Why is hollywood like this?

Why is Hollywood like this?

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    That statue's paint job is not nearly tacky enough.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Maybe plain marble is for the best

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      That looks so much gayer and less intimidating than the pure marble it's unreal

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        because the scientists are, as usual, a bunch of morons 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.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          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.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >You can see shading and highlighting in that image
            where? all of it is literally painted in the same color.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            The idea that they would create such magnificent sculptures to only mar them with tacky, half-assed paint jobs is idiotic.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              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

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >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.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Read Meditations

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                What a bunch of morons. I can just go to the store and buy colored paints for dirt cheap lol

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                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. Fricking hell

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                "Shit" is a matter of perspective, genius

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Consider how rare dyes historically were
                Depends on the dye. I've heard reds were so common even peasants had access to them.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                > 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

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                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?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                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

                https://i.imgur.com/7tH3Qld.jpg

                Why is hollywood like this?

                Whoever made this comic has room temperature IQ aswell

                Painted looks like shit, pure looks actually decent

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >noooo I don't like it so it must be wrong!

              and these are the people that tell you "science was wrong again"

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >It is indisputable

            Mate, how often do you think your glorious science is wrong?

            Are you just moronic or do you eat everything the feemason s9yence feeds you

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >phoneposter is moronic
              wow, what a shock

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Yes bro your science has never been wrong, constantly

                You absolute moronic midwit lol

                The fact that you dont know how often "science" gets things wrong just confirms your moronation

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          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

          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.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Source if you don't believe me. From "A handbook of Greek sculpture" by Ernest Gardner, published 1897.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >quotes a source from 1897
              Are you moronic?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Earlier sources are often free of revisionist bias

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >source is bad if it's older than X range

                Do incels really.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            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

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Must these frickers 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.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                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.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            a painted statue would look like a real life person
            this disturbs me a little

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              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

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >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.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            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 fricking 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 moronic 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

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >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.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Good post, also black basalt and porphyry statues would be largely unpainted to show off the material I'm pretty sure

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Knew how to build realistic statues
      >Didn't know how to color or shade
      What a croak of shit. Science gays are the worst

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        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.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          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.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            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.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        other period paintings have similar flat color and lack of shading
        scultping and painting are different skills

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          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?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Those are different things. Cheddar man lacked light skin alleles. It's hard science.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >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 Black person. His most likely skin color was darker like those you would see in meds, not completely black.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                All modern Meds have skin lightening alleles. Cheddar man lacked them. Not only Cheddar man - all Western Mesolithic hunter gatherers.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous
            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              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.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            exactly, the knew how to shade this is such bullshit

            That statue's paint job is not nearly tacky enough.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            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.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              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.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              it happens

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I honestly wonder what brain parasite developed in the nineties for people to somehow delude themselves into thinking this art style was appealing.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Where's his torso?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Captain America took it

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Thor's blood is made of oil?

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              You are just cherrypicking
              Renaissance "started" in 1300, and here's a painting of 1100

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                it's not from the 11th century, it's from the XIX.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                No, that's a painting OF 1099. It was painted by Jean Victor Schnetz sometime in the 19th century.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                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

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                close enough

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                To be fair that was woven into a tapestry which is harder than just painting it.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                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.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              it's a painting fool, how about you post a roman painting ?

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Proportions weren't important, realism was self indugent

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              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 moron

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Looks better than 99.9% of all modern art. Frick off homosexual.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              This is better than anything the greeks or romans ever made. Strong aryan genes shine throughout the art. It makes you feel.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >artistic gene
              Some russian guy said that good visual artists have bigger brain occipital lobes. Thats the part that processes vision.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              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.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Look at what's happening today and tell me how incredible it is.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Maybe plain marble is for the best

      That looks so much gayer and less intimidating than the pure marble it's unreal

      thats just the base layer, moron

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >tacky

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      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.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        I don't get why it is so hard to believe that painting technique was farther behind compared to the sculpting.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Because even a moron 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.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            If the rich shmuck who commissioned it wanted it painted, it was going to be painted no matter how bad it looked.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          We have paintings from that era, and even mosaics display beautiful shading. The statues didn't look like that pos mock up

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          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

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fayum_mummy_portraits

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >Catalog

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              whatso special about those arab paintings ?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                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

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        why do we have base layer statues but no completely painted ones?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          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?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          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.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          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.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            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.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              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.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                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?'

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Where did you catch that bit?
                in literally every depiction of painted statues.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          the paint wore away or oxidized

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Someone fell for a tribal psyop

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      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.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      That's the base layer pigment, moron.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      that's terrible

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >fixed

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      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

      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.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Did all emperors have a tiny mini-me version of themselves lmao

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        It basically acted as a third leg to stabilize the statue.

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    its not, watch the tv show Rome, its very colorful

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Classical futurism is based.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Dumb Ayn Rand aesthetic, I don't like it.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >bridges that go through giant complex structures

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Bet you like that stupid frickin Mussolini face too

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        I actually do

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          You better not be Australian I swear to god.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Huh? Why?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Post the Sneed edit.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >Yeah we’re the good guys

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        kek I kind of do in a strange manner.

        Dumb Ayn Rand aesthetic, I don't like it.

        I dislike Rand.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Is that Frasier Crane?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      for me it's

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Imagine how much bread that windmill results in making...

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        what's this kind of thing called? it's stirring some kind of emotion in me and i want more of it

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Art

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            no i mean the style of painting/subject matter

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              try "architectural fantasy" or "capriccio"

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        With the exception of the giant windmill, was there ever a time and place in history where you could witness something like this?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          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.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            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.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Havana circa 15-18th century.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Batavia around the 1600s-1800s. Any large port in Western Europe like Rotterdam or London around that time too

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          any town in holland in the last 5 centuries

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Netherlands in the 1800s.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I am a massive sucker for Dutch paintings involving boats.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          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.

          no because humans dont have binocular vision so it would never look this good

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            You do understand what "binocular vision" means, right?

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              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

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        For me? its industrialpunk

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          stop adding "punk" to the end of words. your not creating a new genre youre being reddit

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I bet you're a burgerpunk fan.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            stop being Cinemaphilepunk

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            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?

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Moisturepunk, because their whole society depends on moisture farming technology.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >desertpunk
              That was a pretty cool series

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Never heard of that but it looks kino. Will def check it out

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              dude this is just the arab world, its always been used to depict alien architecture

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >arab world
                >posts picture of a cathedral

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                lol, just asumed it was a mosque, i looked for istanbul

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          This is what Tolkien was imagining when he came up with Mordor.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            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"

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          isn't that just a picture of detroit or something

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Detroit is crackpunk meets wakandapunk.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          i give you 3rd world industrial

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        That windmill is ridiculous, I love it.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >another flock of pterodactyls just got hit by the windmill captain
        >Get the carts boys, we'll be eating well tonight!

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          AYE

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        frick that's dope

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        would love to see a Souls game with this aesthetic

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        For me? its industrialpunk

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >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

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        the windmill tells me the creator of this piece is a moron

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >he doesn't like massive, unrealistically oversized windmills
          FRICK YOU they are comfy and cool
          and no I am not Dutch

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Raita's advertise book produce the absolute girl

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >zero nature
      yasssss so heckin basederino

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        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.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      No one would be able handle that shit. You frickers can't even go 6 minutes without a highway accident.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      recs for this? i think of incredibles, but it also reminds me of shaun tan's art

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Metropolis

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      etienne boullee did it best imo

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >What if building was just... LE BIG?
        Wow such genius

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          the fricking size of that

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          he said, let me just build a mountain

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      HNNNG LOOK AT ALL THOSE ROADS AND GIANT SUNLESS OFFICE BUILDINGS OH GOD I'M GONNA COOOOOM

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >inb4 da jeeeews
    nazis wanted their cities to look like the ones on the bottom

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah and wait until you see Washington DC

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Color didn't exist until the 50's

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >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 fricking trash next to "feathered dinosaurs" and "cruel slave masters"

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      They did paint them, we just don't know the specifics.

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    What are some kinos that DON'T do this?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Rome (TV Series 2005–2007)

  8. 1 year ago
    sage

    Because they’re ignorant, uneducated and illiterate philistines.

  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >op is angry their aren't enough penises
    Typical op

  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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.

  11. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    4 me, it's ecobrutalismpunk.

  12. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The Romans didn't just have graffiti all over. It was just stupid messages drunk people would leave around bars and brothels.

  13. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Art Deco was the last decent style

  14. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Any cumpunk recs?

  15. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >LOOK AT THE SIZE OF HIS DICK LOLOLOL

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      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.

  16. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      yeah bro, it's a israeli psyop bro, it's not that white boys are corny homosexuals

  17. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >filmed on location
    >WHY ARENT THE ORIGINAL STATUES PAINTED FOR THE MOVIE?

  18. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    It doesn't matter, we're not getting any good historical films going forward.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      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.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Nobody wants to watch actual movies period.
        Not that there is anyone left to rememebr how they were made...

  19. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Because no one knew they were painted until recently.

  20. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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 moronation makes you think painted ones look better

    Just think rationally about it, and no the fact that some morons 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

  21. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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

  22. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Classical Statue pfp people are too invested in the statues being white.

  23. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    It's easier to spend less on doing it right

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *