Huh, I didn't know statues were typically painted.

All the neo-classicism out there from the 18th and 19th centuries and damned if everything in Ancient Greece was in technicolor.

Kublai Khan: Huh, I didn't know statues were typically painted.

the Greeks and Romans painted statues, friezes, various decorative elements and at times entire buildings. Neither the Greeks nor Romans held marble as having the aesthetic value we assign to it. To them it was a suitable building material and statue material. Whereas we use sheets of marble to cover buildings, the Greeks built buildings out of nothing but marble, the Parthenon was built out of solid marble. For the Greeks marble was the hardest stone they could quarry and work so it made sense they'd use it as a structural material. The Romans could work granite, which is harder than marble, so they used it, as well as marble. Of course they also had concrete so they could skip on the manual labor of working granite or marble all together when they wanted.

And their choices in colors would also strike a lot of people as unusual, they were big into bright vibrant colors. The Acropolis way back when had colors that to us would almost seem cartoonish. And Rome was not the dreary somber colored place the various model recreations treat it as.

And yes, all the pillars were colorful as well. Those stark white classic buildings? In the ancient days they were FAB-U-LOUS! Tie-died hippies have nothing on the the bright clashing colors the Greeks and Romans used.

tototototo: Repeatnaissance

3.2 million submissions ago, hardly worth mentioning as a repeat.

I was told about this painted statues thing in high-school (late 80's). Surely this is common knowledge!

/thread homage

Hindmost: I was told about this painted statues thing in high-school (late 80's

Same here, roughly same timeframe, though in my defense I took four years of Latin in high school.

I think they look kinda cool.

One of those things I'd rather not have learned. I prefer the white marble look. Thank you Cracked for ruining my view of ancient Greece and Rome.

Isn't it internet embarrassing to get scooped by Cracked?

5 Things From History Everyone Pictures Incorrectly (new window)

Old news is old...

Freak: One of those things I'd rather not have learned. I prefer the white marble look. Thank you Cracked for ruining my view of ancient Greece and Rome.

This. I think after classical art pieces were washed through the workaday Anglo protestant view on life, they would look like they do today anyway. Washington was modeled in large part on Rome, and they never painted anything.

/OR DID THEY??
//Wait. no, no, they didn't

Ehh, I've known the statues were painted, but I always figured the paint was a later addition. Or at least the gaudy stuff.

FTFA:

"There's no reason to think that color seen today would be anything like the hues the statues were originally painted."

Thus they may not have been as tacky/gaudy as they are depicted in the pictures.

In modern times we take for granted seeing such a wide variety of colors. Our vision is constantly assaulted with dyes, inks, paints and pixels. Go look at the natural world and brilliant color is largely reserved for semi-precious stones, flowers and a few animal species.

In ancient times it was far more expensive to make natural materials like cloth and stone brighter. These colorful statues were a sign of wealth and power of the peoples that commissioned them. I'm kind of envious, wouldn't mind seeing civilization restore a more natural, reserved appearance.

jaylectricity: David was a black man.

With that penis?

WhyteRaven74: Kublai Khan: Huh, I didn't know statues were typically painted.

the Greeks and Romans painted statues, friezes, various decorative elements and at times entire buildings. Neither the Greeks nor Romans held marble as having the aesthetic value we assign to it. To them it was a suitable building material and statue material. Whereas we use sheets of marble to cover buildings, the Greeks built buildings out of nothing but marble, the Parthenon was built out of solid marble. For the Greeks marble was the hardest stone they could quarry and work so it made sense they'd use it as a structural material. The Romans could work granite, which is harder than marble, so they used it, as well as marble. Of course they also had concrete so they could skip on the manual labor of working granite or marble all together when they wanted.

And their choices in colors would also strike a lot of people as unusual, they were big into bright vibrant colors. The Acropolis way back when had colors that to us would almost seem cartoonish. And Rome was not the dreary somber colored place the various model recreations treat it as.

As far as I know, the Romans also used marble for buildings largely in the same way as we do. They built mostly from brick and mortar/concrete, at least after its invention. Emperor Augustus wound up going on a beautification campaign in Rome and other cities, cladding many brick buildings with a facade of marble, which then would have been painted garish colors. The surviving buildings today where the marble has chipped away in places or been removed all together so you can see the brickwork underneath look more like something that would have been constructed one or two hundred years ago.

Swiss Colony: FTFA:

"There's no reason to think that color seen today would be anything like the hues the statues were originally painted."

Thus they may not have been as tacky/gaudy as they are depicted in the pictures.

Except that they are talking about what little pigment can be seen today, compared to what it would have been at the time, due to fading and erosion of the pigment from the statue. Which is why they use spectroscopy and all that to determine the type of pigments used.

Kublai Khan: Huh, I didn't know statues were typically painted.

Not just the statues, but the temples, the columns, everything. The Greeks were (And still are) REALLY farking tacky.

This is actually not news. I picked up a couple of modern plates when on vacation in Rhodes almost 20 years ago and they had used very similar colour palettes in painting those.

LrdPhoenix: The surviving buildings today where the marble has chipped away in places or been removed all together so you can see the brickwork underneath look more like something that would have been constructed one or two hundred years ago.

That's true for some stuff. They also used granite in some cases. The shocking thing being that as hard as granite is to work they didn't think twice about using metric assloads of the stuff.

beoswulf: In ancient times it was far more expensive to make natural materials like cloth and stone brighter.

Actually in a lot of cases it wasn't. Many pigments were made with stuff found laying or growing around out in the open.

It's all Tacky to me.

libranoelrose: Even purple?

Depends on the shade and the time/place. in some cultures you find purple all over, in others, it's a mark of royalty. Same with dark red/maroon.

"ancient Greeks were really, really tacky"

HA! The ancient Greeks would have had to try really hard to beat the tackiness of the filthy, dirty, stinking, foul breathed, trash throwing, graffitti writing, rude modern greeks.

WhyteRaven74:
beoswulf: In ancient times it was far more expensive to make natural materials like cloth and stone brighter.

Actually in a lot of cases it wasn't. Many pigments were made with stuff found laying or growing around out in the open.

libranoelrose:
Even purple?

Yeah, only some pigments were very expensive, like the legendary Tyrian purple, which was extremely hard to produce in any sizable quantity and only came from certain sea snails.

Of course, there are probably other purple pigments, but the Tyrian purple was such a deep, rich, reddish purple and so rare that it became something only emperors and kings could wear.

I would hate to see what you would find if you looked at Nero's purple basin the Vatican Museum! yuck!

Kerubim

Isn't it internet embarrassing to get scooped by Cracked?
5 Things From History Everyone Pictures Incorrectly (new window)


i knew about the bleaching and gold cap on the pyramids, and the article doesn't mention this, but as i think about it, they'd probably attract all the lightning around too, huh? throw that on top of the oohs and aahs for ancientpplz.

LrdPhoenix: WhyteRaven74:
beoswulf: In ancient times it was far more expensive to make natural materials like cloth and stone brighter.

Actually in a lot of cases it wasn't. Many pigments were made with stuff found laying or growing around out in the open.

libranoelrose:
Even purple?

Yeah, only some pigments were very expensive, like the legendary Tyrian purple, which was extremely hard to produce in any sizable quantity and only came from certain sea snails.

Of course, there are probably other purple pigments, but the Tyrian purple was such a deep, rich, reddish purple and so rare that it became something only emperors and kings could wear.

Jesus, that guy is still quoting me? Had him on ignore for ages, he's just looking for confrontation like the alpha bull protecting his territory.

Anyways, the vast majority of people weren't city residents, they lived on self sufficient homesteads. Simply being able to afford the time and expense of decorating was beyond the means of most people, nor did they encounter, for example options of food in garish packaging or advertisements measured to capture the eye. Even the development in ancient cities pales in comparison to how ubiquitous brilliant color is today in our world where consumers can't avoid the science of graphic design and mass produced consumer goods.

So, the White City shouldn't have been white after all?

One of the commenters on the sight pointed out that even these recreations are not accurate. Their method can tell you generally which pigment covered which area, but does not show subtle shadings and blendings.

Therefore the actual paint schemes might not have been quite as gaudy, but might have looked much more "natural".

jaylectricity: Kublai Khan: Huh, I didn't know statues were typically painted.

David was a black man.

He said the sheriff is near?

beoswulf: Anyways, the vast majority of people weren't city residents, they lived on self sufficient homesteads.

Well, yeah, but for purposes of this discussion I think it's safe to say we're only interested in those people who lived near the art and culture of the time.

Impudent Domain: Therefore the actual paint schemes might not have been quite as gaudy, but might have looked much more "natural".

Although, keep in mind. Our modern sense of color, and matching colors and what's tasteful and what isn't depends upon being in a culture where color is so damned plentiful that we develop social rules for its use.

In a time and place where color comes dearly, there isn't going to be a sense of, "Oh, gee, that's kind of loud, and those colors don't go together at ALLLLLL."

Kind of funny that they probably would've loved to get their hands on some Hawaiian shirts.

Fark had this one weeks ago.

nesler: Impudent Domain: Therefore the actual paint schemes might not have been quite as gaudy, but might have looked much more "natural".

Although, keep in mind. Our modern sense of color, and matching colors and what's tasteful and what isn't depends upon being in a culture where color is so damned plentiful that we develop social rules for its use.

In a time and place where color comes dearly, there isn't going to be a sense of, "Oh, gee, that's kind of loud, and those colors don't go together at ALLLLLL."

Kind of funny that they probably would've loved to get their hands on some Hawaiian shirts.

THIS. Just like before there was modern transportation and food storage and very few people got fat it was considered sexy in many cultures.

Damn... This magic UV light even scoops CSI's!

I really like how it allows us to know the color and shape of the various parts that have broken off the statue over time, like the arrows, quiver, and even the bow itself (though the last one we probably have plenty of examples of the "most likely" type he would have held and could reasonably guess).

sirgrim: jaylectricity: David was a black man.

With that penis?

Too much Anaconda.

/gives you oooooooooooo!
//Can ya dig it?

NotaFinn: This is actually not news.

Are you familiar with this website's tagline?

Malachilenomade: Fark had this one weeks ago.

The basic story about how the statues were painted broke like 20 years ago.

Bill-Lee 12:15 AM


"The color? Always something tacky."

You're applying 21st Century aesthetics to art from the 5th Century BC...good for you.

You're a hero thinker, Bill Lee. A goddamn patriot!

Old news is even better when Subby gets butthurt for being called out.