WHITE OR COLORED?

[Tarbicus]

Any Artist is going to use 'light and shade'etc.

No they're not, especially when the Sun itself does the job of adding light and shade, the detail having exquisitely been added with a chisel and files. etc. This is definitely a case of modern tastes and thinking being heaped onto a foreign and ancient people with a bulldozer. I haven't seen any evidence so far of shading statues that is pre-Giotto, which is a thousand years later.

Also, there are plenty of examples of painted statues which are being completely ignored, even from modern times, that are not shaded and unsullied by the Renaissance and modern Western influences:

http://static.flickr.com/42/125072730_b ... 31.jpg?v=0



http://www.adriannesonline.com/images/stat1a.jpg

http://dbc.dharmakara.net/img/shakya05.jpg



http://static.flickr.com/38/123674622_5 ... d4.jpg?v=0

http://www.cntravel.biz/china_tour_dest ... 0024wm.jpg



Notice anything familiar?

[Paullus Scipio]

Fair comment, Tarbicus,...........up to a point!
Neither ancient egyptian culture nor ( I think) Sri Lankan/Indian culture is the same as Roman...and I notice you didn't mention the Pompeii painting earlier in the thread.
You have to look at contemporary Roman Art to judge 'style'.

Certainly it is possible your point is quite correct - other cultures used a 'flat' style of painting on 3D sculptures - but you simply cannot compare, in terms of artistic sophistication, crude Egyptian painting/sculpture with Classical Greek/Roman. In fact, in one sense, your point argues against you - the Egyptian statues look like Egyptian paintings -stiff and flat, and similar in style.
Isn't it likely therefore that Roman statues were painted in styles contemporary with paintings of the period ???

regards, Paullus Scipio/ Paul McDonnell-Staff

[TITVS SABATINVS AQVILIVS]

I guess that Greeks and Romans painted them with a more "live" touch, not only a bare colouring of the different materials (skin, hair, fabric), after so much work of hard sculpting and mirror polishing marble, could they simply "brush" the statue with colorured pigments? It's just kids stuff...

Better something like this:





Valete,

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Being used to the blank statues, the idea of couloured statues was a bit revulsive to start, but after finding that link on the primaporta and the other recreations, I have become an instant convert!

The colours give them a life that the blank stone only hints at.

And as they were painted by contemporaries, the tunic debate should be well on its way to being settled! :lol:

The technique used seems to allow a pretty accurate recreation of the original colours, which will halp us re-enactors a great deal, I would think.

So.... coloured it is!

[Tarbicus]

Fair comment, Tarbicus,...........up to a point!
Neither ancient egyptian culture nor ( I think) Sri Lankan/Indian culture is the same as Roman...

TheBuddha statues are Indin, Sri Lankan, and Chinese, which covers two continents and are done in a very traditional style going back further than the Renaissance or Pegaso.

and I notice you didn't mention the Pompeii painting earlier in the thread.
You have to look at contemporary Roman Art to judge 'style'.

Just as real people's clothing wasn't 'highlighted' in reality in that painting, nor their bodies, it's safe to assume that neither was the statue.

Certainly it is possible your point is quite correct - other cultures used a 'flat' style of painting on 3D sculptures - but you simply cannot compare, in terms of artistic sophistication, crude Egyptian painting/sculpture with Classical Greek/Roman.

I believe I can, as I've pointed out that decorating statues is an entirely different thing to a flat painting, where the painting does not have the benefit of the sun and other actual light to make a subject look natural. The pigments when investigated using the latest techniques reveal nothing about shading which, IMHO, would surely be visible anyway, as a darker pigment is different to a lighter pigment.

In fact, in one sense, your point argues against you - the Egyptian statues look like Egyptian paintings -stiff and flat, and similar in style.
Isn't it likely therefore that Roman statues were painted in styles contemporary with paintings of the period ???

No, and the theories that Roman sculpture was highlighted is purely based on a modern mindset and assumptions, just as Hyland's theories on Roman cavalry riding ignore other cultures and evidence more akin to Roman riding practices, only taking into account techniques based on riding with stirrups.

Not only was Rome a past culture, it's also a very foreign land often with modern views forced on it. A different people with different gods, economy, culture, attitudes, beliefs, technology, etc, etc. Sometimes I think they may just as well have been from Mars (no pun intended :wink: ).

If evidence turned up on a statue to say there was shading then fine, or in some primary source's description saying clearly it was done. But until then, the only bona fide reconstructions using scientific methods show them to have been flat painted. The rest is wishful thinking, I think, and explains more about Hollywood than the ancients.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I always assumed shading was used in painting to give it a realistic, 3-D look. So why would you 'shade' a real 3-D object? It would not be necessary. :?

[Paullus Scipio]

Oh dear, Tarbicus, I fear we are in danger of falling into heated debate !!

....and on a subject that can't be definitive.

Whatever the period, Egyptian/Indian/SriLankan/Chinese culture is as "alien" to Roman as our own and comparisons are therefore inappropriate, or irrelevant.

You didn't really address the question of the Pompeii painting ( and I believe others too ), or the fact that in most cultures, painted statuary will reflect contemporary painting styles.The reference to people and clothes is not relevant, either.

As to your point about different tones showing up in the analysis, that may be true, but isn't it more likely that they "sampled" spots at intervals than that they examined the entire surface? Only more detailed information can resolve that question.

As you have seen above, I agree with you that Rome as a culture is as alien as Mars, despite all the things we think we know.But we can deduce various things from what we do know. I do not say you are wrong, your hypothesis is certainly possible, but on balance of probability, and in the light of absence of solid fact, I think the 'style' link between painting and painted sculpture will be much the same, as in most cultures.

The present analysis simply confirms that the statues were painted and some indication of colour, not HOW they were painted.

One point to note before re-enactors embrace these colours is that it is obvious that in many cases the painter has a very limited palate, sometimes only three or four colours(e.g the Alexander sarcophogus)

As a final throw into the balance, medieaval culture is often regarded as a continuation ( if on a less sophisticated level than high roman .....no central heating for a start !! ) and as can be seen above, their sculpture painting was way ahead of crude Egyptian etc styles........

Let us agree that much more information and analysis is required before any conclusions can be asserted.....

regards, Paullus Scipio/Paul McDonnell-Staff

[Tarbicus]

You didn't really address the question of the Pompeii painting ( and I believe others too ), or the fact that in most cultures, painted statuary will reflect contemporary painting styles.

I did, quite clearly, address the Pompeii statue in a painting. Very clearly. :?

Just as real people's clothing wasn't 'highlighted' in reality in that painting, nor their bodies, it's safe to assume that neither was the statue.

The reference to people and clothes is not relevant, either.

It absolutely is and proves nothing about the shading theory.

Let us agree that much more information and analysis is required before any conclusions can be asserted.....

I don't have to, it's already been done and resides in museums as we type. Rock hard, solid scientific reconstruction. Where's yours?

[Tarbicus]

More references:

http://mandarb.net/virtual_gallery/scul ... kore.shtml

http://mandarb.net/virtual_gallery/scul ... rgon.shtml

http://www.classics.cam.ac.uk/Museum/peplostext.html

[Tarbicus]

In fact, I may have answered the debate based on the result of proper analysis and research. It may seem odd to say I'm wrong, but I don't mind at all.

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2004/2004-08-07.html

The results are striking, especially the upward-looking eyes -- unexpected around 40 C.E. -- and the use of black in between hair locks as well as an undercoating that provides highlights in the total coiffure (figs. 372-376).

A black undercoating was also detected in the valleys between the ridges of drapery on the Parthenon sculptures, thus enhancing their three-dimensional effect.

[Paullus Scipio]

Like I said, we don't have enough information to know for reasons set out above that I need not repeat.

There are no "rock hard, solid , scientific reconstructions", merely bare indicators of colour, and no hard evidence ( so far) of how it was applied.

At least concede that views such as mine or Titus Sabatinus are at least equally likely ?

In any event, we are drifting off topic - my vote is COLOURED, but with strong reservations as to both the limited palates illustrated and the fact that scientific evidence that a'red' paint was used tells us nothing about which shade of red, or even how many shades of red, and certainly not the style of painting ( which doubtless differed from early to late Roman times, just as painting did)

regards, Paullus Scipio/paul McDonnell-Staff

[Tarbicus]

See my previous post.

[Paullus Scipio]

I hadn't seen your last post when I sent mine, but surely your latest simply illustrates my points?
1. The Kore - they admit the reconstruction is speculative- the eyes and eyebrows,- and whether the tunic is green or blue - it is well known that blue pigments turn green over time in art circles. and a statue from 500b.c. Greece is way removed both in time and culture from Imperial or Late Roman works anyway - Mediaeval painted sculpture is actually closer in time and cultural background than this !!!

2 and 3. As above and on the last,is that shading we see on the reproduction ? (which doesn't prove anything anyway since it is speculative ! - tells us too little about the original !! )

Interesting that by the time we get close to the imperial era, we do ( judging by the excerpt you supply) get highlights and shading, including the black undercoat, which technique many modern modellers would instantly recognise and refer to as "under-shading"!!

My hat is off, sir, to your impressive and diligent research !!

regards, in humility, Paullus Scipio/Paul McDonnell-Staff

[Tarbicus]

I now have no problem with the idea that painting on Imperial statuary had shading. But bearing in mind that the Roman period is so extensive, we don't know if that was the case with Republican statuary, or at least earlier statuary. The point is to base our knowledge on what can be proven, and research, and not the same mistake the Victorians did, who actually changed armour to suit their own aesthetic. The question now is, how much shading was on the paintwork? :wink:

[Paullus Scipio]

Now I totally agree with that, Tarbicus ! We are perhaps foolish to even debate the subject - after all, you couldn't argue that a picasso couldn't exist because the only paintings we have from that era ( within a hundred years or so) were impressionist !
Nevertheless, thanks to your interest being piqued, and subsequent research, the sum of our knowledge on this site has increased !!

regards, Paul McDonnell-Staff/Paullus Scipio