06-22-2013, 06:54 PM
Sorry I should have given more details. I am refering to the studies that show the ancient statues were painted. And the statues with musculata amoung them.
Also it does not need to be leather to be painted. Metal armor was painted at many times in history. Here are a few examples. http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=18604
Related article about painted statues from a quick search. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-cultu...c=y&page=3
Detail of painted armor on statue http://www.benno-kuppler.de/images/Augus...ler_04.JPG
As a side note I believe they used a base coat on these statues then detailed them. But the current examples of how they look do not do this making them look amateurish. Roman art from the time clearly shows a high level of skill where they new about shading and highlighs etc. There is no reason why they would not be able to use that on statues rather than flat color.
Also it does not need to be leather to be painted. Metal armor was painted at many times in history. Here are a few examples. http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=18604
Related article about painted statues from a quick search. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-cultu...c=y&page=3
Detail of painted armor on statue http://www.benno-kuppler.de/images/Augus...ler_04.JPG
As a side note I believe they used a base coat on these statues then detailed them. But the current examples of how they look do not do this making them look amateurish. Roman art from the time clearly shows a high level of skill where they new about shading and highlighs etc. There is no reason why they would not be able to use that on statues rather than flat color.
Patrick Lawrence
[url:4ay5omuv]http://www.pwlawrence.com[/url]
[url:4ay5omuv]http://www.pwlawrence.com[/url]
