05-09-2010, 10:42 PM
Crispvs,
I have had problems with the explanation that Roman statues all should have been copied from Greek statues which we do not have anymore.
Personally i think this is not always the case, no matter how you describe any statue, even as an ancient author, it has never been stated on statues; copied by, or copy of... *at least not on the statues i have seen personally.
Of course i adhere to the possibility that much of Roman art may well have been copied and even themed on preceding artworks, but to say of most statues found: was copied from a marble or a bronze from Greece now lost is imho wishful thinking unless there is clear archeaological proof like inscriptions, modelling books which were found et cetera. Even though a lot of statues are obvious copies you cannot state that every statue was, let alone that every form of art depicted is hence not suitable for reconstruction. Colours have been retraced, as well as frescoes depicting colour use, also, colours were found on textile remains.
On a more general note:
To state with definity that certain reconstructions are wrong, or even impossible, because of some theory which has not been proved at all, like some "scholars" seem to constantly have an urge to point out, even in certain magazines well known to all of us, in my opinion is outright impolite and rude to those who venture to reconstruct what they think something MIGHT have looked like.
When did science become arrogant and blatantly disregarding the possibility of the impossible?
When did reconstructions needed to be criticized beyond the realms of founded criticism, or what we like to call, without building criticism (opbouwende kritiek).
One should not say, this is wrong, this cannot be, or even this is nonsense, but one should say, It might have been different, did you consider so and so, would you like to retry it using this and that et cetera........
I am getting a little fed up with people constantly criticizing others on here for what they in their own time, and with hard effort make, produce and try to reconstruct.
Of course not all reconstructions are correct, but i would urge all fellow members to remove the beam from their own eyes before blatantly and arrogantly trying to remove a splinter in someone elses eyes.
M.VIB.M.
I have had problems with the explanation that Roman statues all should have been copied from Greek statues which we do not have anymore.
Personally i think this is not always the case, no matter how you describe any statue, even as an ancient author, it has never been stated on statues; copied by, or copy of... *at least not on the statues i have seen personally.
Of course i adhere to the possibility that much of Roman art may well have been copied and even themed on preceding artworks, but to say of most statues found: was copied from a marble or a bronze from Greece now lost is imho wishful thinking unless there is clear archeaological proof like inscriptions, modelling books which were found et cetera. Even though a lot of statues are obvious copies you cannot state that every statue was, let alone that every form of art depicted is hence not suitable for reconstruction. Colours have been retraced, as well as frescoes depicting colour use, also, colours were found on textile remains.
On a more general note:
To state with definity that certain reconstructions are wrong, or even impossible, because of some theory which has not been proved at all, like some "scholars" seem to constantly have an urge to point out, even in certain magazines well known to all of us, in my opinion is outright impolite and rude to those who venture to reconstruct what they think something MIGHT have looked like.
When did science become arrogant and blatantly disregarding the possibility of the impossible?
When did reconstructions needed to be criticized beyond the realms of founded criticism, or what we like to call, without building criticism (opbouwende kritiek).
One should not say, this is wrong, this cannot be, or even this is nonsense, but one should say, It might have been different, did you consider so and so, would you like to retry it using this and that et cetera........
I am getting a little fed up with people constantly criticizing others on here for what they in their own time, and with hard effort make, produce and try to reconstruct.
Of course not all reconstructions are correct, but i would urge all fellow members to remove the beam from their own eyes before blatantly and arrogantly trying to remove a splinter in someone elses eyes.
M.VIB.M.
Bushido wa watashi no shuukyou de gozaru.
Katte Kabuto no O wo shimeyo!
H.J.Vrielink.
Katte Kabuto no O wo shimeyo!
H.J.Vrielink.
