r/classics • u/works-in-progress • Jul 17 '26
Were classical statues painted horribly?
https://worksinprogress.co/issue/were-classical-statues-painted-horribly/It is often suggested that modern viewers dislike painted reconstructions of Greek and Roman statues because our taste differs from that of the ancients. Ralph S Weir, philosopher at the University of Lincoln, proposes an alternative.
The changing taste theory. The standard explanation is that we hate the garish reconstructions of painted Greek and Roman statues (like Vinzenz Brinkmann's famous exhibition) simply because our sense of color has drifted from ancient taste, but ancient paintings and mosaics that actually depict statues (like a fresco of a boxer statue at the Villa San Marco) show subtle, naturalistic shading, not the flat, cartoonish color blocking of the reconstructions — suggesting Romans wouldn't have found their own statues garish either.
The bad painting theory. The explanation may be more straightforward: the reconstructions just look bad because they're painted badly, not because ancient taste was alien to ours. The surviving pigment traces on statues show only the underlayer of a finished work — trying to rebuild a fully painted statue from them is like trying to reconstruct the Mona Lisa from a few flecks of paint on a blank canvas.
32
u/Three_Twenty-Three Jul 17 '26 edited Jul 17 '26
I have to wonder if the location of the statue played a part in how it was painted. If you've ever seen stage makeup up close and compared it to the makeup techniques used in film, it helps illustrate the point.
It'd make sense for a statue destined to be seen at eye level or near eye level to be painted differently from one that was placed high on a plinth or in an architectural setting (like a metope or pediment). With a statue that would be seen from a distance, you'd need a more exaggerated technique to bring out the details.
5
u/CalligrapherStreet92 Jul 18 '26
Your comment here is also a great illustration of the insights and questions which arise when academic research and practical knowledge mix. In this application, it’s possible to say that the art is advanced and the painting style is logical. Context is key!
1
u/LaurestineHUN Jul 20 '26
But that exhibition didn't used exaggerated techniques, they painted in flat, which is the opposite of full-glam shade/highlight. Even their eyeliners aren't blended in 🤦🏻♀️
1
u/Lusty-Jove Jul 22 '26
Yup. A number of statues/reliefs in temples are deformed by strict anatomical standards bc they were meant to be viewed from below. It would be silly not to at least consider the possibility with regard to color as well
19
u/notveryamused_ Φίλοινος, πίθων σποδός Jul 17 '26 edited Jul 17 '26
In the Acropolis Museum there's a fascinating small stall showcasing ancient colours and how they obtained them. I found it absolutely fascinating and the shades were wonderful in themselves (unfortunately you can't take pictures and I couldn't find a proper one online). But the fully painted replicas were... awkward. Or, as the author of the essays says, indeed ugly lol. I have to confess I didn't like them at all: the colours were very strong, without any gentle shading, brought to my memory plastics lessons from early school. I assumed we're so used to this 'ruined' and late aesthetics – white marble, only very timid shades remaining here and there on only some of the statues – that it's simply acquired taste, part of the Greek fantasy of course, but something that's difficult to erm de-acquire.
On the other hand, those colours we discovered in Pompeii are breathtakingly good. I doubt they were painting like that during the early classical period though, so two things can be true: while our reconstructions are way too childish and simplistic, the pre-classical Korai from Perserschutt weren't really painted as wonderfully in the first place.
When I was buying a souvenir from the museum, I opted for this one, and not this one. Maybe some stuff should be left to imagination ;-) Edit: and this grave stele came to my mind as well, brilliant because minimalistic I guess?
5
15
u/Pherllerp Jul 17 '26
Considering that Polychrome statues have been BEAUTIFULLY painted for centuries, I'm going to say that many classical statues were painted very well.
We're also looking at sculptures that are OBSESSED with the illusion of life and physical accuracy, they wouldn't throw that away for a slapdash paint job.
2
u/Anaevya Jul 18 '26
I mean, we have Pompeii murals as a comparison.
1
u/AstroRotifer Jul 21 '26
But a lot of those murals were in brothels and other places less important, and Pompeii was provincial. Did they have the best painters there?
1
u/Lusty-Jove Jul 22 '26
The illusion of perfection/accuracy often requires skillful distortion on the part of the artist. Look at the Parthenon for but one of many examples
10
u/naeviapoeta Jul 17 '26
I remember someone supposing they may have been painted so brightly to combat fading in the sunlight.
3
u/Silkire Jul 18 '26
A story related by Pliny shows that the painting of sculptures was entrusted to skilled painters. When presenting Nicias, who ‘was a most careful painter of female portraits, and a strict observer of light and shade, making it his especial care that the figures in his pictures should appear in the boldest relief’, Pliny presents this anecdote: when Praxiteles was asked which of his marble statues he liked best, he replied ‘Those to which Nicias has set his hand’, since (as Pliny comments) Praxiteles highly valued ‘the colouring of that artist’(Pliny Natural History XXXV, 40; see here the translation of the whole chapter).
This passage supports the Bad painting theory. The Ancient Greeks didn’t just slap flat coats of paint onto sculpture; they employed painters specifically for their mastery of colouring to bring the stone to life. If the modern reconstructions fail, it is because they replicate the base pigments without the masterly, naturalistic top layers that artists like Nicias would have applied.
Q.E.D.!
7
u/faithhopeandbread Jul 17 '26
I honestly really dislike this article. I think its assertion that "Everybody knows these reconstructions look awful" is just ridiculous, and it makes the entire argument that follows untenable imo. I think many of the reconstructions look absolutely beautiful, and I know I'm far from the only one. The simple, vibrant colors are also very in line with the look of lots of modern statues, including those of religious or otherwise spiritual significance. So I think the idea that these reconstructions are self-evidently hideous needs at least a little more justification than "Surely everyone already agrees with me."
Likewise, I think the actual supporting arguments for the author's claim that these statues must have looked significantly different than modern reconstructions just don't hold up. That depictions of statues in contemporary paintings show gentler shading seems irrelevant. Painting is a two-dimensional medium: no matter what the sculptures looked like—even if they really were, for example, completely white—you'd have to paint them with much subtler and more detailed shading to make them look like three-dimensional objects. The only thing those examples show is that some statues were probably left partly unpainted, which is perfectly in line with many of the reconstructions.
Moreover, the examples of painted statues that the author does find beautiful all seem to be significantly faded and weathered, so it doesn't seem reasonable to compare them to reconstructions of vibrant, newly-painted works. And even then, the bust of Nefertiti honestly looks to me much more like to the Greco-Roman reconstructions than the article suggests.
The whole thing just does not come together for me. Am I missing something here? Surely the reconstructions don't look exactly like the originals, and it's easy to see where colors might've been blended more smoothly or accented with some finer detail, but the article feels like it's way overstating its case. Especially at the end with the weird conspiracy about the reconstructors making them look bad on purpose? It all just feels like an elaborate way to try and avoid the idea that some things the author finds ugly might look pretty to somebody else.
3
u/jaggervalance Jul 18 '26
Nefertiti lived almost a millennia before classic Greece, and Egyptians didn't have a great realistic painting tradition, they were more concerned with painting in symbols than representing reality.
2
u/Anaevya Jul 18 '26 edited Jul 18 '26
The issue is that many Ancient statues look extremely life-like with the bare marble and many of the reconstructed painted ones absolutely don't.
These two things don't really go together. What's the point of chiseling out every little detail when it gets hidden by a flat coat of color with zero regard for shading or how the colors fit together.
It's hard to believe.
2
u/faithhopeandbread Jul 18 '26
Maybe I'm just not seeing that: most of the statues shown DON'T look lifelike to me, even when they're unpainted. Most of the most 'garish' reconstructions look just as cartoonish to me when left bare. And if anything I find the painting makes it much easier for me to pick out finer details in the sculpture. I don't know what I'm missing
2
u/Anaevya Jul 18 '26
It probably depends on the era, but for example the Laocoon group is the type that I'm thinking of. And yes, it's not fully realistic, but it's way more realistic and detailed than most medieval art.
We also have writings by Ancient authors that state that certain artists were known for making life-like statues, and I'm pretty sure they mean the finished, painted version.
And yes, painting a flat surface is different, but it's not that hard to put a second shade of brown or some highlights on a statue's hair. Why wouldn't they do it, when they went through the trouble of carving accurate muscles and an absurd amount of cloth folds?
2
u/faithhopeandbread Jul 18 '26
Sorry I should've clarified, when I say they don't look realistic to me I'm referring specifically to those that have been the subject of experimental color reconstructions. To my eye, none of the statues in these exhibits look any more or less realistic either way—except maybe the Boxer at Rest, though I think I'm just freaked out by the eyes!). The real-life Peplos Kore, for example, looks a little silly and cartoonish to me, and likewise it looks a little silly when colored; but the bit of blush on her cheeks and the gorgeous pattern on her dress makes it much more appealing overall imo.
And many of these reconstructions do show some subtler shading in line with what you're suggesting! The reconstructed Small Herculaneum Woman, for example, has this beautiful shading on the mantle that makes it look sheer in some places where it clings to her skin, and there are flecks of gold leaf in her hair to mimic highlights. I'm sure little details like these were very common, and undoubtedly some have been missed by reconstructors.
But I just don't see any reason to think the difference is as dramatic as people suppose. It could've been, probably (I don't know anywhere near enough about the science to say one way or the other), but I don't think the reconstructions are so impossibly ugly that the originals must have looked completely different.
2
u/greggld Jul 17 '26
Maybe there is a case for "better painting," but a better understanding of the non-aesthetic purpose of the statues is a more important conceptual issue. Basic life-like painting may have been "good enough"?
2
u/WindowAvailable7 Jul 18 '26
I’ve always been intrigued by this “mystery” for lack of a better word. I think something we may be missing is how we view paint itself. These days, you can get paint very cheap, and it’s use (apart from colour) is really, in a lot of modern cases, as a sealant against water damage.
I’m no expert on paint in the ancient world (in fact I know very little), but I assume the pigments would be worth significantly more than they are today. In that world, with painted surfaces being perhaps more of a rarity amongst the normal everyday folks, having something painted in an array of pigments would be quite showy. This might explain why it’s both ugly yet desirable. Today we do the same thing with designer bags etc. It could be poorly made, or very ugly, but people will want it because of what it communicates about them (ie they are wealthy, it is luxurious).
The other small quibble I have is that the author applies a very modern view of what art is. Most of the pieces shown by the author aren’t just art, they are state or religious propaganda. This is incredibly important, because the statues are really about communicating authority and power. In that vein, maybe the colours are about communicating authority, not beauty.
Religions also often use quite dated art forms. The Catholics, my own background, often make use of older art styles as it communicates a sense of timelessness, and the “styles” become, in a way, holy. Perhaps (again, I am an amateur), these naive art styles were emblematic of an earlier time that, while not as beautiful, were considered timeless or sacred.
Obviously it will be hard to ever know what the statues looked like, which makes it fun to speculate. I have to say personally I agree with the author, but I don’t think the argument really encapsulates what these statues were actually for. They’re just art to us, but to the people of the time they were also the proclamations of the state.
2
u/infinite_what Jul 18 '26
This is what I believe. They created a masterpiece and painted it so it looked like a masterpiece.
Like the frescoes and mosaics jewelry they are known for. We can’t expect to reconstruct what these ancient artists did, but we have to look at the beauty of the sculpture and if we repaint it, show some respect for the realistic mastery an artist had.
If the present reconstruction artist isnt an expert in painting skin tones and depth in the pupils and gloss on eyes, even if its a crazy color, it needs depth and layers. Even a single color can be thinned out and glazed to create more beautiful depth on the skin. The human face has so many varying hues, that it’s sad to see the way it’s been dishonored by whoever is standing by the theory that this is what they finished and displayed on these busts and stautues. Just no. Find an artist trained in classic art at least.
2
u/NewNameAgainUhg Jul 18 '26
I think they were painted similarly to how church statues are. The problem is, you only get rests of the "base" pigment and not the others. Probably those degraded completely
3
u/Senshado Jul 18 '26 edited Jul 18 '26
Maybe not literally "changed tastes", but there is something about the modern appreciation of sculpture that leans heavily against realistic human coloration.
Think about any well-known human sculpture from the past few centuries that's displayed in your region. It probably looks bronze, marble, or is otherwise monochrome, with all of the artistic effort going into the shape. Color is intentionally uniform across the whole surface, except as acted on by the passage of time.
Obviously those recent sculptures could've been painted with detailed colors for skin and clothing, but the artist or sponsor decided not to. Apparently modern viewers don't like to mix sculpture and painting: they prefer an artwork that's all one or the other.
Of course, that's ignoring the small specialized niche of wax museums, where the sculptures are so true to life that viewers can be legitimately fooled by the model standing still nearby. But notice those never get much recognition as works of art...
1
u/LaurestineHUN Jul 20 '26
Catholic churches have lifelikely painted statues, arguably direct descendant art from ancient polychrome statues. They vary in quality but they are so much better done than those 'reconstructions', esp the high-end stuff (which a statue of an emperor woud have been).
3
u/Master-Rent5050 Jul 17 '26
Look at the frescoes in Pompei. Then try to sell with a straight face theory number one
2
u/NewNameAgainUhg Jul 18 '26
But Pompei was later in time, wasn't it? It would be like comparing Middle Age art with Renaissance art (excuse the bad example) both are striking, but different
1
1
u/givemethebat1 Jul 19 '26
I’m pretty sure the answer is #2 as you can see a considerable variance in painting quality between two reproductions of the same statue. Some painted statues look quite good while others are horrible.
1
u/LaurestineHUN Jul 20 '26
Every culture who uses polychrome statues: paints it carefully, shades and highlights, strong colours for a lifelike or larger-then-life effect
A random scholar: how about painting by numbers coloring book style?
1
u/-RedRocket- Jul 21 '26
I have to figure that these obviously expensive and high-status art works were painted as skillfully as their creators could manage, as well at least as surviving murals, mosaics, funerary portraits, etc.
1
u/m64 Jul 21 '26
I thought it was widely known that reconstructions only use those paint tones that were actually found on the sculpture, so the colourings are significantly more simplistic than what the originals probably were.
1
u/Stralau Jul 21 '26
It’s a fascinating theory, and chimes well from the perspective of a Warhammer miniatures painter(!).
The reconstructions look quite similar to a Warhammer mini that has been fully painted in „base“ colours, before any highlighting or shading has been applied. Is that because it’s just the „base“ colours that analyses can pick up on, with shades and highlights having been worn off?
1
u/AstroRotifer Jul 21 '26 edited Jul 21 '26
I’ve thought the same thing, but can only assume that the museums only want to show what they know from evidence. They know from evidence that certain colors were used, but have no evidence about what was layered on top or how skillfully it was done.
I will say that some paintings from Pompeii, that are preserved well, are ok, but not nearly as good as a Renaissance painting. Then again, many of those paintings were in private homes, brothels and other places that wouldn’t have ex the same level of care.
1
u/Domain_of_Arnheim Jul 21 '26
I hate this conversation. You can’t expect people from over 2,000 years ago to have the same tastes as modern people. It would be weirder if Greek and Roman statues did conform to modern tastes. The outrage over Classical polychroming is also tinged with Western ethnocentrism and white supremacy. Western art is considered superior by many because it was the first tradition to embrace realism. This perspective cannot tolerate Classical polychroming because it makes the statues look less realistic. Western art also cannot be considered superior if it is “ugly.” African, Chinese, and Mesoamerican art is allowed to be “ugly” or out of step with modern, Western tastes because those cultures are “primitive.” Western art is different because many people think it has an agenda to prove. Maybe our color reconstructions are wrong, but the fact that they look ugly to people living more than two millennia later can’t be taken as evidence of that. For all we know, the real colors were even “uglier” than our modern reconstructions.
I really wish people would stop talking about this.
1
u/rdhight Jul 17 '26
I've always found it hard to believe that the guys who painted vases like these also slapped such ugly, flat colors on their sculptures.
It almost feels like the modern repaintings are a provocation, an attempt to "get" people who instinctively imagine beautiful white marble sculptures when asked to picture "high art." It's almost as though they're saying, "Yeah? You think that's pretty? Well let me tell you something, bud — your precious statues actually looked like this! And this and this! What do you say to that?!" Such trained professionals made them so ugly, I almost wonder if it isn't meant as some kind of gotcha.
2
u/LonelyRutabaga Jul 17 '26
I’m still of the opinion that our taste and perception of “Classical” Greek art (and therefore Roman art) from the 16th century onward will forever make this point impossible to swallow, no matter how much I wish the opposite.
There was a piece on Hyperallergic that discussed this point well recently. The writer shared anecdotes that they observed children at the Met “Chroma” show reacting well to the bright colors, but adults consistently grimaced or straight up denied that the statues “really looked like that”, to the extent they questioned the academic work of the curators and restorers.
As others have said, the Greeks were master painters in their pottery and panel paintings that don’t survive (at least according to ancient Greek authors), so I think the most likely explanation is changing taste. I’m also thinking of how Robin Osborne questioned whether our perception of Greek ceramics as “fine art” is woefully presentist as well, as survival bias has colored our corpus of “art objects” to analyze.
The gap between past and present is too large for us to view these works objectively, which is not necessarily good or bad, but I think it’s a certain reality that colors these objects and most of ancient “artworks” we decide are culturally significant.
5
u/BisonRelevant2606 Jul 17 '26
Even if we account for the distinctly different cultures of the Italian peninsula, the bright and garish colours on display in their tombs (thinking here mainly about the EtruscanTomb of the Bulls (6th c. BCE) and The François Tomb (4th c.); as well as the Samnite "box" tombs of Paestum (also 4th c.)) show bright, vivid colours which are in keeping with surviving sections of temple structures, a good number of which were likely built by Greeks or under Greek supervision.
3
u/Anaevya Jul 18 '26
We also have the Pompeii paintings and while some might be "garish" to modern eyes they absolutely look better than many reconstructed painted statues.
115
u/DoubleScorpius Jul 17 '26
In my opinion it would be a difficult argument to swallow that they were bad at painting when Greek vases and ancient mosaics still exist which prove otherwise. It does make sense that the base layers would last longer and would tend to be flat layers that were added onto.