The posted article doesn't have much context, but it's the only source I found with images of the ultravoiolet photographs which justify the colored patterns. More context and photos in this Smithsonian review: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/true-colors-17888...
"While to our modern eye, the bright colours scream ‘tacky,’ to the ancients who painted them, it was ‘expensive!’ Back in the day, slaves wore roughcloth, like undyed and unbleached icky tan colors. The well-to-do wore ‘inexpensive’ colours, and the extremely wealthy wore ‘royal’ colours. There were even laws about it, a very wealthy merchant without a noble title might be able to afford purples and blues, but could be put to death for wearing them. Same goes for statues, only the very rich could waste colours on statuary and decor. It was a status symbol. Dyes, pigments, and paints have become so inexpensive that we’ve become a bit jaded."
Found a comment by Gregory Meeker about "underpainting", which used to be on the Smithsonian article [1] [2]:
"It’s reasonable to assume that the painting on the figures was at least as sophisticated as the figures themselves. By the time of the Alexander Sarcophagus the subtlety of the sculpture has far outstripped the colors identified and applied by Brinkmann. This does not mean that Brinkmann has left the path of accurate reconstruction; it may mean that his ultimate goal is impossibly distant. The colors he has identified on later pieces are clearly just underpainting for a far more realistic final finish. This was the process used in Renaissance oil paintings of equivalent visual sophistication. The assumption that the painting was as sophisticated as the figures is an extremely conservative one. The artistic and manual skills required for realistic sculpting are far greater than those required for life-like painting of a finished figure. And the painting task was a relaxed one, far more amenable to messing around until the artist got it right. So painting was easier, less risky and, because of weathering, constantly in demand. It is reasonable to conclude that until sculpting reached its zenith, painting of figures was substantially more sophisticated than the figures themselves. With luck, Brinkmann will eventually find a piece with all the layers intact."
Maybe the buyers dictated the garishness, not the artists. Artist friends of mine tell me how the whole art industry is warped by the need to make ignorant rich people feel smart (and believe their pieces may rise in value). Same with webdesigners laughing about their bosses who demand ugly junk, layered under inexplicable symbolism.
Perhaps most of the rich really loved the effect of eye-popping colors. To the chagrin of Greek/Roman "classics" snobs who bask in the reflection of these symbols' austere reserve.
This isn't a particularly new revelation as the article makes it seem (the article is dated 2008, but I remember learning about this when I was in school even earlier than that).
That said, it's rather interesting how many people - even very educated people - are unaware of this fact. I've heard art critics refer to the color as a sign of the 'pristine' and 'pure' aspects of Greco-Roman[0] art, completely ignoring the fact that they were actually painted with incredibly bright colors 2000 years ago.
(Of course, one can make a somewhat postmodern argument that the piece of art with the colors as they appear today should be evaluated in its own right, independently of what it was 2000 years ago, but I don't think that's what they were going for).
[0] Another fun fact - we actually have very few Greek art (statues) to study. Most of our knowledge of Greek sculpture comes from Roman reproductions, along with a few pieces that were hidden in tombs, etc. for centuries and forgotten. The Greeks, unlike the Romans, made a lot of statues in metals, and these were subsequently melted down for the materials[1]. The Romans produced original art, but they also produced mass reproductions of Greek art (marble, and other materials) - this is largely what we study today.
It sounds like the international museum road show with full-size painted replicas did a great job of popularizing the scholarly knowledge. If only there were educational museums for media/software studies and computer security!
I went on a field trip to Greece in School, where I saw a lot of ancient ruins of temples that had also been painted when "in use". While the landscape was just breathtaking (and the ancient Greeks had a knack for putting their temples in beautiful places), I was always a little sad to be shown the ruins without a clue what those places must have looked like back in their prime.
I know it is not easy, but I so wished to just once see the ruins of a temple next to a reconstruction of what archaeologists think it must have looked like back when.
Agreed :-)
But see the comment down thread about under painting - what we see here is fairly child like poster colours painting - all that can be justified from the scarce evidence. But it is hard to imaging the sophistacted sculptors leaving the painting to less subtle hands. So the reconstruction we could prove today is probably a laughable copy of the reality - after all they would have all the colours of the Greek landscape to inspire them!
>But it is hard to imagin[e] the sophistacted sculptors leaving the painting to less subtle hands. //
It is hard to imagine. But there could be other reasons to use garish and unnatural colours, perhaps the colours were akin to pythagorean forms - they could represent perfect colours, seen as more godly or regal.
You can see a similar sort of thing in some sectors of [UK] society today. People paint on makeup that makes them look orange-y or an unnatural flat/monotone brown and that is seen - in limited circles - as the epitome of beauty. Consider Geisha as another example, flat white with shocking red lips, how unnatural.
This brings to mind reflections I've read on how important it is to not assume that just because something seems obvious or the best method available in the period with the technology available that it should be the case. Occam's Razor be damned, humans often complicate things beyond their need and those complications aren't often unrefined in some way.
It is fun to imagine marbles as life-size, lifelike figures, lacquered to give a living shine and perhaps dressed in fine vestments and perfumed; the uncanny valley of yesteryear.
We can say two things for sure - we do not currently know enough to have evidence of how they were painted, that these statues cross vast amounts of time, technology and fashion - and that so both of us could easily be right ...
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
A comment on the social status of color, http://moco-choco.com/2014/04/18/true-colors-of-ancient-gree...
"While to our modern eye, the bright colours scream ‘tacky,’ to the ancients who painted them, it was ‘expensive!’ Back in the day, slaves wore roughcloth, like undyed and unbleached icky tan colors. The well-to-do wore ‘inexpensive’ colours, and the extremely wealthy wore ‘royal’ colours. There were even laws about it, a very wealthy merchant without a noble title might be able to afford purples and blues, but could be put to death for wearing them. Same goes for statues, only the very rich could waste colours on statuary and decor. It was a status symbol. Dyes, pigments, and paints have become so inexpensive that we’ve become a bit jaded."
For offline archiving, a PDF with photos of the exhibits shown at Harvard: http://harvardmag.com/pdf/2007/11-pdfs/1107-32.pdf