Leather Cuirass

[MeinPanzer]

Hi, Ruben,

Again, I thought I'd made it clear that the contradiction is not in the artist's using two diferent methods of representation (sculpting and painting) but in what he appears to represent witht them, namely, a rigid piece of armour at the abdomen, and something soft and flexible enough to be physique-hugging at the armpit. Armour (even linen armour) has a degree of rigidity and does not adapt itself closely to the contours of the body, as cloth can. The artist has represented armour at the belly and clothing at the armpit, despite the fact that he appears to be representing a single, continuous item. I'm assuming there are traces of the original paint to show this. If there aren't, then the sculptor still contradicts himself by failing to mark where the sculpted armour ends and the real body begins. it's also possible that there was one sculptor and another painter, in which case they contradict each other and the painter, in failing to note the significance of the sculpted lower edge of the cuirass, contradicts himself. I'd still argue that it would be the sculptor's fault, ( as, presumably, would the hypothetical Greek painter!) for failing to depict a raised armpit edge around the armhole.

You were clear in explaining, but that is not a contradiction. It appears that the only reason the lower edge of the cuirass was sculpted in is because it flared out more than the neckhole and armholed. Painting on the upper edges isn't a sign of it being "soft and flexible" at all. It simply shows that the edges were not raised enough to warrant carving.