Classical statues were not painted horribly • Hacker News Board

Re: Classical statues were not painted horribly

#331

Post by nyeah » Fri, Dec 19, 2025, 5:56 PM UTC

archagon wrote: post #225

nyeah wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"some anon on a tech forum" Don't sell yourself short. Post some art from those 800 years that doesn't suck, and I'll change my views. Sure, there's plenty of crap in 20th century art. I've seen examples of that. But that's a different subject.

Like I said, I find the majority of European art before 1800 or so to be fairly dull, so I can't really answer this question. The prevailing technique improved remarkably post-Renaissance, and that's enjoyable to an extent, but the same themes get repeated over and over and over again. If you're looking for art with an impact, the iconography of Andrei Rublev (and other icon painters during this period) is still mass…

Oh. My. God.

Andrei Rublev, 1360-1430? This dude? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Rublev#/media/File:Rubl...

Yeah he's good, that's obvious. Klimt cribbed from Rublev I bet. Naturalism was never the topic. But note that Rublev didn't do much work between AD500 and AD1300. Because not born yet. This is precisely why I wrote down dates, and why I am insisting on counterexamples instead of vague generalities.

Re: Classical statues were not painted horribly

#332

Post by mistercheph » Fri, Dec 19, 2025, 6:01 PM UTC

arrrg wrote: post #303

mistercheph wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who is inside and who is outside depends on your (subjective) spatial interpretation of the situation. It could just as well be said that a bunch of scholars disconnected from the culture, history, and technique of fine arts (except as objects of scholarly interest) are wildly speculating from the outside about the nature of the objects, and people interested in these things are starting to ask "Why are these silly t…

How do you think public discourse spaces are created? By approaching and talking to people when you write about them! That doesn’t just magically happen … I merely would have expected some humility when you characterize the work of other scholars from the outside without even talking to them. (Outside here is relative. Whenever you talk about scientific of scholarly work without talking to the people who do the work…

> Whenever you talk about scientific of scholarly work without talking to the people who do the work you are on the outside

You are ignoring what I said and just reasserting your hegemonic view of scholarly institutions / scientific work. On the contrary, if you zoom out it becomes obvious that our academic research in these matters is ephemeral heat and noise that gets rolled into the dustbins of time.

Re: Classical statues were not painted horribly

#333

Post by lo_zamoyski » Fri, Dec 19, 2025, 6:02 PM UTC

IAmBroom wrote: post #323

lo_zamoyski wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Renaissance is really the tail end of the Middle Ages historically, and the name is a bit of propaganda, just like "Enlightenment". People flatter themselves.

> The Renaissance is really the tail end of the Middle Ages historically And the Space Age is really the tail end of the Steam Age. Human history doesn't have any sharp divisors, aside from total genocides or the even rare natural disasters on the scale of Pompeii's demise. The admittedly artificial definition of the start of the Renaissance, however, does help frame an explosive growth of useful new tools in art (an…

You're missing the point.

Obviously, there is no sharp line. That is too trivial to mention. But the distinction is made, because it captures something about the characteristic spirit of an age.

In the received black legends of whig history, the Renaissance is typically presented as some kind of enlightened rift with and rebellion against the supposedly dark and evil Middle Ages, but in some sense, it is more accurate to view it as a culmination of the Middle Ages or something continuous with it.

You will find great rifts later on with the rise of modernism.

Re: Classical statues were not painted horribly

#334

Post by lo_zamoyski » Fri, Dec 19, 2025, 6:26 PM UTC

nyeah wrote: post #258

lo_zamoyski wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your exposure to medieval art must be very limited. I have seen some very magnificent pieces of medieval art personally. And paintings are a small part of what falls under "medieval art". Include those in the category, please. And there is another element to consider, which is the purpose of the art. Medieval art was not concerned so much with realism, but with the symbolic. I wonder: do you think Byzantine icons "su…

Do you just want to generalize, or do you want to provide a counterexample? Fine either way.

Stop being an obnoxious pest.

What would be the point? Any example given will be met with some snarky and ignorant remark. Veit Stoss's Krakow triptych? Gentile da Fabriano's "Adoration of the Magi"? Byzantine art, like Monreale Cathedral? The Christ Pantocrator icon from St. Catherine's Monastery? Romanesque and gothic cathedrals? Ornate illuminated manuscripts? Shall I continue? You don't have to like medieval art, but claiming it "sucks" is not only generalizing (your very accusation in this thread), but it is boorish and ignorant. You've already gotten more "discussion" out of this topic than you deserve.

So, go troll somewhere else.

Re: Classical statues were not painted horribly

#335

Post by lo_zamoyski » Fri, Dec 19, 2025, 6:30 PM UTC

bee_rider wrote: post #257

lo_zamoyski wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Borderline deception is a bad way to correct inaccurate knowledge. And frankly, if I wanted to ridicule the ancients and flatter my own age, I could think of no better way than to make the old stuff look bad. I would much rather have an exhibit that showed the bare marble, then a conservative reconstruction based on what direct evidence merits (to the degree possible, noting that it is not a complete reconstruction),…

I think it is hard to say to what extent there actually is even borderline deception. The internet amplifies random and funny things. In this article (which, we should note, is even-handed but leaning skeptical toward the garish reconstructions), it is noted that the images that have spread are the ugliest of the exhibit. If the exhibit tells the full story, and the internet just amplified the silt bits, that’s not d…

That's true, but IIRC, the official "marketing" material is guilty of the same thing. I may be misremembering, though.

Re: Classical statues were not painted horribly

#336

Post by nyeah » Fri, Dec 19, 2025, 8:20 PM UTC

lo_zamoyski wrote: post #334

nyeah wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you just want to generalize, or do you want to provide a counterexample? Fine either way.

Stop being an obnoxious pest. What would be the point? Any example given will be met with some snarky and ignorant remark. Veit Stoss's Krakow triptych? Gentile da Fabriano's "Adoration of the Magi"? Byzantine art, like Monreale Cathedral? The Christ Pantocrator icon from St. Catherine's Monastery? Romanesque and gothic cathedrals? Ornate illuminated manuscripts? Shall I continue? You don't have to like medieval art,…

I checked your first example. It's from 1423, well outside the time period 500-1300. If you have valid examples, including the other works you mentioned above, please provide dates. I'm a little tired of doing that for people.

Adoration of the Magi, 1423. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoration_of_the_Magi_(Gentile...

Re: Classical statues were not painted horribly

#337

Post by griffzhowl » Fri, Dec 19, 2025, 9:43 PM UTC

rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote: post #295

griffzhowl wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There might even be a directish connection, one way or the other, between garum and SE Asian fish sauce, since Roman coins have been found in Vietnam. Can't find the better source on that specifically now but this is a nice article about the Roman trade with India and mentions the coins found in Vietnam and even Korea about half way down https://www.thecollector.com/why-was-the-roman-indian-ocean-... On the other han…

Worcestershire sauce is also considered a descendent of the fish sauces from ancient Rome.

That's funny, I thought Worcestershire sauce was based on some Asian fish sauce because it has the colonial ingredients like tamarind etc. I had a look on wiki and seems it's not known where the recipe comes from but it dates from the 19th century

Re: Classical statues were not painted horribly

#338

Post by Geonode » Fri, Dec 19, 2025, 9:58 PM UTC

IAmBroom wrote: post #315

Geonode wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bo…

The difference here could be because we're in different fields. We would call what you're referring to as "chroma." In historical palettes, almost no colors had that intensity of color at the top of your image. In pigment, a color can be extremely saturated and very dark. I submit this random video I found: https://www.tiktok.com/@color.nerd/video/7215966155071163691...

Re: Classical statues were not painted horribly

#339

Post by sdiupIGPWEfh » Sat, Dec 20, 2025, 3:44 AM UTC

underlipton wrote: post #285

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…

This is crucial. From the article: > As a result, we internalized a deep-seated attachment to an unblemished white image of Greek and Roman art. We became, to use David Bachelor’s term, chromophobes. It is this accidental association between Greek and Roman art and pristine white marble, we are told, that accounts for the displeasure we feel when we see the statues restored to color. And there's indeed been quite a…

Maybe it's just me, but this "We have to fudge the truth because nuance would support the alt-right" business just seems to drive a bigger wedge into the political divide than would just being reasonable. Folks closer to center see it as controlling the narrative, lies, and conspiracy when the full truth comes out. I'd prefer not driving more people into the fringes.

Re: Classical statues were not painted horribly

#340

Post by sdiupIGPWEfh » Sat, Dec 20, 2025, 3:52 AM UTC

bdr wrote: post #248

griffzhowl wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They only started adding feathers after they found evidence of them being feathered, though. Plus there's zero direct evidence for their colours so there's no option but to use guesswork in these cases. And a lot of dinosaur reconstructions may be more for edutainment value rather than reflecting a scholarly best-guess. There's no uniform methodology across all these disciplines.

> Plus there's zero direct evidence for their colours This is no longer true! Starting with Sinosauropteryx in 2010, paleontologists have identified what they believe to be fossilized melanin-containing organelles. These organelles, called melanosomes, have different shapes depending on which color they produce, and those shapes are preserved well enough to be visible under an electron microscope.

Isn't a rather good deal of color from feathers a result of "structural color", rather than pigmentation? I'd be curious if fossilized feathers could ever, in theory, preserve enough microscopic detail to guess at that.