Is it true that ancient statues used to be painted?

Can you try typing this out again except less retarded

The nords who lived in huts ad erected stones and died in famine at the time were locked in combat with anything civilized at the time, and were not respected, aside from the military admiring their brute force and intimidating taste for violence. Making it unlikely anyone within civilization was a Nord.

>Everyone should like what I like

Yes, and temples and other marble buildings were painted too. Greece and Rome looked disgusting.

Also dinosaurs had feathers.

>died in famine
Gaul was hugely productive when it comes to agriculture

You managed to make yourself sound even stupider

I'm a bit tired and said at the time twice by accident before checking it. The point is, before civilized growth, it was unlikely leadership would have been given towards a nord because of discrimination towards them at the time. The military loved them, the citizens didn't love them.

It's accurate with regards to the choices of pigment they would have had.

IIRC only the Greek ones.

By the time the Romans had a hold of Greek Statuary, the paint had been rained off, and the Roman impression of the Greeks was that they liked colorless marble, and so the Romans went with this tradition.

This is something my High School Art History teacher told me though, so it might be pleb-tier half-correct info.

They were probably painted more subtly, and the gaudiness you see is what remains

The Romans knew how to paint, so it's unlikely that the notion of, "The ancients lacked our sensibilities in regards to color" holds water

>high school teacher

Yeah those people are generally retards who buy into pop history bullshit and myths

They did. On many Greek (but not Roman) statues, they've detected traces of washed away pigmentation.

io9.gizmodo.com/5616498/ultraviolet-light-reveals-how-ancient-greek-statues-really-looked

Seriously, I hate when Veeky Forums makes a good question thread, and then all the dicks show up with their swaggering certainty and no research or links.

They do this both with regards to the topic and the other anons (i.e. You think this therefore you must be Muslim, etc., those kinds of shitty arguments).

A disgrace. We could be gents and scholars. I'd blame it on summer, but this shit's a prob year round.

probably but if they looked like that they were painted by school children as some kind of ancient educational project.

but if you want some facts about statues: they used to have eyes - which were made of amber, needless to say with the years passing amber dissolved and all it was left was some holes - but i have to guess they would look alive as fuck with some amber eyes.

also, if this was some kind of "what must have looked like it the past" this picture is pretty much related

What's with the cartoon

i'm pretty sure there's a law against people explaining jokes
you either get it or you don't but it's about scientists making up bullshit and creating "facts" based in 1% of real information and 99% of suppositions

>scientists making up bullshit and creating "facts" based in 1% of real information and 99% of suppositions
This is my favorite christcuck meme

This statue of Scipio Africanus, who fought the Carthaginians under Hannibal, seems to have the sorts of eyes you're talking about, but I can't get a confirmation. They might just be glass. Or painted.

:^)

I get your "point" but scientists get a bit more info than that before the jury's in.

Also, you're getting pissed about what are usually ARTIST'S interpretations of GENETICIST'S studies of what ARCHEOLOGISTS find.

Get it straight. This is interdisciplinary bullshit, at the very least. 2/3 of those disciplines aren't science, btw.

This is Lucy the Australopithecus.

We (humans) have found more than one Australopithecus skeleton.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LH_4
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AL_129-1
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AL_200-1

Lucy:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_(Australopithecus)

WE

So you're going to say that biology and mostly, all forms of natural history and geology, are all bullshit and how we trusted the Bible instead as more scientific?

Skepticism and dismissal are two separate things.

That's a bronze Statue.

In Metal sculpture, the Ancients, greek as well as Roman, used different metals to show different colors.

You can see it here on the supposed Capitoline Brutus.

I

Hol up...

WUZ STUPID-AS-FUCK RACIST SHITPOSTERS WHO CAN'T RECOGNIZE A BRONZE STATUE AND THINK THE WORD AFRICANUS AS APPLIED TO SCIPIO THE ROMAN GENERAL MEANS THAT I'M IMPLYING HE WAS BLACK

I knew it was bronze, but I thought bronzes often had glass eyes.

I found one source suggesting such but it might be wrong, here's a cropped printnscreen of it.

Here, I found another that suggests Ivory and Glass.

No. I'm the second post you quoted. I was suggesting the exact opposite of biology and geology etc. being bullshit.

I was explaining that the reconstruction of such finds are usually the work of artists, who often take creative liberty (as w/ our reconstructions of Raptors before we found out they probably had feathers).

When I said "interdisciplinary bullshit" I meant that any "bullshit" that guy *perceived* came from the *non-science* part, and that Archeology, while a valuable and academic investigatory field, does not rely on experimentation and hypotheses as heavily as say, something like chemistry does.

Yeah, on Brozes, they would often use different metals/glass inserts for the effect of color differentiation.

Those Riacci Bronzes have silver teeth and inserts in their eyes, and such.

The Famous Quirinal Boxer has copper inserts for his bloody wounds, and such other details.

The major indicator for Marbles to have been painted are the presence of blank eyes.

However, there are certain marble statues from antiquity with carved eyes, much like the technique Michelangelo would use for his bare marble statues some 1000 and mores years later, so I'm curious as to if all marbles were painted

Ohh ok.

Fuck, Riace

I thought I fixed that.

Here's another glass eyed bronze

>Seriously, I hate when Veeky Forums makes a good question thread, and then all the dicks show up with their swaggering certainty and no research or links.
This. The best answers are often buried in a sea of ignorant stupidity, thisd one for example

>this one for example
Example of ignorant stupidity, that is.

>that perspective

Hey, as far as we can tell, they didn't invent Linear Perspective until Brunelleschi, so cut them some slack.

Compared to others, they're pretty good at eyeballing it.

Plus, the Mural Makers weren't the most prestigious painters in the Roman world.

Its way better than that kindergarten shit that followed in the medieval ages.

Alright fair enough.

I was just kind of surprised at the jarring perspective because I'm used to seeing post-renaissance art.

If you believe the goal of art is photographic realism, then art is obsolete.

Are you implying that that perspective was made to look wrong on purpose to make it seem artsier?

Its not but sometimes its blatantly just a bad artist.

...

...

>fucked up perspective is just a stylistic choice!

every time.

Bad perspective is often due to the technical limitations of the artist, but good artists work around those technical limitations and do incorporate it into their style, see: byzantine icons.

perspective lines and the math behind them weren't well understood and widely applied in art until c. 1400s.

Before that any realistic-seeming perspective in 2D art was intuitive skill.

This is so uplifting. I want it to be true!

...

Wow, that's the kind of guy you only answer yes or no to.

and i want an oompa loompa. just because we want things that don't exist doesn't mean we should lose rationality with respect to those things

>this butthurt nigger having an autistic meltdown

>Augustus of Prima Porta
>painted

REEE

Of course they put rare precious pigments on great sculptures. Looking at raw marble gets a little old when everything is marble. Today we have every imaginable color in abundance so we dont appreciate what a treasure a colour can be. Just imagine walking miles just to see something red.

You do realize I was only using all caps to mimic the style of his dumb kangz meme, and that me calling him a racist shitposter had no more heat behind it than you calling me an autistic nigger, right?

RIGHT?!

REEEEEEEEEE

This.

Doesn't that paint really make it look like tacky catholic statues? There's something so classy about that nice smooth marble color.

Told you guys, he was black.

Also do you guys know anything about the feasibility of having a death mask made of yourself? I kind of want to do that and start a family tradition for all for my descendants. But I wonder if it is haraam or not.

>le romans we're white meme
>muh heritage

relevant
youtube.com/watch?v=4ztOV2wrrkY

>>christian theology
>>uplifting
lol no. No set of ideas that tells you that tons and tons of people are going to suffer for all eternity for the mere crime of either not believing or doing the right things is uplifting.

mong desu

Even more uplifting is the idea that the material world is irredeemably corrupt and we must destroy it and all our natural inclinations and urges.

If the blue was purple it'd look really neat

That's just the base layer.

But how am I supposed to be right about everything if everyone keeps disagreeing?

Underrated

youtube.com/watch?v=m3p_VuPIS2c

This made me smile

>they didn't invent
discover*

They were painted. A lot of the original paint was removed during Bullshit "restorations" done in the 18th century by people who liked them better all white. We only like the white look better because it's the meme we've known our whole lives. Paint was much scarcer back then and people thought they looked dope AF.

Gauls were a Celtic culture.

"Celtic" and "Germanic" are not interchangeable terms.

invent*

>romans weren't white

WE WUZ IMPARAHTORS N SHIEEEEET

Yes. The way that this was proved/discovered was by analyzing the statues and discovering tiny fragments of pigments. This gave us a rough idea of how they were colored

why is everyone in this thread assuming they were painted like shit in OP's picture. Ancient culture's knew how to paint.

I heard that they found a statue identified as Jove with eyes made of cotton.
But they weren't sure if it was Greek or Roman, and it was lost before they could ascertain that...

Even considering the we wuz kungs, this looks like an acurate ethnic depiction. Maybe the roman had more etruscan or pre dindu european blood than say the greeks (definetely not nigger blot tho).

Interesting

caracalla kind of looks like jon snow

desu these would look better unpainted