JUST

Dem bois comming at cha.

1. it's the base colors, not the final product.

2. painted statues were seen as an awe-inspiring sight mainly out of the luxury it represented.

context being that ancient paints and dyes were absurdly expensive depending on what colors you wanted. Red often signified that you were well off, your blue represented extreme wealth, and the Tyrian Purple was exclusive only to royalty/the imperial court.

the fact that Greece/Rome could afford to paint and dye their statues was a testament to the immense wealth of the state, moreso than just making a statue look pretty.

Eh. I don't think the Greek statues would've looked much better. The Roman ones maybe.

I'm surprised someone didn't look at a statue from which the paint had faded and say 'hey, it looks way less retarded now' and then convince everyone else to stop painting their statues.

The problem was that romans had no concept of sobriety, they just would add more and more decoration to show off their wealth.

This. Honestly it looks so much better without paint. Augustus looks like a drag queen in that pic.

reported
all these, including the lion, were black

Only one that looks remotely decent.

That's because those are absolute retard paint jobs, the original ones would have been more subtle and far more beautiful

ms paint 12 minutes

>ancients paint their statues in trippy, vibrant colors
"Haha holy shit! People romanticize the ancients soo much! They were actually pretty stupid and had no eye for taste. Can't believe they ruined nice, classy statues by painting them tacky colors!"

>Medieval Catholics did the same exact thing
"Wow! I can't believe more people don't know this. The Catholic church had such an eye for taste! The Middle Ages is critically underrated and is truly the foundation of modern civilization."

>Veeky Forums

Wut

who are you quoting?

Well greentexting on this site is usually used to either quote someone, or demonstrate an action someone did in the past. In this case, the first two lines of greentexting are showing events that happened in the past (ie. Ancients and Medievals painted their statues all the time).

However to prevent confusion, each of the lines under the greentexts are in parentheses. Parentheses are commonly used in English to show a line of text that is quoted from someone else, as opposed to the narration of the narrator. To find out what the quotes from the parentheses are from, we look down towards the final greentext showing "/his" the name of the board you're now browsing.

Using these context clues we can begin putting together what message OP (the original poster) was trying to send. Both quotations must be commonly used around "/his", the first one demonstrating a negative reaction, and the second a positive one; despite both greentexts above showing the same actions, but done by separate people.

We now begin seeing a picture of Veeky Forums being a board where different periods of history are held to higher standards than others. Having background knowledge of how these two periods are currently held in popular imagination (the Ancients were superior to the Medievals), we can now safely assume Veeky Forums might be a deeply reactionary board to popular opinion, and has low regard for things such as research and nuance.

AMA (ask me anything) if you need more help :)

I unironically love it when people analyze and explain shitposting like this.

I doubt they actually painted them in matte, they weren't retarded. They may have even looked really good in their original colour.

These all look pretty good

They probably weren't that garish. The more subtle layers may not be preserved chemically

That looks cool though

As has been pointed out numerous times in this and other threads, these just show the bottom layer of paint, and the actual paint job would have been much more detailed

were can i see examples of actual paintjobs?

...

Now that's what I call autism.

Nice, thank you

Do people actually think that you're doing greentext wrong if you aren't quoting someone? It's pretty obvious that's not the only common use of it on this site

there's nothing wrong in that job. it's just a base paint because that's everything that left any trace on the stone and we can't really reconstruct the outer layers since we know absolutely nothing about them.

Look at any Roman painting or mosaic art. Did you think shading was only invented after the Renaissance or something?

If the Romans could have subtly colored their visual shitposts, they could have subtly colored their 13 foot statues and religious sculptures.

Only the first statue is Roman though. The rest probably looked unshaded like and

Greeks actually had more complex shading, too

The tomb of the Diver is of relatively poor quality. It's like trying to reconstruct Apelles from the Pitsa Panels

They didn't paint them in matte. What you're looking at are the base colors. More colors would then be put on top of it to give a much richer and more detailed appearance.

Unfortunately we can't see what colors were used because they were lost and we can only see the base coat that was applied to the stone, not the ones layered on top of paint.