away. This whole thing just won't go away because many people are operating outside their area of expertise on this subject. Painters layer paint, starting with a saturated base color. These archaeologists are sim…

The other side is lack of colourfast pigments back then. Underlayers would be cheap and colourfast. Top layers would usually be more expensive and deteriorate much more quickly.

Most colourfast pigments are minerals, and many of them are found in the natural world (purple hues being notoriously absent). Ultramarine, cadmium red, and lead white have been known since ancient times.
Post reply on HN