10-09-2011, 07:34 AM
Geeez people! :roll: All I am saying is that the blanket statement that all art works are not reliable for research is absurd!
Here's this for you...who is in that photo? George Washington, right? How do we know that? Because painters and sculptors provided that image. All of his contemporary portraits, no matter the artist have given us a man we can recognize as Washington. It is stylized, but it is Washington. There is valuable information there.
On pot is a horse. How do we know it is a horse? Because it looks like a horse. If you had never seen a real horse and only saw the pot, you could still go into barnyard and pick out the horse as the same animal that is on the pot. The image is pretty darn close to the real thing. Is it stylized? Yes. Is it so stylized that you would confuse it for a goat, a cow or a chicken? No.
I was only responding to what Mcbishop wrote:You can see a whole slew of these artistically stylised segmentata representations in Lorica Segmentata 1. They signify nothing, other than the ability of sculptors to stylise. Reproduction cuirasses made from such images are, I'm afraid, no better than fantasy armour.
I objected to that silly absolutist statement. I don't beleive that artworks should be the only resource either. I never said that.
Y'all carry on discussing the very cool relief that was the topic...I am going to get back to work....SCULPTING!
Here's this for you...who is in that photo? George Washington, right? How do we know that? Because painters and sculptors provided that image. All of his contemporary portraits, no matter the artist have given us a man we can recognize as Washington. It is stylized, but it is Washington. There is valuable information there.
On pot is a horse. How do we know it is a horse? Because it looks like a horse. If you had never seen a real horse and only saw the pot, you could still go into barnyard and pick out the horse as the same animal that is on the pot. The image is pretty darn close to the real thing. Is it stylized? Yes. Is it so stylized that you would confuse it for a goat, a cow or a chicken? No.
I was only responding to what Mcbishop wrote:You can see a whole slew of these artistically stylised segmentata representations in Lorica Segmentata 1. They signify nothing, other than the ability of sculptors to stylise. Reproduction cuirasses made from such images are, I'm afraid, no better than fantasy armour.
I objected to that silly absolutist statement. I don't beleive that artworks should be the only resource either. I never said that.
Y'all carry on discussing the very cool relief that was the topic...I am going to get back to work....SCULPTING!
