WHITE OR COLORED?

[Marcus Julius]

Even though these examples look like gaming miniatures, I think I prefer the color. I just wish we had more evidence of what colors were used where in antiquity, and could replicate that better. Too few of them have the traces of color to really know.


P.S. I was originally afraid to look at this thread - for fear of it being ye ol' tunic color debate. :lol:

[MeinPanzer]

Even though these examples look like gaming miniatures, I think I prefer the color. I just wish we had more evidence of what colors were used where in antiquity, and could replicate that better. Too few of them have the traces of color to really know.


P.S. I was originally afraid to look at this thread - for fear of it being ye ol' tunic color debate. :lol:

Well, using this technique we should be able to find out much more in the way of colour on ancient sculptures. Most have at least some traces of paint on them, and it's only a matter of using the right kind of technology to reveal those traces.

[Sulla]

By the way as an artist I have noticed something. They take the traces of color they have found and recreat only using that color. But the look is rather odd for the people as they have no shading etc. Probobly what they are showing is what a basecoat would look like. Then the painter would go back and paint shadows and highlights to make them look more real and for the details to stand out.

I'd quibble with the latter part. The paint may not necessarily reflect reality. For instance, why is the statue's hair brown when we know Augustus and Caligula were blond ?

The above is also why why you see it as a little to dark.

Think of this level of detail painted on the statue. http://www.philipresheph.com/demodokos/iphig/iphig5.jpg

[MeinPanzer]

By the way as an artist I have noticed something. They take the traces of color they have found and recreat only using that color. But the look is rather odd for the people as they have no shading etc. Probobly what they are showing is what a basecoat would look like. Then the painter would go back and paint shadows and highlights to make them look more real and for the details to stand out.

I'd quibble with the latter part. The paint may not necessarily reflect reality. For instance, why is the statue's hair brown when we know Augustus and Caligula were blond ?

The above is also why why you see it as a little to dark.

Think of this level of detail painted on the statue. http://www.philipresheph.com/demodokos/iphig/iphig5.jpg

I don't think I've seen proper shading or highlighting on any examples of ancient Greek or Roman scupture, big or small, that has significant portions of paint remaining on it. Statuary and wall painting are two very different aspects of art, and one cannot necessarily be used to judge another. Plus, shading or highlighting would show up quite clearly under UV light or in other forms of examination, so I'm sure they knew what they were doing.

[Tarbicus]

Much as I like garish display (and this kind of barbarian splendour feels a lot 'righter' for a culture like Rome than the clinical whiteness of Neoclassicism), I prefer my originals as close to 'as found' as is consistent with conservation.

But are they "as found"? It's my understanding that the plain metal suits of armour we see in museums are like that because Victorian curators cleaned them up vigorously, making them look like what they should look like to the more modern eye. There are heaps of such armours that were supposedly painted originally.

By the way as an artist I have noticed something. They take the traces of color they have found and recreat only using that color. But the look is rather odd for the people as they have no shading etc. Probobly what they are showing is what a basecoat would look like. Then the painter would go back and paint shadows and highlights to make them look more real and for the details to stand out.

I don't see any reason for them to highlight and shade an intricate 3D statue as if it were a modern scale model.

[Sulla]

I don't think I've seen proper shading or highlighting on any examples of ancient Greek or Roman scupture, big or small, that has significant portions of paint remaining on it. Statuary and wall painting are two very different aspects of art, and one cannot necessarily be used to judge another. Plus, shading or highlighting would show up quite clearly under UV light or in other forms of examination, so I'm sure they knew what they were doing.

I have never seen any well enough preserved to tell. What normaly remains seems to be the base coat. The other coats could have worn off with weathering. Not to mention they probobly had different styles. But I will look in some of my books and see what I can find. Maybe a statue in the background of a painting or something interesting.

[Tarbicus]

Maybe a statue in the background of a painting or something interesting.

But isn't a painting going to have shading on a figure regardless of whether it's a live figure or a statue anyway?

[MeinPanzer]

I don't think I've seen proper shading or highlighting on any examples of ancient Greek or Roman scupture, big or small, that has significant portions of paint remaining on it. Statuary and wall painting are two very different aspects of art, and one cannot necessarily be used to judge another. Plus, shading or highlighting would show up quite clearly under UV light or in other forms of examination, so I'm sure they knew what they were doing.

I have never seen any well enough preserved to tell. What normaly remains seems to be the base coat. The other coats could have worn off with weathering. Not to mention they probobly had different styles. But I will look in some of my books and see what I can find. Maybe a statue in the background of a painting or something interesting.

All I'm saying is that from the admittedly limited existing examples I've seen, none seemed to do so. Also, I don't think I've ever seen evidence for basecoats being used. A lot of terracotta figurines exist with substantial paint remaining on them which can be used as close parallels.

[Et tu brute]

In general I prefer the white ones, but I do think colour has it's place.

[Sulla]

But isn't a painting going to have shading on a figure regardless of whether it's a live figure or a statue anyway?

Not always. I was looking at some paintings of theatrical masks from pompeii. Some you can tell have a very stylized paint job. Others are painted realisticly. Also looking at statues in the paintings the two or 3 I noticed off hand were not painted at all but apeared to be just the natural bronze or painted a solid color.

All I'm saying is that from the admittedly limited existing examples I've seen, none seemed to do so. Also, I don't think I've ever seen evidence for basecoats being used. A lot of terracotta figurines exist with substantial paint remaining on them which can be used as close parallels.

The colors of the recreations match what I mean as a base coat. For example the hair solid brown. Then they could have done something as simple as drybrushing a light tan over the brown to make the details stand out. And since we only have basicly a stain left you would have no way to tell about secoundary coats of paint as they would never touch the marble itself but only sit on the first layer of paint. And I am not saying all were done this way. But think about it they spend a fortune having a sculpture made perfectly life like then have someone with no more talent than a fence painter but on the paint?

[Ironhand]

All right. I thought it was going to be another red vs. white military tunic post. I have to go with colored.

[M. Demetrius]

If much research is done on this topic, it might actually settle the red v white tunic war. Wow! Would that actually be progress?

[Ironhand]

Will it really settle the debate? Too many assumptions are made from a little material. Remember when people used to assume about the senator's toga and tunics? I sincerely doubt there was a uniform color. It probably has more to do with what one could afford and whether you were willing to spend the extra money or spend it gambling or somewhere else. It is unknown what was issued and what the soldier picked up from a shop. It definately was not like the modern military where you only use whats issued. One thing I never want to hear again is that tunics were red because they didn't want to see the sight of blood. That has to be some overcivilized, citybred scholar who came up with that one. They're hard working men who probably shed blood in work and training on a daily basis. In war they're inured to the screams of dying comrades and the blood, gore, and stench of openning bowels of their enemy, but blood on a dying Roman's tunic who you know will die even without seeing it unnerves him? Makes no sense whatsoever. That's like a butcher being shocked that cows are living creatures. Plus, blood dries to a dark brown to black color and would still be visible on a red tunic. I don't doubt red tunics were used or were even the most popular. Soldiers only have so many things to spend money on and a good, attractive tunic would probably rate fairly high on the list. I'm sure they probably used both. Show me a social convention against wearing that type and I might be willing to swing one way or the other, but I think both were allowed and worn to some extend. The evidence shows that much, but we probably shouldn't assume more. I'm not saying a group should have to allow both. A group perfectly has the right to say one or the other in the same way an officer could order that and expect it to be obeyed. Just my two cents and I doubt anything that hasn't been said already. To prevent this from because a tunic thread if you want to talk maybe we should do it by PM.

P.S. I like your rhetorical question at the end of your comment. I don't think it really would solve anything since I don't think its a provable statement unless someone finds some miracle document decribing clothing conventions within the military for those who know nothing about Roman culture. The problem with most historical writings is that they are written with a semi-knowledgable audience in mind and because of that don't elaborate on details that everyone of the time should know. I think we do a pretty good job as reenactors considering what we do with sparse documentation and archaeology. Don't sweat the small stuff and don't stop having fun.

[Tarbicus]

I'm sure they probably used both.

[Narukami]

If much research is done on this topic, it might actually settle the red v white tunic war. Wow! Would that actually be progress?

I had that thought too, and then it occurred to me that what if future historians based their concept of the US Army (or any other for that matter) on Hollywood films they might uncover in some future "dig" -- gads what a mish-mash of information they would have.

The Great Tunic Debate, I fear, will remain just that for a long time to come.

Narukami