Um sweaty historical accuracy is when there are giant firebreathing dragons and ice zombies but also there is a lot of rape in it. Super realistic :so-true:
I've seen as much before. Consider the fact that all we have left is the base paint, none of the detailing or outer coats. We also know from surviving mosaics or painted interiors they didn't use color the way this image suggests.
It's difficult to tell what they'd have actually looked like as a finished result. Like the other poster said, what we have are traces of base coat pigment, and to speak from a modern sculpting/painting standpoint one often needs to use too bright colors in the lower layers to get the correct color in the upper layers.
I think what the final result would look like would probably depend on where a statue was going to be displayed: the Romans had a very limited toolkit to work with so far as paints went, and the ones that would hold up to outside weather were kind of shitty and ill-suited to fine detail work, so a statue displayed in a square would probably have less detailed and realistic paint work because it just wasn't possible and it would probably have to be regularly touched up or repainted anyways. A statue displayed inside may very well have been genuinely lifelike, because judging by the comparatively small number of true paintings that have survived from that era they had both the technical skill and the materials to do so.
That means an outdoor statue may well have looked like that picture, while a statue in a villa may have looked more like one of those really uncanny wax sculptures.
Nobody tell them about the legend of Prester John or what high esteem :you-are-a-serf: held him in, or for that matter Mansa Munsa handing out gold baubles to dab during a continental tour.
Yep. Also there are late medieval paintings that show black people living in Europe that aren't just like a "blackface style." They are pretty clearly African based on the facial features, hair etc.
Or remind them that one of the people shot in the Boston Massacre, and it is depicted in the most famous contemporary image of it, was a black dude.
What is also interesting is there is a medieval european painting of a battle between the Christian Ethiopians and Muslims and they depict the Ethiopian soldiers as wearing European style armor. Which was probably not the case irl. But it gets the point across to the ignorant which side to cheer for if you were a European Christian.
Um sweaty historical accuracy is when there are giant firebreathing dragons and ice zombies but also there is a lot of rape in it. Super realistic :so-true:
Medieval Europe had dragons but not black people, it's basic history sweetie :very-smart:
A lot of these poor fools are going to be in for a shock when they find out there were black people in Ancient Rome.
And in "dae le pale marble statues that totally weren't garishly painted" ancient Greece. laughs in Aesop
They probably weren't garishly colored, but they definitely were bright
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.qJyR5HlaHBrD2qflnYeH3wHaGb%26pid%3DApi&f=1&ipt=8950b04c6e81e321d945a76d909d99f9577d4341a2bbfbe81638afebe158ea07&ipo=images
I've seen as much before. Consider the fact that all we have left is the base paint, none of the detailing or outer coats. We also know from surviving mosaics or painted interiors they didn't use color the way this image suggests.
So you're saying there is a chance? :sicko-pig:
Sure, why not?
It's difficult to tell what they'd have actually looked like as a finished result. Like the other poster said, what we have are traces of base coat pigment, and to speak from a modern sculpting/painting standpoint one often needs to use too bright colors in the lower layers to get the correct color in the upper layers.
I think what the final result would look like would probably depend on where a statue was going to be displayed: the Romans had a very limited toolkit to work with so far as paints went, and the ones that would hold up to outside weather were kind of shitty and ill-suited to fine detail work, so a statue displayed in a square would probably have less detailed and realistic paint work because it just wasn't possible and it would probably have to be regularly touched up or repainted anyways. A statue displayed inside may very well have been genuinely lifelike, because judging by the comparatively small number of true paintings that have survived from that era they had both the technical skill and the materials to do so.
That means an outdoor statue may well have looked like that picture, while a statue in a villa may have looked more like one of those really uncanny wax sculptures.
Nobody tell them about the legend of Prester John or what high esteem :you-are-a-serf: held him in, or for that matter Mansa Munsa handing out gold baubles to dab during a continental tour.
Why go that far? Saint maurice patron of the holy roman empire is depicted as black in catholic iconografy.
Yep. Also there are late medieval paintings that show black people living in Europe that aren't just like a "blackface style." They are pretty clearly African based on the facial features, hair etc.
Or remind them that one of the people shot in the Boston Massacre, and it is depicted in the most famous contemporary image of it, was a black dude.
What is also interesting is there is a medieval european painting of a battle between the Christian Ethiopians and Muslims and they depict the Ethiopian soldiers as wearing European style armor. Which was probably not the case irl. But it gets the point across to the ignorant which side to cheer for if you were a European Christian.
This is what caused racism