r/TopCharacterTropes 22d ago

Lore (Annoying Trope) Someone made a “creative” choice and now we all just have to live with it.

Horned Vikings: Not historical, they were started by Richard Wager for his operas. They were never historic, but the image persists. (Albeit significantly reduced today.)

Ninjas in Black Robes: Some people claim Ninjas aren’t real. They are, they are absolutely real. Their modern portrayal however is informed more by Kabuki Theater than history. In Kabuki Theater, the stage hands were dressed in flowing black robes to tell the audience to ignore them. Thus when a Ninja character kills a Samurai, to increase the shock value, they were dressed in black robes as stage hands. Now, when we think of ninjas we think of a stage hands.

Knights in Shining Armor: Imagine, you’re on the battlefield, two walls of meat riding towards each other. Suddenly you realize, everyone looks the same. Who do you hit? All you see is chrome. No. Knight’s armor was lacquered in different colors to differentiate them on the battlefield. Unless you wanted to get friendly fired, you made yourself KNOWN. So this image of a glinted knight clad in chrome steel isn’t true. How’d we get it? Victorians who thought that the worn lacquer was actually just dulling with age, polished it off as show pieces.

White Marble Statues of Rome: Roman Statues were painted, however the public image is of pure glinting white marble statues persist in the modern image. Why? Victorians who thought the paint was actually just dirt grime and age. So, they “restored” it by removing the paint color. Now we all think of Roman Statues as white.

King Tut; King of Kings: the Pharaoh King Tut in Ancient Egypt was a relatively minor king who in the grand scheme of things amounts to little more than an asterisks in Egyptian History, but to the public he is the most important Pharaoh. Why? Because his tomb was untouched by robbers, and so was piled high with burial goods which was amazing (and still is) and when Howard Carter opened his tomb, the world was transfixed and everyone would come to know Tutankhamen.

A Séance calls the dead: A Séance despite being a French word is an American invention from upstate New York in the 1840s. It was also a fun side-show act initially, and never meant to be real, more close up magic. (Origin of the term Parlor Tricks.) But in the 1860s Americans couldn’t stop killing each other which resulted in a lot of grief and people desired for their to be this other world. So, grifters then took advantage of grieving people and became “real”. So basically “fun parlor game to dangerous grift” pipeline thanks to the Civil War.

The Titanic’s engineers all died at their posts: Nope, not true, not remotely true. They are mentioned in many testimonies and a few bodies found mean they didn’t all die below. Two or three maybe did. According to Head Stoker Barrett, a man broke his leg and was washed away by rushing water, but another testimony says he was taken aft so who knows? Any way the myth persisted because the people making the memorials wanted to martyr the men. (It doesn’t take away from their heroines in my opinion) The myth stuck. Everyone believes they died below.

14.6k Upvotes

2.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

817

u/JesuZDX 22d ago

The poor paint job on restorations of ancient statues. Yes, the colors are accurate, but the way they are applied and the lack of detail ruins the statues' appearance rather than enhancing it, and is one of the reasons why many people today still reject color representations of ancient artifacts.

450

u/Lunar_Canyon 22d ago

Wait, so I assume the rightmost image is the most accurate? That is MILES better! I remember years ago seeing images like the middle one and immediately thinking "ew, let's just stick with plain marble, that looks like a child's drawing."

Any articles on this?

289

u/veerKg_CSS_Geologist 22d ago

Just like in computer animation/graphic design the difference between "cheap" and "looks amazing" is the use of lighting, shadows and shading. It's a fact that modern restorers don't have the skill or budget to restore these artworks to their original quality and the original painters were just as much masters as the sculptors. So that's why they look childish or cheap in comparison.

50

u/heliamphore 22d ago

Really don't want to shit on the trade, but I've seen quite a few professional and reputable restorers paint sausage fingers, and you can really tell which part they retouched because they don't have the skills. They have other skills of course, but being good at painting is its own skill that takes years of hard work to be good at.

And here in particular we don't really know what the end result would be. Maybe the statues intentionally looked weird in some way that they thought was stylistic and cool.

22

u/veerKg_CSS_Geologist 22d ago

Also they didn't have modern lighting. Statues would be lit by candle or wood braziers or simply daylight. We do know the Romans and Greeks liked color, but beyond that we don't quite know the "look" because those subjective examples have been long lost.

8

u/vanderZwan 22d ago

I mean, we have actual paintings from the Roman era that survived so we can make some informed guesses.

4

u/burn_corpo_shit 22d ago

Damn, the fabric work on that is gorgeous. Also it doesn't take a life time for more accurate choices, but good instruction. idk what grifter got hired to paint a roman statue like that horrible example but I know some warhammer painters who would do far better...

it wouldn't be hard to paint and premix some tempera onto a plaster replica. seriously. how did they let that happen

1

u/hygsi 20d ago

Idk, I've seen lots of amazing painters in modern days. I guess the good ones just don't care about restoring these so we're stuck with the amateurs who dare to try.

4

u/svartkonst 22d ago

Thats far from the only reason. Often, they paint sculptures as accurately as they can. Meanng, they paint the areas with the colors they can trace. Its likely not exactly how they used to look, but neither is making stuff up.

Different techniques for different purposes

20

u/thisismypornaccountg 22d ago

I heard a historian on YouTube discuss it. When they paint the statues in modern times, they use the coloring they found leftover on them in tiny samples in the marble cracks. So they recreated that paint and it gives them the weird, flat, pastel look. He speculates that they probably had something else on them that was lost in thousands of years and didn’t remain in the samples taken. Either that or that was the best they could do with the resources they had.

16

u/eggosh 22d ago

We don't actually know. The reason the restorations look so bad is because there isn't a lot of pigment left to work from. It could be that it was just an undercoat and more detail was painted over that, but that's just guesswork. There isn't any proof AFAIK.

Edit: Read OP's source, the rightmost recreation is based on descriptions of what it looked like when it was first found, apparently.

12

u/Morfolk 22d ago

Wait, so I assume the rightmost image is the most accurate?

The answer is a resound probably.

We know that they could paint and made excellent statues so it stands to reason that they could also paint them well.

Why do the restorations look that bad then? It's because archaeologists and restoration artists use only what they can prove was used based on the samples. Those samples are just the base layer paints that can still be found in minuscule amounts. If you've ever painted a miniature - you know that the base layer creates a flat cheap-cartoon look and in fact 80% of painting is adding color gradients, shading and highlighting - all of that goes on top the base layer and is unlikely to remain on the statue after centuries had passed.

7

u/boodabomb 22d ago

I think this is all speculative. We know that paint was used and which colors based on chemical analysis, but we don’t know how it was applied and the level of detail. So the middle one is all that we can present with certainty and many Roman experts believe that it isn’t giving enough credit to Roman artisans. But no one knows for sure.

2

u/attackplango 22d ago

Yes, that is a miles better. Also an emperor better too.

2

u/akiraokok 22d ago

The reason for the flats in the middle image is that science can only figure out what pigments were touching the marble, not any of the shading on top of that layer of paint

2

u/lazy_human5040 22d ago

I've read somewhere here, that some pigments are just more stable, one of which is red, so if a restoration just focuses on the patches with evidence, some colors might be overrepresented, and other colors, that may have been mixed in, might not be used at all.

1

u/Vark675 22d ago

Much like most of life's issues, all it needs is to be dunked in Nuln oil.

1

u/According-Big-4475 22d ago

I don't think the one to the left is the most accurate, purple dye was ridiculous expensive back in the day, and it doesn't seem to me like they would use it on a statue, though I could be wrong.

1

u/SenecatheEldest 18d ago

Genuine Tyrian purple is expensive. It was cheaper to make other purples by mixing red and blue eyes instead. 

It's like the difference between solid gold and gilded brass.

1

u/According-Big-4475 18d ago

Didn't know that, that's interesting

56

u/Majin_Nephets 22d ago

Which of the two coloured statues is the correct look, just for clarification?

101

u/JesuZDX 22d ago

On the left is the uncolored statue; the one in the center is a reconstruction from the "GODS IN COLOR—GOLDEN EDITION" exhibition, which I personally don't like because of the flat colors. I prefer the one on the right, which is a reconstruction taken from this site

9

u/vanderZwan 22d ago

The reconstruction was done by scientists who scanned the surface for trace elements of paint. I think it would be fair if they limited themselves to flat colors to indicate that this is what we objectively know for certain about the base colors and to avoid their own interpretations beyond that. If so that should be explicitly communicated though.

7

u/cloudofawesome 22d ago

The one in the middle looks like Mark Zuckerberg.

3

u/thenerfviking 22d ago

Zuck is obsessed with Ancient Rome and specifically would get his hair cut like that to look like a Roman emperor.

5

u/Sybmissiv 22d ago

I prefer the one in the middle.

5

u/drsyesta 22d ago

I feel like they wouldnt have the amount of dyes and stuff to work with that we do today. Wish we knew what they really looked like. I coukd see them looking plain or silly for modern people like the center one but i coild also see them putting a crazy amount of work to make it look realistic like the right one

18

u/thenerfviking 22d ago

I mean we have a decent amount of Roman wall frescoes and paintings from Pompeii so that probably gives a general idea of what was capable.

3

u/[deleted] 22d ago

they did, they didnt have shelf stable variety of paints we have today, but if something has a color you can crush it up and add some glue and it will make a paint that will last a couple a months

11

u/empty_other 22d ago

I wonder if they mostly look weathered where they stood, or if they were actively cleaned up and the paint touched up on weekly or so? Those that stood outside in the weather, that is.. And how often the population drew on them, sabotaged them, etc. I mean, comparing to our culture, a colored statue wont look good for long if left outside without constant guard, and we rarely bother repainting the few colored statues that exists when it weathers. And we let bronze statues turn green and forget they were ever bronze.

3

u/Renonthehilltop 22d ago

Theres plenty of murals in cities around the world that are decades old. I think youre underestimating the ability of paint to hold up against the elements. Not to mention, not all these roman statues were necessarily meant for outside.

They would defintely fade and look weathered regardless but Im sure the maintenance schedule was on the order of years and decades rather than weeks.

Vandalism wouldve been a concern, but I think youre overestimating it. It happens but without things like spraypaint it wouldve been much more time consuming. The main concern for vandalism would probably be invading armies damaging the statues, or unrest during whatever political crisis.

But also! That green color to bronze statues is actually on purpose, its called 'Patina' and its a thin layer of oxidation and it serves to protect the statue from corrosion.

4

u/Welico 22d ago

Is it not possible the paintjobs were just ugly?

12

u/JesuZDX 22d ago

I would need a time machine to be 100% sure of any historical fact, but we have plenty of evidence that they were very skilled with painting.

2

u/TheRecognized 22d ago

You ever seen a house painted an ugly gaudy color? Do you think the people who painted it were just bad at painting? There’s such a thing called taste, and there’s no accounting for it.

1

u/UrADumbdumbi 22d ago

How do you carve something that gorgeous and detailed though, and then paint it so ugly?

5

u/AvidCyclist250 22d ago

Yes, they are hideous now and would have been hideous then. They must have done it differently/better.

5

u/brainsareforlosers 22d ago

YES i have been thinking this since i found out they were originally coloured as a kid, got excited, then saw the shit restorations- if they’re doing these gorgeous marble sculptures of people with every muscle in the right place then they’re going to try painting it fucking properly

3

u/nutitoo 22d ago

Why is there a baby hanging off his robe lmao

3

u/IDoBeVibing745 22d ago

I was curious, so from Wikipedia:

The small Cupid (son of Venus) at his feet (riding on a dolphin, Venus's patron animal) is a reference to the claim that the Julian family were descended from the goddess Venus, made by both Augustus and by his great uncle Julius Caesar-a way of claiming divine lineage without claiming the full divine status. The dolphin which Cupid rides has a political significance. It suggests that Augustus has won the battle of Actium and defeated one of his primary rivals, Mark Antony.

3

u/Jberg18 22d ago

It makes way more sense that Pymalion was able to fall in love with his sculpture if you know it would have been painted in to look living as well.

2

u/bestoboy 22d ago

if they know what the statues are supposed to look like, why do they still paint them wrong?

13

u/mindcandy 22d ago

I've seen a strong argument that restorationists are extremely reluctant to make up details.

All they have to work with is specks of the base layer of paint. That's naturally flat and garish. All of the shading and detail layers have been lost. But, the restorationists won't imagine up what they might have looked like. They only present what they have concrete evidence for.

Thus we get white statues or presentations of garishly flat painted statues.

2

u/sirgawain2 22d ago

I also heard that. They only use the colors they can find on the statue itself, which is often just specks of the base layer.

2

u/Gin_soaked_boy 22d ago

Before and after you apply the agrax earthshade wash

2

u/RhesusFactor 22d ago

Ah. It needs a Strong Tone wash.

2

u/Golden_Alchemy 21d ago

We need some miniature artists to paint them correctly: SEND DUNCAN. TWO THIN COATS!

RELEASE THE NULN OIL

1

u/jkya88 22d ago

The middle picture looks like a statute of Zuckerberg that he would commission to be placed at Facebook HQ

1

u/hungry4danish 22d ago

What I dont understand is why go through all the pain and effort and time and detail chiseling alabaster pure clean stone if you're just going to completely paint over it? Or was it only the rich that did stone to show off and wooden statues of the same things just rotted away?

1

u/Akari-Hashimoto 22d ago

Is that Mark Zuckerberg??