4 ms·
I knew that ancient architecture was usually vividly painted, but it didn't occur to me that the statues might be as well. The interesting thing is how nowadays
by lmkg 16y ago
I knew that ancient architecture was usually vividly painted, but it didn't occur to me that the statues might be as well. The interesting thing is how nowadays we model buildings and statues after our notion of what classical art looked like, but the models were never intended to look like that. It's almost cargo-cultish, in its own way. Of course, the non-color elements like the shapes and the proportions still stand through, and those are definitely worthy of study. But painting such a sculpture or building like this would probably be outright offensive to some people.
The color-restored versions somehow look less... impressive with the colors on, but that could be just because I'm used to thinking of the colorless versions as more regal. On the other hand, black-and-white photographs look more artistic as well, so it could be something about the lack of color itself.
If you want to see how ancient classical buildings looked when they were in use, check out the old British TV series "I, Claudius." It's strange to see everything so bright and garish, but it's accurate in spirit, if not in detail.
- Ardit20 16y agoOffensive? I think the sculptures with colours on, especially the one of the archer, is absolutely gorgeous. I think also that painting buildings would add some variety and brightness to the dull streets of cities. The problem is of course however that paint wears off quite often.
- lsb 16y agoBack in Roman times, and even today, it's common to have cheap durable plain wallpaint up to a yard above the floor, and then fancier decoration above.
- zmmz 16y agoThe approach of painting cities was taken by mayor Edi Rama in Tirana (Albania) to aesthetically revive the "concrete jungle" style eastern bloc buildings: http://www.vagabondjourney.com/travelogue/colorful-painted-buildings-of-tirane/ http://www.vagabondjourney.com/travelogue/colorful-painted-b... While the interior remains as depressing as ever, the response has been very positive. I imagine it has the same psychological effect of waking up to a sunny vs rainy day.
- chbarts 16y ago> I imagine it has the same psychological effect of waking up to a sunny vs rainy day. And once again, I'm reminded that I'm one of the few people energized by gray, drizzly days.
- lsb 16y agoThere's a gorgeous villa that Nero owned at Oplontis. It was dug up under 50 years ago, so the air hasn't degraded the fresco quality at all. It looks, to the untrained eye, like a Donatella Versace set for Saturday Night Live. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oplontis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oplontis http://www.tripadvisor.com/LocationPhotos-g187786-d622819-Oplontis-Pompeii_Campania.html http://www.tripadvisor.com/LocationPhotos-g187786-d622819-Op...
- 10ren 16y agoI prefer the sketches of cartoons to the finished, painted product. Perhaps I appreciate the texture of shapes, or seeing how things are made, or their underlying structure; but successful cartoonists tend to go on to paint them. It may be to do with mainstream art (which ancient statues were in their time) tries to be as vibrant as possible, like commercial art today.
- jcl 16y agoFor what it's worth, unpainted marble has a much higher degree of subsurface scattering (light diffusion within the material) than a painted surface does, which makes it a more lifelike approximation to flesh -- deemphasizing surface detail and softening the transition from light to shadow. Wax has the same property, which is one of the reasons wax figures look so realistic. Examples of computer-generated images with and without subsurface scattering can be seen on Henrik Wann Jensen's page. In particular, see the images of the lips: http://graphics.ucsd.edu/~henrik/images/subsurf.html http://graphics.ucsd.edu/~henrik/images/subsurf.html
- gcv 16y agoIt is a little cargo cultish. The architecture looks good, though, and that's what counts, and why it continues to be influential. I'm rather more annoyed with idiotic signs on buildings which say "PVBLIC BVILDING" or "COVRT HOVSE". Just because Latin does not need to distinguish between "u" and "v" in writing (they're unambiguous in context as either a vowel or a consonant), does not justify torturing English.
- wallflower 16y agoJust in case anyone did not know: 'V' was a lot easier to chisel than 'U' (why they are interchangeable)
- samatman 16y agoIncorrect. The letter U was simply not a part of the Roman/Latin alphabet. It, and the letter W, were Carolingian-era developments. Besides: why would "U" be hard to chisel compared to, say, "R"?
- imd 16y agoI'm no expert on the antiquities of English, but they were interchangable in English in Shakespeare's time. Here are some asciified lines from Macbeth: I goe, and it is done: the Bell inuites me. Heare it not, Duncan, for it is a Knell, That summons thee to Heauen, or to Hell.
- orborde 16y agoAre you sure that isn't just cruddy OCR?
- lesterbuck 16y agoApparently U and J came into English in the sixteenth century as undifferentiated alternatives, and were split into separate letters about 1700. It was very surprising to me to learn that English picked up three new letters only three hundred years ago. Note that "w" is pronounced "double U" rather than "double V", which seems to not be an accident. http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2696/why-is-the-alphabet-in-alphabetical-order http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2696/why-is-the-alp...