Why is hollywood like this?
Why is hollywood like this?
This phonograph "reads" a rock’s rough surface and transforms it into beautiful ambient music pic.twitter.com/PYDzYsWWf8
— Surreal Videos (@SurrealVideos) March 3, 2023
Why is hollywood like this?
This phonograph "reads" a rock’s rough surface and transforms it into beautiful ambient music pic.twitter.com/PYDzYsWWf8
— Surreal Videos (@SurrealVideos) March 3, 2023
That statue's paint job is not nearly tacky enough.
Maybe plain marble is for the best
That looks so much gayer and less intimidating than the pure marble it's unreal
because the scientists are, as usual, a bunch of retards with zero knowledge outside their field. they found trace amounts of a pigment and just assumed that the ancients just put one coat of that bright pigment, when in reality they obviously would use shading and highlighting and other techniques to make it look good.
You can see shading and highlighting in that image, so that one is being pretty generous. It is indisputable that they used garish, tacky colors for their paint jobs based on all the pigments they find.
>You can see shading and highlighting in that image
where? all of it is literally painted in the same color.
The idea that they would create such magnificent sculptures to only mar them with tacky, half-assed paint jobs is idiotic.
You're using backwards logic. Your idea of a magnificent sculpture is shaped by the historically wrong assumption that these sculptures were intended to look a certain way (that is, completely white)
Consider how rare dyes historically were, how today we take them for granted, and how they might view a generous usage of them differently
>Consider how rare dyes historically were
It comes right down to this, plastering everything in vibrant colors derived from expensive pigments was a flagrant display of wealth.
Read Meditations
What a bunch of retards. I can just go to the store and buy colored paints for dirt cheap lol
It's the opposite. I don't assume anything of what they may have looked. To assume that the painting was shit based on what's found thousands of years later is exactly the myopia you're describing. Fucking hell
"Shit" is a matter of perspective, genius
>Consider how rare dyes historically were
Depends on the dye. I've heard reds were so common even peasants had access to them.
> red was common
It wasnt. Yellow from weld (dyer's weed) was common, followed by blue from woad, then finally red from madder. Yellow was mixed with a little blue to make green, or mixed with a little red to make orange. Madder was pretty expensive compared to woad and weld
I thought blue was expensive lapiz lazuli. How good was this cheap organic pigment and how does it compare with infigo? Does it fade fast?
Mate
Look at them, without assumptions or historical knowledge
The white ones look 100000000 times better than the shit painted ones
You absolute donkey, youre the one using backwards needlessly contrarial irrational logic
You animal
Whoever made this comic has room temperature IQ aswell
Painted looks like shit, pure looks actually decent
>noooo I don't like it so it must be wrong!
and these are the people that tell you "science was wrong again"
>It is indisputable
Mate, how often do you think your glorious science is wrong?
Are you just retarded or do you eat everything the feemason s9yence feeds you
>phoneposter is retarded
wow, what a shock
Yes bro your science has never been wrong, constantly
You absolute retarded midwit lol
The fact that you dont know how often "science" gets things wrong just confirms your retardation
Statues were first made with cheaper materials like wood which was painted because it looks like shit otherwise. As sculptors learned to use marble the practice of painting continued for a while as a holdover. From the greatest periods of Greek sculpture, fifth century and onward it was very rare to paint marble statues, because obviously if you're using such a beautiful and expensive material you don't want to cover it with paint.
Philistine academics "discovered" with modern technology that some statues were painted, even though this practice was already written about by ancient authors.
Source if you don't believe me. From "A handbook of Greek sculpture" by Ernest Gardner, published 1897.
>quotes a source from 1897
Are you retarded?
Earlier sources are often free of revisionist bias
>source is bad if it's older than X range
Do incels really.
Also, the reason they highlight this obscure piece of trivia isn't to promote knowledge about ancient art, but to make a political point. Searching for articles about the topic gets you headlines like
>The Myth of Whiteness in Classical Sculpture
>Greek and Roman statues were often painted, but assumptions about race and aesthetics have suppressed this truth. Now scholars are making a color correction.
They literally just hate unpainted sculptures because white marble = white people = le evil
Must these fuckers pollute every single discussion about every single topic with their anti-white bullshit? It's getting to the point where we can't even have good-faith discussions about anything because sometimes even technically correct arguments have been appropriated by them for their agenda.
Of course they must. They don't care about anything so vulgar as the truth, their only goal is the extermination of Whites. They're not subtle about it either.
The sooner you accept this the better.
a painted statue would look like a real life person
this disturbs me a little
the best thing about unpainted statues is that marble is slightly matte and translucent to light on the surface in a lot of cases so it gives it a realistic texture thats more like a real persons skin than paint, just a very stylised version of it. so cool to see in person
>marble is slightly matte and translucent to light on the surface in a lot of cases so it gives it a realistic texture thats more like a real persons skin than paint
This tbh. It's why both marble and human skin need stuff like subsurface scattering to be rendered realistically in CGI.
the sculpting tradition from which we get the most of the style and artistic method used in marble originally came from lost-wax casted bronze statues, you fucking smoothbrain-- wood carving never compare as a medium and most wooden ancient greek statues were aniconic, like the xoanon of Athena.We have so few bronzes from the ancient world because its easy to melt down and recycle, whereas marble statues were the cheaper copies in ancient times, and the survived because its not as useful to recycle them-- the ones that survived are almost all from shipwrecks, which show that they were always painted. All ancient statues were. It's the "muh pure beauty of the material" shit which is a retarded academic presumption of the early classicists which just lingered on long enough to exist in neoclassical art-- the ancients were excellent painters and reconstructed attempts at painted statuary is mostly done without full knowledge of the process involved
>which show that they were always painted.
I don't think bronzes were painted though. They used different colored metals or ivory or glass for eyes, lips, nipples.
Here's a red figure vase showing a bronze Apollo inside a temple, visibly shiny.
While you are right that they did use a great variety of inlays on bronzes, from precious metals, stones, and ivory, they were painted to some degree in order to emphasize clothing, for statues which depicted it. However, red and black figure vases are kinda dicey for depicting colours with visual accuracy, as the whole thing needs to be stylized to some degree to accommodate the predominate colours of slip, with paint only rarely being added on afterwards-- they did a lot of things by artistic convention on them. As for that Apollo, while there may have been a few glimmering bronzes of him irl, it was also an artistic and religious convention to depict him as shining with a bright glow, given his connections with the sun.
A good example of a largely non-painted or less painted ancient statues would probably be the chryselaphantine statues of Athena and Zeus-- made out of gold and ivory predominantly, built over a frame. None of them survived because of the value and recycleability of the materials, but we have a pretty good idea of what they looked like, and also that they used minimum paint-- I would say that here, more than in black marble, we see the ancients using the raw colour of the ivory to depict skin colour-- Athena's skin was said to be coloured that of pure white ivory in the Parthenon. This American reconstruction is pretty much spot on, from what we know from descriptions and copies of that original statue.
Good post, also black basalt and porphyry statues would be largely unpainted to show off the material I'm pretty sure
>Knew how to build realistic statues
>Didn't know how to color or shade
What a croak of shit. Science fags are the worst
It’s important to not the pigment fragments do not prove they used flat colour. It’s more a case of it not showing they used shading or what shading so in the interest of accuracy they don’t show what isn’t proved.
That's dumb as hell. So they know they did X but they don't know how they did X. So instead, they do the make up some random thing and claim this is how they did X.
To be fair, it isn't the scientists themselves who are framing this as how it was, that's mostly at the fault of all the various media who simply it too much.
Still it's interesting to have even an idea of how some things looked like.
other period paintings have similar flat color and lack of shading
scultping and painting are different skills
this is ridiculous logic and you legitimately can't tell how the thing was painted 2000 years later. This reminds me of the same meme with the Cheddar Man's skin where le ~~*scientists*~~ decided to play monopoly to determine that his skin was black
You telling me these guys didn't know how to shade?
Those are different things. Cheddar man lacked light skin alleles. It's hard science.
>Cheddar man lacked light skin alleles
No, it's not, you idiot. People called bullshit on that immediately. Just because the Cheddar Man wasn't a pale bong who never saw the sun doesn't mean he was a moron. His most likely skin color was darker like those you would see in meds, not completely black.
All modern Meds have skin lightening alleles. Cheddar man lacked them. Not only Cheddar man - all Western Mesolithic hunter gatherers.
They only tested like 30 genetic markers. Skin pigmentation is influenced by 300. And as far as I know DNA degrades over the years. Furthermore, light skin in Asia was developed from different alleles than Europeans, so that's not a cold stone fact.
And finally from what I also remember their research was wrong from the get go because they used modern day light skin color to compare it to and found it more closely resembled black which is complete bullshit because obviously his skin wouldn't be pasty white like a modern Briton.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2161867-ancient-dark-skinned-briton-cheddar-man-find-may-not-be-true/
Whole thing was a scam. If I remember correctly, one of the leading scientists at the project said he choose to make him black just because it was progressive. It was not based on scientific fact, but just because he thought it is cool to be inclusive.
This. Cheddar Man was dark in the same way that the Iroquois were 'dark'. Light skin is not just an adaptation to higher latitudes but also agriculture because grain based diets don't provide much vitamin D. Cheddar man was probably the same skin tone as a Turk.
Two things.
Firstly (apparently) you can't determine skin tone by what's left on a skeleton. I'm no scientist but that sounds like a no brainer.
Secondly, there was an actual grave site of the era not too far from where he was found, which means he was an outsider and was likely beaten to death by the locals.
exactly, the knew how to shade this is such bullshit
It's incredible how humans just got collectively dumber in the middle ages to the point they couldn't even paint people with proper proportions anymore.
Considering the renaissance occurred in Italy, there's got to be an artistic gene that nords and germanics are just missing.
People could make good art in the middle ages, but only in Greece/the eastern roman empire. They kept civilization going while western europe was basically the mud peasants from Monty Python.
it happens
I honestly wonder what brain parasite developed in the nineties for people to somehow delude themselves into thinking this art style was appealing.
Where's his torso?
Captain America took it
Thor's blood is made of oil?
You are just cherrypicking
Renaissance "started" in 1300, and here's a painting of 1100
it's not from the 11th century, it's from the XIX.
No, that's a painting OF 1099. It was painted by Jean Victor Schnetz sometime in the 19th century.
You’re artistically illiterate if you can’t tell by the art style alone that it wasn’t painting in the 11th century. It was literally inconceivable to paint like this at the time
close enough
To be fair that was woven into a tapestry which is harder than just painting it.
It was also woven by the saxon women who were depicting the defeat of their forces.
Not exactly going to put your A weaving game into commemorating something your lot lost.
it's a painting fool, how about you post a roman painting ?
Proportions weren't important, realism was self indugent
the proportions here are correct
you're as dumb as them, if you were beamed back into the middle ages you wouldn't be able to improve their artwork, you're a retard
Looks better than 99.9% of all modern art. Fuck off gay.
This is better than anything the greeks or romans ever made. Strong aryan genes shine throughout the art. It makes you feel.
>artistic gene
Some russian guy said that good visual artists have bigger brain occipital lobes. Thats the part that processes vision.
I have a fondness for this artstyle. Although it wasn't that much of a downgrade, roman art was pretty flat too. People assume romans had god tier art because of their statues and because they see renaissance paintings of romans and think ancient romans painted them.
Look at what's happening today and tell me how incredible it is.
thats just the base layer, retard
>tacky
That's the base layer, the first pigments which were painted onto the statue, afterwards several other layers were applied to make them look more lifelike.
Obviously we can't know exactly how lifelike they looked painted, but considering their superb sculpting ability it isn't hard to imagine the painters weren't far behind.
I don't get why it is so hard to believe that painting technique was farther behind compared to the sculpting.
Because even a retard can see what a shitty paint job does to a great sculpture and go "oh shit, go back!"
Painting marble statues would not have been prevalent if it didn't improve the aesthetics.
If the rich shmuck who commissioned it wanted it painted, it was going to be painted no matter how bad it looked.
We have paintings from that era, and even mosaics display beautiful shading. The statues didn't look like that pos mock up
pic related is a roman painting
>inb4 polchud screeching about uh non-whites
this was in egypt, the point was this is the skill of the average romanpainter at the time
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fayum_mummy_portraits
>Catalog
whatso special about those arab paintings ?
Roman period paintings commissioned by the middle class, rare survivors in the archaeological record and therefore a unique sample of the high quality of painting techniques
why do we have base layer statues but no completely painted ones?
Because it was the only one that was directly on the marble? If the base layer is reduced to trace pigments in the stone, why would you expect the paint layers over it to remain?
The colors faded through the years and only individual specks of pigments that were at the very "bottom" of the paint layer are left and not even a lot.
I tried finding a more specific explanation in an article but I made the mistake of choosing a New Yorker article and it devolved into 6 paragraph long ramble about how Western Civilization wasn't REALLY white.
we don't have "base layer statues" we have been able to find fragments of eroded/degraded pigment of some statues and can extrapolate basic shades for areas from that. there's nowhere near enough data to know how complex or layered any paint job was, but there's now way they were all painted in single block colours like a 5 year old would do.
Surely we have paintings of the statues. They loved painting in that era didn't they? And the statues would've been a big attraction.
I don't know of any but I'm not knowledgable about this. I think we'd have to be pretty lucky to have an intact painting of a statue and that same staute or something similar intact.
I love how we have murals like this but at the same time scientists will STILL go 'HURR DURR NOOO THE GUYS WHO PAINTED STATUES DID NOT KNOW ABOUT SHADING AND HIGHLIGHTING'
ok, why not?
'THEY JUST DIDN'T OK CHUD?'
Where did you catch that bit? So far I've just seen scientist arguing that our views of how the statues looked are wrong, not that they know exactly how they were painted.
>Where did you catch that bit?
in literally every depiction of painted statues.
the paint wore away or oxidized
Someone fell for a tribal psyop
This is a literal shit tier artists idea of what they look like. It's less accurate than the marble, at least the marble isn't adding bullshit.
That's the base layer pigment, retard.
that's terrible
>fixed
Rome basically bankrupted itself for fashion. If that rendition of a painted statue looks like shit to us, it would certainly look like shit to them.
Did all emperors have a tiny mini-me version of themselves lmao
It basically acted as a third leg to stabilize the statue.
its not, watch the tv show Rome, its very colorful
Classical futurism is based.
Dumb Ayn Rand aesthetic, I don't like it.
>bridges that go through giant complex structures
Bet you like that stupid fuckin Mussolini face too
I actually do
You better not be Australian I swear to god.
Huh? Why?
Post the Sneed edit.
>Yeah we’re the good guys
kek I kind of do in a strange manner.
I dislike Rand.
Is that Frasier Crane?
for me it's
Imagine how much bread that windmill results in making...
what's this kind of thing called? it's stirring some kind of emotion in me and i want more of it
Art
no i mean the style of painting/subject matter
try "architectural fantasy" or "capriccio"
With the exception of the giant windmill, was there ever a time and place in history where you could witness something like this?
Everything in that painting is deliberately huge and aesthetic to give it a sci-fi/futuristic look without actually being sci-fi, but I guess the port of Constantinople. It was the biggest medieval European city and one Europe's major trade hubs.
Setting aside the architecture sailing ships really were one some of biggest and tallest things around for a good portion of history. They certainly would be amazing to behold.
Havana circa 15-18th century.
Batavia around the 1600s-1800s. Any large port in Western Europe like Rotterdam or London around that time too
any town in holland in the last 5 centuries
Netherlands in the 1800s.
I am a massive sucker for Dutch paintings involving boats.
no because humans dont have binocular vision so it would never look this good
You do understand what "binocular vision" means, right?
Replace that with telephoto vision of you want and it’s the same thing anon. Point is we see around the equivalent of 50mm which will never give us the “grand massive structures” look that so many people love in art
For me? its industrialpunk
stop adding "punk" to the end of words. your not creating a new genre youre being reddit
I bet you're a burgerpunk fan.
stop being Cinemaphilepunk
GUYS guys ok here me out: what if maybe, just maybe Tatooine's A E S T H E T I C's was le hecking desertpunk?
Moisturepunk, because their whole society depends on moisture farming technology.
>desertpunk
That was a pretty cool series
Never heard of that but it looks kino. Will def check it out
dude this is just the arab world, its always been used to depict alien architecture
>arab world
>posts picture of a cathedral
lol, just asumed it was a mosque, i looked for istanbul
This is what Tolkien was imagining when he came up with Mordor.
A part of the English Midlands was referred to as "the black country" due to coal rich earth. It had a chain of towns with specialised industries dating back hundreds of years that exploded in output and expanded in size during the industrial revolution to the point the whole area was described as black by day from smog and red by night from forges. In LotR Mordor is frequently referred to as "black country"
isn't that just a picture of detroit or something
Detroit is crackpunk meets wakandapunk.
i give you 3rd world industrial
That windmill is ridiculous, I love it.
>another flock of pterodactyls just got hit by the windmill captain
>Get the carts boys, we'll be eating well tonight!
AYE
fuck that's dope
would love to see a Souls game with this aesthetic
>Windmill Town - Zabrocki
>Basic sketch, then making rough layout in 3dsmax, rendered in octane and took for many hours back to good old Photoshop
ngl, kind of disappointed
the windmill tells me the creator of this piece is a moron
>he doesn't like massive, unrealistically oversized windmills
FUCK YOU they are comfy and cool
and no I am not Dutch
>Raita's advertise book produce the absolute girl
>zero nature
yasssss so heckin basederino
There is little conceptual peices of classical futurism anymore so I took the first one I found. My ideal is a mix of nature based classical futurism.
No one would be able handle that shit. You fuckers can't even go 6 minutes without a highway accident.
recs for this? i think of incredibles, but it also reminds me of shaun tan's art
Metropolis
etienne boullee did it best imo
>What if building was just... LE BIG?
Wow such genius
the fucking size of that
he said, let me just build a mountain
HNNNG LOOK AT ALL THOSE ROADS AND GIANT SUNLESS OFFICE BUILDINGS OH GOD I'M GONNA COOOOOM
>inb4 da jeeeews
nazis wanted their cities to look like the ones on the bottom
Yeah and wait until you see Washington DC
Color didn't exist until the 50's
>the historians that said they're all gay also say they painted their statues
I'll be sure to file this bit of bullshit knowledge in the fucking trash next to "feathered dinosaurs" and "cruel slave masters"
They did paint them, we just don't know the specifics.
What are some kinos that DON'T do this?
Rome (TV Series 2005–2007)
Because they’re ignorant, uneducated and illiterate philistines.
>op is angry their aren't enough penises
Typical op
Billboards used to be a thing in ancient Rome, imagine the whole side of a building painted with the image of a famous Olympic wrestler, probably fully nude, holding a bottle of "Leo's Top Quality Olive Oil", winking suggestively because we all know what they're using that oil for.
This was a real thing, but put it in a movie along with the real colors and people will think you're making a cheap parody flick.
4 me, it's ecobrutalismpunk.
The Romans didn't just have graffiti all over. It was just stupid messages drunk people would leave around bars and brothels.
Art Deco was the last decent style
Any cumpunk recs?
>LOOK AT THE SIZE OF HIS DICK LOLOLOL
White "men" used to build statues in their likeness and insist that small penises were better, while their women would have sex with black slaves.
I dunno why but walking among huge muscular statues painted in natural skin tones seems a lot more gay than walking among huge muscular unpainted statues.
yeah bro, it's a gnomish psyop bro, it's not that white boys are corny gays
>filmed on location
>WHY ARENT THE ORIGINAL STATUES PAINTED FOR THE MOVIE?
It doesn't matter, we're not getting any good historical films going forward.
Nobody wants to watch history movies outside of history nerds. I am a history nerd, but I've come to terms with that a long time ago.
Nobody wants to watch actual movies period.
Not that there is anyone left to rememebr how they were made...
Because no one knew they were painted until recently.
I cannot understand how stupid you have to be to think marble sculpures look better with paint
Like how much of a deficient creature are you
Jesus christ
What amount of mental retardation makes you think painted ones look better
Just think rationally about it, and no the fact that some retards found something (perhaps millions more things) on one sculpture doesnt *confim*
That ancient people were as shitasteless as you who would paint over already magnific sculptures
If that was the case tradition would have endured in places where marble sculpture were and could have been preserved
You absolute low IQ creature
Never been more mad about idiots just buying a
"le wh*te bad we wuzz told a lie we wuzz kanz n sht"
"it wuzz acktually painted and they were queerz n sht"
theory
Like dude, open your eyes, if they were painted the tradition would have been carried over, because not every single marble sculpture was just forgotten and not cared for for eternity
You r4dditor clowns, plus they likely tried painting some of them then realized it looked like absolute garbage (The thing youre defending)
So yeah that might be where they get their colored abominations theory
What is this phenomenon where people get worked up over painted Greek statues and feathered dinos? I have a feeling this is just millennials being manchildren again, sperging out over history not lining up with their childhood movie depictions.
Classical Statue pfp people are too invested in the statues being white.
It's easier to spend less on doing it right