Something noticeable about classical statues is that they are, by the standards of modern viewers, really excellent. The same holds of classical artworks generally. See e.g. the 4th C. BC Antikythera Ephebe, the 2nd century AD Townley Venus, or this 1st C. AD wall painting.
These pieces are not one-offs. The British Museum, the Met, and the Louvre are packed with comparable examples, most familiar only to experts. Even the small Roman town of Pompeii, with its population of c. 15,000, boasted an abundance of good works.
For centuries, experts have known that most, but not all ancient statues were painted. It is only in recent years, however, that reconstructions claiming to recreate the ancient colour have brought this fact to the public.
Consider the Augustus of the Prima Porta:
This famous statue retains traces of paint on its surface. Famed reconstructor, Vinzenz Brinkmann, uses these traces to recreate that statue as it would have once looked:
Something odd you will notice here is that, without the paint, the Augustus of the Prima Porta looked wonderful, whereas Brinkmann’s reconstruction looks completely awful.
And the same is true of other such reconstructions.
What’s going on here? The usual explanation is that modern taste differs from that of the ancient Greeks and Romans. Partly due to historical accident, we have acquired a love of pristine white statues that would have looked unfinished to the ancients.
But two things about this explanation are unsatisfactory. First, we actually have some ancient images of classical statues. And the statues in these images don’t look much like the reconstructions.
Often the paintwork in the images appears very delicate. In other cases, as in this mosaic of a depicting a statue of a boxer, it is richer. But the colouring is subtle and thoughtful rather than garish.
Is there any sculpture depicted in ancient visual art that resembles the modern reconstructions? The closest I’ve found is this painting of a theatrical mask from the Villa Poppaea at Oplontis. But this is a mask not a statue, and its grotesque colour matches its form.
Depictions of people in ancient paintings and mosaics also make fine use of colour, showing a sensitive naturalism that appeals to modern taste. Take these examples from the 1st C. AD for instance:
These examples sit uneasily with the idea that that we dislike the colour reconstructions of ancient statues simply because of changing tastes. So too do the painted medieval and Renaissance statues that we continue to enjoy:
If we are so attached to pristine white marble, how come these works look so good? The same can be said of examples from non-Western cultures, like dynastic Egypt or medieval Nepal.
In light of these observations, I want to propose an alternative explanation for why we dislike the modern reconstructions: it is because they are painted very badly. The original Greek and Roman stautes, by contrast, were probably painted well.
Two objections might be raised to this proposal, but both can be answered. First, some might object that those who make the reconstructions *know* that this is how the statues really looked, based on scientific analysis of paint residues.
But nobody, to my knowledge, seriously claims that the methods used to produce the reconstructions guarantee a high degree of accuracy. The trace pigments formed the underlayer of a finished work to which they bear only a conjectural relationship.
Imagine a modern historian trying to reconstruct the Mona Lisa on the basis of a few residual pigments here and there on a largely featureless canvas. How confident could we be that the result accurately reproduces the original?
Second, it might be urged that there is simply no way to paint the statues, consistent with the pigments that have been left behind, that modern viewers will find beautiful. But this is obviously untrue, as medieval and Renaissance examples show.
Why would people make inaccurate reconstructions? One factor may be that the specialists lack the skill of classical artists. They may also be are hampered by conservation doctrines that forbid including feature for which there is no direct evidence.
And yet, the startling hideousness of the reconstructions has surely done much to gain them notoriety. This may be deliberate: the experts know this is not what the originals looked like, but they allow the public to suppose otherwise as a way to garner interest.
On this view, the reconstructors are deliberately trolling the public, distorting a much-loved artform to produce strong reaction. And they have thereby established a modern myth that ancient statues were horribly painted.
Perhaps we could see this as harmless mischief on the part of the reconstructors. Though, at a time when trust in the honest intentions of experts is at a low, it may be unwise for experts to mislead in this way.
For the full story, please check out my new piece in @WorksinProgMag out today:
Ancient statues were originally painted. Historians have created hideous reconstructions, purporting to show how they looked.
Were they really this ugly? I argue the answer is no, and that the reconstructions are a form of "trolling".
Article & thread.Something noticeable about classical statues is that they are, by the standards of modern viewers, really excellent. The same holds of classical artworks generally. See e.g. the 4th C. BC Antikythera Ephebe, the 2nd century AD Townley Venus, or this 1st C. AD wall painting.These pieces are not one-offs. The British Museum, the Met, and the Louvre are packed with comparable examples, most familiar only to experts. Even the small Roman town of Pompeii, with its population of c. 15,000, boasted an abundance of good works.For centuries, experts have known that most, but not all ancient statues were painted. It is only in recent years, however, that reconstructions claiming to recreate the ancient colour have brought this fact to the public.
Consider the Augustus of the Prima Porta:This famous statue retains traces of paint on its surface. Famed reconstructor, Vinzenz Brinkmann, uses these traces to recreate that statue as it would have once looked:Something odd you will notice here is that, without the paint, the Augustus of the Prima Porta looked wonderful, whereas Brinkmann’s reconstruction looks completely awful.
And the same is true of other such reconstructions.What’s going on here? The usual explanation is that modern taste differs from that of the ancient Greeks and Romans. Partly due to historical accident, we have acquired a love of pristine white statues that would have looked unfinished to the ancients.But two things about this explanation are unsatisfactory. First, we actually have some ancient images of classical statues. And the statues in these images don’t look much like the reconstructions.Often the paintwork in the images appears very delicate. In other cases, as in this mosaic of a depicting a statue of a boxer, it is richer. But the colouring is subtle and thoughtful rather than garish.Is there any sculpture depicted in ancient visual art that resembles the modern reconstructions? The closest I’ve found is this painting of a theatrical mask from the Villa Poppaea at Oplontis. But this is a mask not a statue, and its grotesque colour matches its form.Depictions of people in ancient paintings and mosaics also make fine use of colour, showing a sensitive naturalism that appeals to modern taste. Take these examples from the 1st C. AD for instance:These examples sit uneasily with the idea that that we dislike the colour reconstructions of ancient statues simply because of changing tastes. So too do the painted medieval and Renaissance statues that we continue to enjoy:If we are so attached to pristine white marble, how come these works look so good? The same can be said of examples from non-Western cultures, like dynastic Egypt or medieval Nepal.In light of these observations, I want to propose an alternative explanation for why we dislike the modern reconstructions: it is because they are painted very badly. The original Greek and Roman stautes, by contrast, were probably painted well.Two objections might be raised to this proposal, but both can be answered. First, some might object that those who make the reconstructions *know* that this is how the statues really looked, based on scientific analysis of paint residues.But nobody, to my knowledge, seriously claims that the methods used to produce the reconstructions guarantee a high degree of accuracy. The trace pigments formed the underlayer of a finished work to which they bear only a conjectural relationship.Imagine a modern historian trying to reconstruct the Mona Lisa on the basis of a few residual pigments here and there on a largely featureless canvas. How confident could we be that the result accurately reproduces the original?Second, it might be urged that there is simply no way to paint the statues, consistent with the pigments that have been left behind, that modern viewers will find beautiful. But this is obviously untrue, as medieval and Renaissance examples show.Why would people make inaccurate reconstructions? One factor may be that the specialists lack the skill of classical artists. They may also be are hampered by conservation doctrines that forbid including feature for which there is no direct evidence.And yet, the startling hideousness of the reconstructions has surely done much to gain them notoriety. This may be deliberate: the experts know this is not what the originals looked like, but they allow the public to suppose otherwise as a way to garner interest.On this view, the reconstructors are deliberately trolling the public, distorting a much-loved artform to produce strong reaction. And they have thereby established a modern myth that ancient statues were horribly painted.Perhaps we could see this as harmless mischief on the part of the reconstructors. Though, at a time when trust in the honest intentions of experts is at a low, it may be unwise for experts to mislead in this way.For the full story, please check out my new piece in @WorksinProgMag out today:
yes
Ancient statues were originally painted. Historians have created hideous reconstructions, purporting to show how they looked.
Were they really this ugly? I argue the answer is no, and that the reconstructions are a form of "trolling".
Article & thread. ... Something noticeable about classical statues is that they are, by the standards of modern viewers, really excellent. The same holds of classical artworks generally. See e.g. the 4th C. BC Antikythera Ephebe, the 2nd century AD Townley Venus, or this 1st C. AD wall painting. ... These pieces are not one-offs. The British Museum, the Met, and the Louvre are packed with comparable examples, most familiar only to experts. Even the small Roman town of Pompeii, with its population of c. 15,000, boasted an abundance of good works. ... For centuries, experts have known that most, but not all ancient statues were painted. It is only in recent years, however, that reconstructions claiming to recreate the ancient colour have brought this fact to the public.
Consider the Augustus of the Prima Porta: ... This famous statue retains traces of paint on its surface. Famed reconstructor, Vinzenz Brinkmann, uses these traces to recreate that statue as it would have once looked: ... Something odd you will notice here is that, without the paint, the Augustus of the Prima Porta looked wonderful, whereas Brinkmann’s reconstruction looks completely awful.
And the same is true of other such reconstructions. ... What’s going on here? The usual explanation is that modern taste differs from that of the ancient Greeks and Romans. Partly due to historical accident, we have acquired a love of pristine white statues that would have looked unfinished to the ancients. ... But two things about this explanation are unsatisfactory. First, we actually have some ancient images of classical statues. And the statues in these images don’t look much like the reconstructions. ... Often the paintwork in the images appears very delicate. In other cases, as in this mosaic of a depicting a statue of a boxer, it is richer. But the colouring is subtle and thoughtful rather than garish. ... Is there any sculpture depicted in ancient visual art that resembles the modern reconstructions? The closest I’ve found is this painting of a theatrical mask from the Villa Poppaea at Oplontis. But this is a mask not a statue, and its grotesque colour matches its form. ... Depictions of people in ancient paintings and mosaics also make fine use of colour, showing a sensitive naturalism that appeals to modern taste. Take these examples from the 1st C. AD for instance: ... These examples sit uneasily with the idea that that we dislike the colour reconstructions of ancient statues simply because of changing tastes. So too do the painted medieval and Renaissance statues that we continue to enjoy: ... If we are so attached to pristine white marble, how come these works look so good? The same can be said of examples from non-Western cultures, like dynastic Egypt or medieval Nepal. ... In light of these observations, I want to propose an alternative explanation for why we dislike the modern reconstructions: it is because they are painted very badly. The original Greek and Roman stautes, by contrast, were probably painted well. ... Two objections might be raised to this proposal, but both can be answered. First, some might object that those who make the reconstructions *know* that this is how the statues really looked, based on scientific analysis of paint residues. ... But nobody, to my knowledge, seriously claims that the methods used to produce the reconstructions guarantee a high degree of accuracy. The trace pigments formed the underlayer of a finished work to which they bear only a conjectural relationship. ... Imagine a modern historian trying to reconstruct the Mona Lisa on the basis of a few residual pigments here and there on a largely featureless canvas. How confident could we be that the result accurately reproduces the original? ... Second, it might be urged that there is simply no way to paint the statues, consistent with the pigments that have been left behind, that modern viewers will find beautiful. But this is obviously untrue, as medieval and Renaissance examples show. ... Why would people make inaccurate reconstructions? One factor may be that the specialists lack the skill of classical artists. They may also be are hampered by conservation doctrines that forbid including feature for which there is no direct evidence. ... And yet, the startling hideousness of the reconstructions has surely done much to gain them notoriety. This may be deliberate: the experts know this is not what the originals looked like, but they allow the public to suppose otherwise as a way to garner interest. ... On this view, the reconstructors are deliberately trolling the public, distorting a much-loved artform to produce strong reaction. And they have thereby established a modern myth that ancient statues were horribly painted. ... Perhaps we could see this as harmless mischief on the part of the reconstructors. Though, at a time when trust in the honest intentions of experts is at a low, it may be unwise for experts to mislead in this way. ... For the full story, please check out my new piece in @WorksinProgMag out today:
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
Update
Unroll Another Thread
Convert any Twitter threads to an easy-to-read article instantly
Have you tried our Twitter bot?
You can now unroll any thread without leaving Twitter/X. Here's how to use our Twitter bot to do it.
