07-02-2002, 06:39 AM
"Has any forensic testing been done on these frescoes and paintings, to see if another colour was applied over top of this white, and has faded or come away over time? Perhaps this white we see all the time is some kind of primer?"<br>
<br>
Ancient art has been studied ad nuseum in a more detailed manner than ancient weaponry. As an Art fanatic, I can tell you that all those frescoes have been tested all the way down to the crystalline structure of the individual pigments. We know a tremendous wealth of information regarding the construction of ancient wall paintings. Most fresco of the late periods including Dura were done secco. The only colors from the period that are trully non-lightfast are the blues,lakes, verdigris, and certain animal and vegetable derived pigments...........these, as well as the lead based pigments were not used in fresco very much......Fresco uses NO primer. Fading does not occur with most abrasion because fresco is a CHEMICAL, as well Mechanical adhesion..........all the surviving frescoes from pompeii etc had their surfaces literally painted over by soot...what you see now is about 1/24 into the work...the pigments in fresco sink far below the surface of the moist plaster and "color" the whiting itself...........fresco is very durable. The only place where lakes would be used are to represent ruddiness(and only if the commission would be an expensive one)in the cheeks of women, lipstick etc. Otherwise, the iron based earth reds.........dont change in the least bit. The only color likely to change, usually as a result of acidity in the atmosphere from sulphiric vapours, are the lapis based blues.........again, the colours most likely to change are used in the least quantity for very small sections of a painting, and are then used in the most expensive frescos. From its draftmanship,....the dura frescos appear to be "regular" ones......nothing to woohoo about in roman times.........where a very high level of draftsmanship was expected.<br>
<br>
<br>
"3. I think ancient art, of any type has to be open to some interpretation. Look at some of the work modern artists do today...especially abstract art. But I was thinking more on the lines of some of our movie posters, magazines, comics, and that type of thing. Certainly they don't portray humans in realistic dress, or body types for that matter. We know the difference, but would someone 2000 years from now, digging up an old superman comic, think we all dressed in blue spandex?"<br>
<br>
I applaud your speculations.....but let us not make assumptions about roman artists based on (yech) modern conventions of "exageration". Roman, as well as MOST art until the twentieth century was created according to certain conventions. Often it is remarked by intellectualls that such and such confusion, is a mistake of the artist......or they attribute it some flight of fancy..etc. I can tell you as a practicing artist and romanophile.............that this "inventiveness" on a part of the ancient artist is totally lacking a foundation. The mindset and materials and the canons of convention that change ever so slowly attest to what im saying..........(frescoe technique and decorum hasnt changed much in 2000 years.......except sadly there is little work in these days of educated tastlessness)you dont make mistakes, especially something concerning soldiery or goverment.................if you f#* up, then you dont get paid, its that simple.............and if you make a horrible mistake..........the law will make you pay.<br>
The warlike nature of rome, the citizen soldiers, etc.....and constant motions of legions around the empire would have it very clear to artists what soldiers looked like. Many soldiers were themselves artists of some sort,.. like all those famous greek sculptors who were themselves warriors.<br>
When things dont add up.......usually the confusion is related to some speculation by folks whos expertise isnt art.., or the great lengths fresco painters went to omit detail:<br>
a) to keep things simple so the work has a "unity".....which isnt confined to the minute parts.<br>
b) Fresco is the most incredibly time oriented, most demanding forms of painting................unlike straight oil painting, you cannot scrape down or wait around and retouch it when you like............and oil lamps dont help when the work has gone into the night.(this changes the nature of the colours..........especially blues and greys...............which is one reason why most indoor frescos use a large amount of monochromia tending towards the red-earth and yellow end of the spectrum, since these are the least likely to change throughout the seasons and daily lighting conditions.) This time importance has almost universally produced a "short hand" in true fresco, where by many small details(the stuff reenactors love) are purposfully omitted.....to speed up the work.........I can tell you from experience, that say-painting a whole arm in the flesh( for the skilled) takes about the quarter of the time it takes to paint a sword in the hand.<br>
One small point.....possibly related:<br>
Traditionally..........in preparation for gilding on either stone, wall, or wood.........some bole would be laid down under the gold in preparation for it........and this would limited to only those areas recieving gold "ornament".This bole for you non-painters, is an iron-mangenese red-earth.......the best is from Armenia....very close optically to Sienna red(a typical "roman red")..........if a relief and such would be gilded.......it was (and still is) the ancient tradition to paint whatever surface it was in this red let it dry and then carefully lay down the leaf. Unless leaf is burnished well, locked up in varnish, and carefully cared for.......eventually you have to lay the leaf again in the future. well ......if its buried for millenia, or some fool rips the gold off for fun, or simply the weathering of time...reduces most of the paint off(roman statue paint is really tough sh*t!)..........chances are in the crevices...youll find some of this bole.......which to the untrained and trained eye alike...can be mistaken for red paint. Ive held wooden statues from the 1300's badly cared for, where most of the gilding has worn off..........and the bole really makes it look like it was painted that way..........until you find the gold specks......and analyse the binders. Im not saying that there werent statues with RED tunics..........but i am saying lets not jump to conclusions without the expertise of Paint historians, especially when so many reenactors are trying to get black and white answers from ancient art.......or rather photos of it. .........My personal opinion on the whole matter is that red tunics were probably used by certain legions or certain units, and other colours were used in others......all at the same time.............and that, uniformity would be sought for within say a century, but not neccessarily throughout the entire empire.<br>
just my three cents, Minervalis<br>
<p></p><i></i>
<br>
Ancient art has been studied ad nuseum in a more detailed manner than ancient weaponry. As an Art fanatic, I can tell you that all those frescoes have been tested all the way down to the crystalline structure of the individual pigments. We know a tremendous wealth of information regarding the construction of ancient wall paintings. Most fresco of the late periods including Dura were done secco. The only colors from the period that are trully non-lightfast are the blues,lakes, verdigris, and certain animal and vegetable derived pigments...........these, as well as the lead based pigments were not used in fresco very much......Fresco uses NO primer. Fading does not occur with most abrasion because fresco is a CHEMICAL, as well Mechanical adhesion..........all the surviving frescoes from pompeii etc had their surfaces literally painted over by soot...what you see now is about 1/24 into the work...the pigments in fresco sink far below the surface of the moist plaster and "color" the whiting itself...........fresco is very durable. The only place where lakes would be used are to represent ruddiness(and only if the commission would be an expensive one)in the cheeks of women, lipstick etc. Otherwise, the iron based earth reds.........dont change in the least bit. The only color likely to change, usually as a result of acidity in the atmosphere from sulphiric vapours, are the lapis based blues.........again, the colours most likely to change are used in the least quantity for very small sections of a painting, and are then used in the most expensive frescos. From its draftmanship,....the dura frescos appear to be "regular" ones......nothing to woohoo about in roman times.........where a very high level of draftsmanship was expected.<br>
<br>
<br>
"3. I think ancient art, of any type has to be open to some interpretation. Look at some of the work modern artists do today...especially abstract art. But I was thinking more on the lines of some of our movie posters, magazines, comics, and that type of thing. Certainly they don't portray humans in realistic dress, or body types for that matter. We know the difference, but would someone 2000 years from now, digging up an old superman comic, think we all dressed in blue spandex?"<br>
<br>
I applaud your speculations.....but let us not make assumptions about roman artists based on (yech) modern conventions of "exageration". Roman, as well as MOST art until the twentieth century was created according to certain conventions. Often it is remarked by intellectualls that such and such confusion, is a mistake of the artist......or they attribute it some flight of fancy..etc. I can tell you as a practicing artist and romanophile.............that this "inventiveness" on a part of the ancient artist is totally lacking a foundation. The mindset and materials and the canons of convention that change ever so slowly attest to what im saying..........(frescoe technique and decorum hasnt changed much in 2000 years.......except sadly there is little work in these days of educated tastlessness)you dont make mistakes, especially something concerning soldiery or goverment.................if you f#* up, then you dont get paid, its that simple.............and if you make a horrible mistake..........the law will make you pay.<br>
The warlike nature of rome, the citizen soldiers, etc.....and constant motions of legions around the empire would have it very clear to artists what soldiers looked like. Many soldiers were themselves artists of some sort,.. like all those famous greek sculptors who were themselves warriors.<br>
When things dont add up.......usually the confusion is related to some speculation by folks whos expertise isnt art.., or the great lengths fresco painters went to omit detail:<br>
a) to keep things simple so the work has a "unity".....which isnt confined to the minute parts.<br>
b) Fresco is the most incredibly time oriented, most demanding forms of painting................unlike straight oil painting, you cannot scrape down or wait around and retouch it when you like............and oil lamps dont help when the work has gone into the night.(this changes the nature of the colours..........especially blues and greys...............which is one reason why most indoor frescos use a large amount of monochromia tending towards the red-earth and yellow end of the spectrum, since these are the least likely to change throughout the seasons and daily lighting conditions.) This time importance has almost universally produced a "short hand" in true fresco, where by many small details(the stuff reenactors love) are purposfully omitted.....to speed up the work.........I can tell you from experience, that say-painting a whole arm in the flesh( for the skilled) takes about the quarter of the time it takes to paint a sword in the hand.<br>
One small point.....possibly related:<br>
Traditionally..........in preparation for gilding on either stone, wall, or wood.........some bole would be laid down under the gold in preparation for it........and this would limited to only those areas recieving gold "ornament".This bole for you non-painters, is an iron-mangenese red-earth.......the best is from Armenia....very close optically to Sienna red(a typical "roman red")..........if a relief and such would be gilded.......it was (and still is) the ancient tradition to paint whatever surface it was in this red let it dry and then carefully lay down the leaf. Unless leaf is burnished well, locked up in varnish, and carefully cared for.......eventually you have to lay the leaf again in the future. well ......if its buried for millenia, or some fool rips the gold off for fun, or simply the weathering of time...reduces most of the paint off(roman statue paint is really tough sh*t!)..........chances are in the crevices...youll find some of this bole.......which to the untrained and trained eye alike...can be mistaken for red paint. Ive held wooden statues from the 1300's badly cared for, where most of the gilding has worn off..........and the bole really makes it look like it was painted that way..........until you find the gold specks......and analyse the binders. Im not saying that there werent statues with RED tunics..........but i am saying lets not jump to conclusions without the expertise of Paint historians, especially when so many reenactors are trying to get black and white answers from ancient art.......or rather photos of it. .........My personal opinion on the whole matter is that red tunics were probably used by certain legions or certain units, and other colours were used in others......all at the same time.............and that, uniformity would be sought for within say a century, but not neccessarily throughout the entire empire.<br>
just my three cents, Minervalis<br>
<p></p><i></i>
