Top
Best
New

Posted by bensouthwood 6 days ago

Classical statues were not painted horribly(worksinprogress.co)
629 points | 330 commentspage 2
langleyi 5 days ago|
A thought I had halfway through reading this article: if, hypothetically, early Medieval European art had been lost, how would it be reconstructed by modern scholars?

Would they accurately capture the lack of 'naturalism' (i.e. that flat, almost cartoonish quality) that often strikes modern viewers of Medieval art, or would they make it 'better', interpolating the gap between Roman and Renaissance styles?

This article hints at the idea that classical sculpture can't have been painted like that, because _it looks bad_ and Romans couldn't possibly have thought it looked good, yet early Medieval art was — presumably — perfectly acceptable to the tastemakers of Medieval Europe.

esperent 6 days ago||
I've literally never heard anyone say that classical statues were painted "horribly", and unless I missed it, there's no sources in this article that say that, either (just several links to the same New Yorker article talking about whiteness).

What I've always heard is that classical statues were painted "brightly".

So, is this something that's so well known in the study of antiquities that no source was required, or has the author just got a personal bugbear here?

qsort 6 days ago||
I believe the argument isn't that ancient statues were ugly, but rather that reconstructions are ugly (unfortunately this has been used to argue against the now ascertained fact that ancient statues were indeed painted). Purely subjective judgement from someone not trained in the arts: that photo of the Augusto di Prima Porta doesn't look like a great paint-job. The idea that, like the statue itself, the painting must instead have been a great work of art lost to time seems solid to me.
thaumasiotes 5 days ago||
> the now ascertained fact that ancient statues were indeed painted

"Now ascertained"? Ancient sources specifically say they were painted.

some_random 5 days ago|||
For what it's worth, the "fact" Greco-Roman statues were painted garishly was taught in a packed auditorium to me in an art history gen-ed by a PhD. The specific judgement of painted "horribly" wasn't used but it was obviously incredibly ugly.
sebastianmestre 6 days ago|||
I think the pictures of the reconstructions are source enough, they look horrible
ratatoskrt 6 days ago||
I disagree.
pmichaud 6 days ago|||
It made immediate sense to me, since the painted statues do, in fact, look gaudy and horrible. I think he was evoking a widely held feeling that is bot in common knowledge.
pqtyw 5 days ago|||
Why would the painting style they used for statues be so massively different from frescoes, mosaics and paintings during the same period, though?
notahacker 5 days ago|||
Statues were typically large and outdoors and viewed at a distance, frescoes were typically viewed in close proximity and needed details adding to not look completely flat. Some of those also were rather "garish" compared with modern tastes, particularly when freshly painted and not after years of fading and being covered up (and very sensitively restored according to protocols which frown on adding pigment)
larkost 5 days ago|||
I did find it odd that there was no discussion about whether those other media now represent the exact colors that they had when they were originally created. I know from experience that colors fade, but the argument seems to ignore that.

I also know that most of the old paintings that we have today have been though multiple rounds of "refreshment" in order to counter both the fading and dirt/soot that they were exposed to over the years (remember: most of these were displayed by torchlight/lamplight/candlelight for centuries). Nowadays there is a real emphasis on trying to produce an original ascetic, but that has not always been the case.

So I would want a better discussion of how accurate those "standard candles" are.

stephen_g 5 days ago|||
As a data point, I had mostly only seen what the author is complaining about in the past, with articles having more of the "you won't believe what ancient statues actually looked like" angle and implying that it's just our taste that changed.

So I definitely feel that I was misled by what I had read and seen about painted statues (though I was always a bit sceptical), even though everything I'd seen was from secondary sources (news sites etc.), and not articles or papers written by the reconstructioninsts themselves, so I don't blame them directly.

indoordin0saur 5 days ago|||
I personally noticed this when shown these reconstructions. I remember being puzzled at the ugliness when going to a museum. This article actually makes a lot of sense.
tootie 5 days ago|||
Yeah same. I took a course on this years ago and it was explained that the garish colors were to make the statues more visible at long distances. Nuance would be lost. A lot of collosal roman sculpture was designed with the perspective of the viewer in mind. Proportions were exaggerated based on where they were being viewed from.
austern 5 days ago||
I saw the traveling _Gods in Color_ exhibit when it came to San Francisco, which is where some or all of the images in this article come from. I don't think the exhibit glossed over the fact that these reconstructions are speculative, and that we can't know for sure what the originals looked like.

One quote I remember from the exhibit, which I looked up to make sure I got the wording right, was an anecdote about one of the most famous Greek sculptors, as recorded by Pliny: "When asked which of his works in marble he liked the most, Praxiteles used to say: ‘Those to which Nikias has set his hand’—so highly did he esteem his coloring of the surface."

One takeaway from that quote is the obvious: one reason we know that ancient statues were painted is that ancient authors said so. Another takeaway is that the painters, not just the sculptors, were famous, and the ancients recognized that some were better than others.

rob74 6 days ago||
> But they fail to correct the belief that people naturally form given what is placed before them: that the proffered reconstruction of ancient sculpture is roughly what ancient sculpture actually looked like.

I'm pretty sure many museums with reconstructions of classical statues have a note on this topic somewhere on a plaque beside the statues - but who reads those?

pqtyw 5 days ago|
I fail to understand what's the point in even having those reconstructions there if we are fairly certainly they looked nothing alike the originals. Making them pure white seems less dishonest.
stephen_g 5 days ago||
I do agree, but there is still a valid logic behind what is shown because it's only using the pigments that there is direct evidence on the statue for - but to stop this confusion, maybe there should be three versions of each statue at these kind of exhibitions (assuming these are all replica castings and they're not re-painting the originals!) - a blank one to appreciate the unpainted form, the reconstruction of the base layer that only has the pigments found in the crevices (what this article is complaining about), and then an artists impression of what it probably looked like properly shaded (given that we have the evidence of painted statues as shown in the article).

Then you could still have the evidentially "pure" one, but also have a more likely rendering to reduce confusion.

renewiltord 5 days ago||
I think this is just one of those instances where historians go for “most justifiable” vs. “most likely”. E.g. all dinosaurs were stretched skin, fatless, featherless because that’s the minimum thing that fits the evidence.

Likewise, where there is paint these guys have recreated it so. But over time we will find that there were more layers more likely to fail over time and so on.

delis-thumbs-7e 5 days ago||
Some of the best surviving examples of greco-roman use of colour are from Pompei. You can go and look at them yourselves, the Museo Archeologico in Napoli is a fantastic place to visit: https://www.museoarcheologiconapoli.it/en/portfolio-item/tem...

All the garish colours were prob heavily muted or diluted with varnish/oil. You don’t pant an artwork like a house, it is a layered technique and fairly similar to historic painting techniques used today:

https://emptyeasel.com/2014/12/02/how-to-paint-using-the-fle...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grisaille

TacticalCoder 5 days ago||
> It is often suggested that modern viewers dislike painted reconstructions of Greek and Roman statues because our taste differs from that of the ancients.

Yeah. I cannot thank enough those other ancients who dug up all statues and assumed they were all white.

I'm thinking about Michelangelo's The Pieta and oh so many others. Call it a lucky accident or "differing taste" or "mastering new techniques" or whatever you want, I take Michelangelo's The Pieta vs these "correctly re-colored" statues from early Rome any time.

Even once it's been fully known they used to be flashy, hardly anyone started sculpting masterpiece then asking kids to color them: I'm thinking about late 19th Rodin's The Kiss for example.

Just like our usage of the toilets, our taste evolved, not differed.

andrewl 6 days ago||
One idea of how ancient statues might have been colored can be seen on the pediment of the Philadelphia Museum of Art:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pediment,_Philly_Art...

DuperPower 6 days ago||
Loved the article, the author is a smart person to doubt the changing taste hypothesis, I think everything based on "we are smarter and have better taste that the ancients" have to be extremely doubted, knowing we, the west, are the same society since the romans is so humbling
ijk 5 days ago||
Is there a changing taste hypothesis? It's honestly the first time I've heard that suggested as the explanation, versus the more plausible to me idea of reconstruction from incomplete evidence.
notahacker 5 days ago||
I mean, some change in taste is indisputable fact: we like our classical statues in bare marble but we know Romans generally painted them in some way. The Romans also didn't build brutalist buildings or listen to rock music. Nothing about this change in taste necessarily implies that we're smarter than them.

We're clearly not the same society since the Romans either, whilst we take a certain amount of influence from them and other ancestors (and a certain amount more from idealised conceptions of them) we're not a unified state under one Emperor or a mostly agricultural society, don't think that slavery is part of the natural order, consult oracles or worship Jupiter and have big ideas about the importance of human rights and the necessity of universal education.

tokai 5 days ago|
Just as classicists might not be the best painters, metaphysics should stay out of criticizing methodology. Ralph seems completely clueless of the research literature, and is basing his whole argument on vibes from looking at some pictures. Ridiculous.
More comments...