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

341–350 of 351 posts

Re: Classical statues were not painted horribly

#341

Post by arrrg »

mistercheph wrote: post #332
arrrg wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Your central claim is that scholarly academic (mainstream) work ist disconnected from fine arts and as such outside of it, no fit to give meaningful answers.

That seems like a wild and weird take to me, contradiction everything I know about how the world works. But if that is your hypothesis then I don’t know how you can answer ist without actually engaging closely with those who you say are disconnected.

Re: Classical statues were not painted horribly

#342

Post by rurban »

> Why, then, are the reconstructions so ugly? One factor may be that the specialists who execute them lack the skill of classical artists, who had many years of training in a great tradition.

Even worse. They are completely untalented and should have never given the job. Just compare it the existing antique paintings. It's day and night.

Re: Classical statues were not painted horribly

#343

Post by pqtyw »

notahacker wrote: post #154
pqtyw wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well they might as well show the texture of unprocessed marble as well. This is not particularly different.

I mean, showing the texture of the underlying stone is how the vast majority of statues from classical antiquity are displayed, and indeed how most pastiches are created. (and half the objection to the paint jobs comes from the fact we've come to incorrectly associate decorative elements from the classical period with the colours of bare stone)

Associating them with garishly and almost certainly inaccurately (based on pretty much all the indirect evidence we have) painted sculptures doesn't seem like much of an improvement, though?

Re: Classical statues were not painted horribly

#344

Post by xeonmc »

fsckboy wrote: post #166
xg15 wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> The problem is that there is no "missing data" color they should use "green screen green" and give you viewing glasses that fill in the colors to your own historical preference (e.g. rose colored? blood-soaked?). then if you point a finger with your "anhistorical" complaints, there will be 3 fingers pointing back at you!

How about “missing texture magenta”?

Re: Classical statues were not painted horribly

#345

Post by underlipton »

sdiupIGPWEfh wrote: post #339
underlipton wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They didn't fudge the truth. They reported exactly what the scientifically-supportable findings at the time were. Even if they had a notion that they were only looking at underpainting that was covered by more intricate work, they couldn't prove it. And, at the point, when they were trying to draw a distinction between objective fact and subjective sentiment, it was paramount that they come down solidly on the side of objective fact. Which they did. They proved that there was originally a weathered-away chroma layer above the base marble on these statues.

>Folks closer to center see it as controlling the narrative, lies, and conspiracy when the full truth comes out.

And this, I reject. The people who think this way aren't in the center, and they were never interested in the truth. Their aim has always been promoting the primacy of Western classical art (often as part of larger notions of white supremacy). They fought hard for the debunked no-chroma interpretation until another angle presented itself: that the chroma scientists were trying to purposely make the statues seem ugly, in order to devalue Western classical art, or to dictate its value outside of their control and terms. It's the same tack as right-wing gamers claiming that female characters are being made purposely "ugly" in order to alienate male heterosexual gamers.

And while the reason for changes in female representation in games are less objective and more complicated than the scientific inquiry that produced the knowledge of painted statues, most of the people driven to the fringes by the evolution of these topics, as knowledge and circumstances develop, are people who share their fringe (and incorrect) ideas. Implicit there is that there's no "full truth coming out", just a developing collective understanding.

If you want narrative control, lies, and conspiracy, look at Wall Street.

Re: Classical statues were not painted horribly

#346

Post by user____name »

A technique some painters use is to first paint a base layer in a complementary color, or a different temperature -- e.g a cool blue or green base layer versus a warm red on top.

It's a convenient way to get more vibrant looking colors, since depending on the opacity of the second layer you get different levels of saturation and color contrast.

It would be funny if some sculptures use this method and the reconstructions are only based on the bottom layer and turn out to be the exact opposite of what they actually looked like.

Re: Classical statues were not painted horribly

#347

Post by pbhjpbhj »

philistine wrote: post #329
autoexec wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This guy had feathers and they made him the right size https://jurassicpark.fandom.com/wiki/Oviraptor

They didn't revisit any of the previously featured dinosaurs. The T-Rex in the latest film looks like the best science can ascertain ... in 1990.

My knowledge of dinosaurs is a few decades old really - any good sources for a summary of T-rex developments in particular or dinosaurs more generally?

I could imagine there's some great videos out there? I'd be keen to have scientific basis given rather than speculative artwork.

Re: Classical statues were not painted horribly

#348

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

nyeah wrote: post #330
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to nitpick, I can point out that the full quote is "Europeans between about 500 and 1300 mostly couldn't paint"; stress on "about", and those aren't paintings. Besides the comment started by saying that "medieval European art generally sucked", so it covers the work I mention. That's if you want to nitpick. If you don't, both those works are hallmarks of medieval art and while they're not necessarily exem…

It's not nitpicking. 1450 is not between 500 and 1300. You may stress "about" but I certainly didn't. I put the cut-off at 1300 very intentionally. As soon as you go much past 1300, you start to see stuff like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Rublev#/media/File:Rubl... That's some good shit. I see this in Wikipedia dated 1338: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lorenzetti_amb.effect2.jp... Not bad at all. Th…

Well then that's not nitpicking, it's cherry-picking, trying to fit your claim into a specific but arbitrary period. You start by saying "medieval European art", then you reduce that to "between about 500 and 1300". Why between 500 and 1300 specifically? What happened to the other ~200 years?

It doesn't matter. There was plenty of good art between 500 and 1300 too. I mentioned the Rouen cathedral, whose west front, the one with all the statues of saints and the hyper-detailed architecture wikipedia tells me was "first built in the 12th century, entirely redone in the 13th century, and then totally redone again at the end of the 14th century, each time become more lavishly decorated" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rouen_Cathedral#West_front). That's just one example that fits your spec, that I have personally visited. As I say I'm no expert.

Here's another: the sixth-century basilica of San Vitale in Ravenna, Italy, with some of the most famous mosaics ever, including those depicting emperor Justinian, his wife, empress Theodora, and his court, which again Wikipedia tells me were completed in 547.

With a cursory look online I can also find a bunch of other famous art pieces from your chosen period that I haven't seen myself, like e.g.the Diptych of the Virgin and Child Enthroned and the Crucifixion (https://www.artic.edu/artworks/16241/diptych-of-the-virgin-a...) which however is very typical of the ecclesiastical art I've seen in many museums and art galleries I've visited.

So I do think your claim is a bit exaggerated, even if you try to limit the time period carefully. There was always good art made in Europe.

Btw, I'm Greek so I'm not offended by your claim about Europeans, in case there was a lingering doubt about that. The Greek middle ages (i.e. Byzantium) are usually not included in the European middle ages but Byzantium produced absolutely gobsmacking art throughout the medieval so leaving it out is also a bit arbitrary (but that's not your fault).

Re: Classical statues were not painted horribly

#349

Post by delis-thumbs-7e »

notahacker wrote: post #306
delis-thumbs-7e wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you been there? Because the photo you posted does not seem to give a very good representation of those architectual details at all: https://www.alamy.com/stained-glass-window-vitrage-indian-or... Oerhaps they indeed are that garish as in your example, but simple image search shows plenty of examples that seem to suggest the image you posted is simply a very amateurish photograph. After all, European churches are…

Yes, I've been there, and been struck by the toy/disco vibes they gave off despite being an integral part of a beautifully laid out palace, which is why I posted on the subject, but it wouldn't be HN without someone who hasn't been there being contrary for the sake of it... Shockingly, some of the windows look different from other windows and some of the colour combinations and pane shapes look better than others! Th…

You chose literally the worst photo of the subject found on the internet to illustrate your point, so it is completely valid question.

Re: Classical statues were not painted horribly

#350

Post by mcmoor »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #348
nyeah wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not nitpicking. 1450 is not between 500 and 1300. You may stress "about" but I certainly didn't. I put the cut-off at 1300 very intentionally. As soon as you go much past 1300, you start to see stuff like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Rublev#/media/File:Rubl... That's some good shit. I see this in Wikipedia dated 1338: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lorenzetti_amb.effect2.jp... Not bad at all. Th…

Well then that's not nitpicking, it's cherry-picking, trying to fit your claim into a specific but arbitrary period. You start by saying "medieval European art", then you reduce that to "between about 500 and 1300". Why between 500 and 1300 specifically? What happened to the other ~200 years? It doesn't matter. There was plenty of good art between 500 and 1300 too. I mentioned the Rouen cathedral, whose west front, t…

The Rouen Cathedral is so impressive that I find it suspicious since there's nothing like it in that period. I think the "and then totally redone again at the end of the 14th century" (after 1300) carries the answer but I doubt I can find proof of what it looks like before that.

San Vitale is also so impressive that I think it heralds the end of that golden age. Nothing will be like this for 800 freaking years In contrast, that diptych from 1275 looks like it heralds the end of the dark age and it do looks like it (starting to be good but nothing like what'll come after it). So if we cherrypick again a little bit, 550-1250 is quite a long dark age.

Regardless of definition of "medieval" here, there still seems to be a very long contiguous era where there is dearth of good European, especially western/northern, art.

Post reply on HN