Ultraviolet light reveals how ancient Greek statues really looked

reply to post by TrueAmerican


Thanks OP.

I knew the ancient Egyptians, Aztecs, Inca and Maya brightly painted their buildings and statues, but i confess i never realized the Romans and Greeks did too.

I think they look great painted. Much more lifelike, and less austere.

I'd like to see this lighting technique applied to the Chinese 'Terracotta Army' figures, they used to be painted too.

Thanks.

I am speechless at how an ultra violet light can add a spear to the statue as well....!!!! AMAZING

EDIT: maybe with an super ultra violet light , one day we might be able to see the people painting it.
I agree with another poster, about less is more sometimes.

[edit on 21-8-2010 by Sippy Cup]

Originally posted by Sippy Cup
I am speechless at how an ultra violet light can add a spear to the statue as well....!!!! AMAZING

Well if you'd have looked, you might have seen that there was probably an original spear on the original statue, because you can make out its holder on the original. They added the spear in the recreation for realism to go along with the authentic color. Not for deception.

Why is it some people just have to find fault in everything, and can't enjoy a story for what it is?

*shrug* I dunno.

ETA: and that appears to be some kind of staff rather than a spear. They probably authenticated that as well.

[edit on Sat Aug 21st 2010 by TrueAmerican]

Once i thought I had the answers, turns out I didnt even have the questions.

I would like to see more of these statues. I think this is amazing find thanks for posting

Not to doubt the article, but the above statue, is more Roman in style then Greek, at least to my untrained eye. Where are the statues shown in the story. No names of the researchers or their institutions. Neat story, just poorly written.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


Here's an article on Cracked from the comments on OS:

6 Things From History Everyone Pictures Incorrectly

Enjoy

[edit on 21-8-2010 by misinformational]

reply to post by TrueAmerican


Sorry I wasn’t finding fault in the story…..just the description And further detail wasn’t accompanying the link.
All the painted looking statues are actually models of the original with color and paint added, with interpretation.
And I did notice that the original has a spear, but seem to have been broken a long time ago, “THEY” added it which fulfilled the original design and splendor of the statue of the period.


[edit on 21-8-2010 by Sippy Cup]

Any course in ancient art history (ex: meso-american or pan asian) would reveal on a basic level that the ancient world was painted in "gaudy colors" as is often called or "polychromatic" for the academic.

one commenter naively puts it...
"New technology reveals ancient Greeks had terrible taste in art."

another says in response to that comment...
"Thats been the general consensus of opinion as these (re)discoveries have become more widespread. But one is forced to consider how much of our taste for what is and isn't tacky is dictated by centuries of what we thought Greek/Roman art looked like. if the paints hadn't faded away, would we now be pooh-poohing marble white, empty eyed statues as bland and soulless? "

another says...

"To modern eyes, natural stone looks impressive; while painted stone is hard to distinguish from a tacky fiberglass lawn ornament. Natural stone was everywhere in the ancient world; colour and ornamentation were a probably a welcome break from the norm. In more recent times, fine wooden furniture was usually painted. Now, we want the natural wood exposed — in part to distinguish the pieces from cheap utilitarian objects made from plywood, Formica, or plastic. We also appreciate the wood grain, and the visible joinery. When the common man had natural wood furniture, with visible joinery — fine furniture was painted or enameled & joinery hidden, as a mark of quality. "

The Acropolis was painted like this.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
This article shows how through the use of special lighting and other techniques, one can now see the original colors used on ancient statues of the past such as those from Greek mythology that we usually see in white.

I found this article very interesting, and very much worth a read.

Here is an example picture, but there are more at this link!

Original Greek statues were brightly painted, but after thousands of years, those paints have worn away. Find out how shining a light on the statues can be all that's required to see them as they were thousands of years ago.

I can't help but wonder how modern science will re-characterize these cultures as the colors become more vivid. Some of those look like colors from the hippie era to me in a way, which by today's standards almost seem gaudy or tacky. Nah. They are what they are: a modern glimpse at a distant, all-but-forgotten past! Way cool to me!

Originally posted by krossfyter

"To modern eyes, natural stone looks impressive; while painted stone is hard to distinguish from a tacky fiberglass lawn ornament. Natural stone was everywhere in the ancient world; colour and ornamentation were a probably a welcome break from the norm. In more recent times, fine wooden furniture was usually painted. Now, we want the natural wood exposed — in part to distinguish the pieces from cheap utilitarian objects made from plywood, Formica, or plastic. We also appreciate the wood grain, and the visible joinery. When the common man had natural wood furniture, with visible joinery — fine furniture was painted or enameled & joinery hidden, as a mark of quality. "

When contemplated, its quite odd that aesthetics can be so polar and variable throughout history/culture.

This well illustrates how much we (humans) have changed. Makes one wonder how "beauty/quality" will be perceived 200 years from now.

[edit on 21-8-2010 by misinformational]

reply to post by misinformational


yes. it certainly questions accepted "beauty" or what is pleasing to the eye. is beauty merely a human construction via cultural perception or is there some sort of universal beauty? certainly issues such as this have been debated by many philosophers and aestheticians au current and in the past many times.


[edit on 21-8-2010 by krossfyter]

It's strange to see the statues in a different way than how we've always known them to be. Interesting! I like them better without the paint! lol

WOW! S&F for this find OP! Since I was young I wanted to know what ancient statues and art would have looked like when they were first created. I was never satisfied with the history channel or other computer generated "cartoon" like recreations. Once again very, very cool. Kudos for the find OP!

reply to post by xoxKatiexox



im probably in the minority but i enjoy them better with paint. less austere. less academic. less stuffy art-ish. more mexican gift shop novelty which is awkward for me in regards to high art such as greek/roman sculpture. i've been thru countless art classes and seeing these in color (even if it isnt accurate) puts a smile on my face.

[edit on 21-8-2010 by krossfyter]

I already knew this. I think some historians learned this from writing or something, because I was taught this years ago. I always thought the statues and buildings looked really gay with all those fluorescent colors. The white marble look is much more elegant and artsy. The colorful versions make them look like a child finger painted all over them...

Originally posted by misinformational
reply to post by TrueAmerican

 

Here's an article on Cracked from the comments on OS that also illustrates the OP:

6 Things From History Everyone Pictures Incorrectly

Enjoy

[edit on 21-8-2010 by misinformational]

Lol... I read Cracked every day. Somehow I missed that article, but Thanks!

Originally posted by PresumedInnocent




Not to doubt the article, but the above statue, is more Roman in style then Greek, at least to my untrained eye. Where are the statues shown in the story. No names of the researchers or their institutions. Neat story, just poorly written.

You're right, this is a statue of Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus, Julius Caesars adopted son and successor.

Originally posted by nesta

Originally posted by PresumedInnocent




Not to doubt the article, but the above statue, is more Roman in style then Greek, at least to my untrained eye. Where are the statues shown in the story. No names of the researchers or their institutions. Neat story, just poorly written.

You're right, this is a statue of Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus, Julius Caesars adopted son and successor.

Got a link? Looks like a little alien to me.

"On the other hand, Augustus's barefootedness and the inclusion of Cupid riding a dolphin as structural support for the statue reveals his supposed mythical ancestry to the goddess Venus (Cupid's mother) by way of his adopted father Julius Caesar."

Augustus of Prima Porta

reply to post by TrueAmerican


Actually, mentioning hippies, it is known that Greek temple structures and colors came directly from India, where the hippi culture also came from.

However the cultures are not the same because of the colors. These were still ultra conformist imperialist states, even the democracies and republics.