11-02-2012, 04:27 AM
It does make me think of models I used to paint when I was a kid and is rather garish, but then how much is known of the fashion at the time of painting? Perhaps the stark whiteness of the skin is supposed to show some sort of superhuman godlike qualities? For an artist to portray a powerful ruler in a flattering light is just good politics. Shakespeare wrote a number of plays which legitimised the rule of the Tudors who's only right to rule came from an army at Henry Tudor's back, lacked legitimacy. Shakespeare was not the only one sucking up to Henry's heirs. You just don't show such a ruler in any way he might not approve. Rather, you add a little extra gold and glory. But how accurate are these colors? Might not there have been gold and silver foil applied which has since been stripped from the statue? I does look unsubtle, but then, how subtle were the Romans overall? There were certainly not aesthetic as the Athenians were, and comparitively coarse in comparison. Rather like New yorkers of the ancient world. I could be way off base, but maybe the painter did not have the taste for subtelty. The carving of the statue itself is really nice, maybe the painter was just not of the same caliber, or maybe he was " Just following orders", maybe the patron or patroness who commisioned it gave the orders how to decorate it? In any case, the more I look at it, the more unfinished it looks. Do these colors look like the pigments that would have been available and used by statuary decorators at the time?
Caesar audieritis hoc
