Were ancient statues painted?

The short answer is ‘yes’. Much of the pure, gleaming white marble sculpture that we now admire was certainly coloured in some way. The question is how was it coloured: a delicate wash, or bright, glaring hues?

When I was in the States, I went to an exhibition in the Sackler Galleries at Harvard, which offered some examples of how Greek and Roman statues might have appeared with all their original paint. (You may have seen this show already – as a version of the same exhibition has appeared in Munich, Rome, Istanbul, and will soon go to the Getty.)

It’s a great, garish multi-colour spectacular. My question is  quite how far you believe the details. Does the colouring of  ancient statuary really mean this kind of bright, in-your-face, dazzle.

Or, to put it another way: if you are not entirely convinced by the gaudy blues and yellows, are you simply guilty of a romantic view of ancient sculpture that wants it all white?

How do we want our ancient sculpture to look?

The eminence grise behind the Harvard exhibition is a German archaeologist-cum-scientist, Vinzenz Brinkmann. He has brilliantly shown how some of the earliest Greek sculpture might look in its original colours, reconstructing the first appearance on plaster casts.

It’s a shock, but sometimes a convincing one. In fact, some of this stuff still carries the traces of the paint that Brinkmann has restored. So, for example, he is especially good at giving you a new -- multi-coloured -- look at the sculptures of the temple of Aphaia on the island of Aegina. You can see one of these at the top of this post (these are now in Munich, a German consortium having outbid the British rivals in the early nineteenth century and taken them back to their Glyptothek).

My problems come with wondering how far we should imagine all Greek and Roman sculptures painted in this way. Or whether in the Roman world, at least, we should really be thinking of a more delicate colouring, not a garish smearing. (On the left you see Brinkmann's unsettling version of the Augustus of Prima Porta.)

It has become unfashionable to argue against the Brinkmann line. And there is a tendency to dismiss any sceptic as a neo-Romantic, fixated on a version of pure white ancient art, foisted on the modern world by J. J. Winckelmann. But I am not wholly convinced.

For a start, although there are some references in ancient literature to coloured sculpture, they are not many – and they are far out-numbered by those Greek and Roman writers who sing of the translucent, unadorned white marble of their favourite statues.

Secondly,  while early Greek statues fairly often come out of the ground still with their traces of colour, for the later stuff we rely on the evidence of the microscope and the UV camera. Why does this not still retain visible trace of colour, if coloured it once was? And why on earth did Romans polish their marble statues (as we know they did), if they were going to cover them up with thick coats of paint?

The jury’s still out I think. The question is not whether ancient statues were painted (in bits, of course they were) – but whether they were done in this in-your-face way. I may be an old romantic, but I am still a bit suspicious.

Comments

[Peter Holland]

I think the garish colours depicted on many representations is wrong. I have no evidence - just my gut feeling. I work in a world where colour is added to my original sculpts and so many people comment on how much more classy a sculpt looks in its original clay.

However, the fact is that the coloured bone china figurines outsell the plain by 10 times. The trick is in the subtlety and enhancing value of the colour work. If it is garish it looks bad, if cleverly done in sympathy good.

I do not believe for a minute that the culture that had the finesse to sculpt in such an advanced way would suddenly lose it on the colouring - there would have been equal grace and skill. You can say what you like about dimly lit rooms and smoke, but no way would the colours have gone on in the garish way depicted by some.

[petalouda]

Beeswax was used a binding agent in classical painting; lovely, luminous tones could have been produced using encaustic and the four-color earth palette on statuary.

[F.Gamberini]

It's worth keeping an eye on the website of La Repubblica (www.repubblica.it), because it frequently gives news of archaeological discoveries in Italy. Right now we are being told of the excavation of the subterranean passages under Augustus's house on the Palatine, which have yielded a headless male statue in heroic pose, clearly showing traces of red on the clothing (http://www.repubblica.it/2008/01/sezioni/spettacoli_e_cultura/roma-palatino/roma-palatino/roma-palatino.html).
Judging by the photographs, there would also seem to be red stains on one of three wings which might belong to the Nike acroteria on the temple of Victory. Find all the relevant photographs on the website (I'm not good very good at creating links).

[C Gens]

Confounding the issue of what color and how much color on the statues, is the context they were viewed in. Was the vividness attenuated by having the statues in brightly colored rooms?

Is the contrast between colored and uncolored jarring because we are used to seeing the plain marble statues in white walled rooms?

Possibly compounding the issue is under what lighting conditions were the statues viewed. Light from candles, oil lamps, and torches would have been significantly dimmer than our bright, focused, high-intensity museum lights. Furthermore the smoke from these lighting sources would have quickly dulled the statues.

The idea of color relativity was brought home by a recent return from bright sunny, flowery Hawaii to rainy gray Portland, Oregon. The bright paintings and object d'tourist just don't look right in this cool northern light.

[louise belanger]

This is an interesting discussion, I have drawn and studied ancient Maya painted stucco sculptures and ceramics. I agree with richard's post on 17 december, the colours, if used would have been based on earth and mineral pigments, and would have had a much softer and more aesthetically pleasing surface than that of the exhibited sculptures; these look unnatural due to lack of transluscency of the paint used, more like a thick coating of modern decorators' emulsion - which has an acrylic base; ancient paints were not like this, they were mostly mixed with a lime base; as for the polishing of the marble, this would have been essential if the surface was to be painted anyway, as colouring with transluscent pigments on to a rough surface would have resulted in a very uneven and unsightly finish. Probalby some ancient greek and roman statues were painted, some not, and on some just a few facial details may have been cooloured in for dramatic effect.

[Mary]

For Don Buck.. a bit off the top of my head, it being Christmas Eve and all:

Horace Odes, 1, 19, 5
Martial, Ep 6, 13

[Don Buck]

Mary, you write that "... references in ancient literature to coloured sculpture ... are far out-numbered by those Greek and Roman writers who sing of the translucent, unadorned white marble of their favourite statues." Can you provide citations to ancient literature? Thanks very much for an excellent overall blog.

[Lord Truth]

Its interesting how difficult it is for the modern mind to force itself back into the reality of the past -though it must be done if we are to understand that reality.
As I have indicated in a previous comment,the unpainted statue would have seemed merely unfinished.To us, living surrounded by artifacts totally unconnected with nature, anything natural is appealing because original.To Praxiteles the unpainted statue would have seemed little different to the marble floor it stood on- something crude and primitive.
To introduce questions of form into this debate is spurious as concepts of form though they exist may be overshadowed by other factors.If ones life is spent surrounded by stone then the emotion the unpainted statue produces is trumped by ones awareness that it is essentially a piece of building material.
Praxiteles would have found the museums of modern London puzzling though he would probably have been entranced by Madame Tussauds
The question Prof Beard ultimately poses-if painted then to what garish extreme-may surely be answered by reference to a quite recent phenomenon.
The Technicolor film process is quite capable of producing remarkably natural lifelike images-pale skins,delicate colours etc. as early test films show.
However Technicolor films will always be associated with very rich sometimes garish coloured hues produced at the direction of the film makers and intended to enhance the emotion or glamour of the subject.I suggest that exactly the same principle applied to the painting of these statues.They could have been painted in a naturalistic way but they represented either unnatural or Godlike people or were pieces of 'theatre' and like the producers of Technicoloured films they would have been similarly represented in an exaggereted unnatural way.
It might be interesting if the experts in these areas, instead of accurately recreating these exaggerated Technicolour productions,produced more natural colour productions-to make them more realistic to our eyes.
We might find the results opening up a whole new dimension regarding the ancient world, finding them startingly real and surprisingly moving .

[Tony Francis]

For Chryselephantine (mixed gold and ivory) art:
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chryselephantine_sculpture
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Zeus_at_Olympia
And Acroliths (mixed marble and wood covered with gold or drapery):
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acrolith

[Jenny]

I didn't find Albi cathedral tasteless at all, but it was certainly intriguing and in a strange way very 'foreign' - I haven't seen Toulouse so couldn't comment but I bet it's just as fascinating.

Painted statues would be more lifelike of course - I mentioned the terracotta warriors, which are startling enough without the colour - like making actual eye contact with such a remote past - and of course they were meant very directly to represent actual people who would guard/entertain the emperor in his afterlife - it would be interesting to think about how the ancients of Europe thought about/related to their statues - were these decorative artworks, status symbols or something more magical?

[Jan Stubbe Østergaard]

My reference to polychrome sculptures by Donatello and Michelangelo did not relate to the material used nor to the main body of their works. It was prompted by the 'aesthetic problem' introduced by Leopold 18 Dec. and now viewed from a different, just as interesting angle by Paul 20 Dec: He says that it is a 'fact'that colour detracts from form. Paul's assertion, followed by his remark that Praxiteles must have known this, brings us back to a crux in comments on Mary B's initial blog. Research on ancient sculptural polychromy is not an exercise designed to confirm or conform to modern European aesthetics of sculpture. It is an historical enquiry. An enquiry which has demonstrated that the ancients Greeks, those masters of form, allowed their forms to be 'detracted' from by the work of the sculpture painter: To the curvature of the three dimensional, high relief shields on the Alexander Sarcophagus we see painted hatching added. And if we are to believe Pliny, Praxiteles was most pleased with those of his sculptures which had been given colour by Nikias, one of the giants among 4th cent BC painters.
To gain an idea of the aesthetics involved, classical archaeology must avail itself of the analogies provided for the interaction of form and colour by early modern polychrome sculpture.
The polychromy of the Well of Moses by Claus Sluter, court sculptor to the Burgundian dukes, was due to Jean Malouel, court painter. The Vanitas group by the master sculptor Gregor Erhart was painted by Hans Holbein the Elder. Any reference to published work dealing specifically with the aesthetics of color on form, or form under colour, in such works would be very welcome.

[Nicholas Wibberley]

Might some have been painted for special occasions, festivals and such?

[Tony Francis]

For a man with blue skin, see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sa2OpNTX9Ck

The condition is called argyria, and comes from ingesting colloidal silver:
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argyria

[Tony Francis]

There are various anxiety disorders related to human-like figures. "Pediophobia" is a fear of dolls. By googling this term, one can find a clinic which specializes in treatment of the condition. Another is "coulrophobia", a fear of clowns. There is a wiki article on this. The emergence of animated, human-like robots has led to psychological studies which indicate that initial human curiosity and empathy quickly turn to revulsion. It is called the "uncanny valley".
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley
They mention the film "Polar Express" which I found particularly off-putting. What is the difference between pure animated cartoon animals and humans, which are endearing, and humanoid figures that are disturbing? Apparently, the more realistic the human form, the more upsetting the reaction. It is an area ripe for study. Of course, these fears have been around for a long time. Think of Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein". The meaning of this book is still debated. But it is clear it addresses a fear of technology, in particular that which reproduces the human form. Painting statues changes the psychological impact. It is probably impossible to reconstruct the reaction to them centuries after the fact. But it could be the topic of more than one doctoral thesis.

[Lord Truth]

The question of painted/unpainted statues is surely quite simple.To the ancient mind an unpainted statue would have seemed simply unfinished and absurd.Such works represent technology as well as emotion and magic.Unpainted they would have seemed as absurd as showing off a new car with no wheels.Where are the wheels?-Oh I thought they would spoil the look of the thing.
Historically a pure white skin has been an essential upper class female attribute and also slaves for sex would have been kept in the dark to acheive this.Its possible therefore that the flesh areas of white marble would have been left unpainted.Interestingly the 'polishing'of (white?) marble mentioned by Beard may have been to create the slightly gleaming look of skin cleansed by olive oil- as distinct from soap..However such pure white statues would certainly have had the eyes, nipples, mouth etc. coloured to make them realistic.
If done today a remarkable level of eroticism might be revealed.
The cult of the unpainted marble sculpture has evolved from the painted churches and statues of the middle ages etc and represents an attempt to show the inate purity and spirituality of Christian man through the perfect whiteness of the marble.We have moved from wonder and emotion caused by the realistic-technology of the painted creation to emotion and wonder that is more abstract and not based on realism. In preferring unpainted scupture we are on our way to Henry Moore and abstract art.
It must be said however that excessive realism in any sculpture remains disconcerting.Such creations whether dummies in a shop window or Madame Tussauds affect us at a deep primitive level connected to our fear of death-they are 'dead' yet we are uncertain -they may not be..
In our non religious-nonspiritual world we may be particularly frightened and disturbed by this 'creepyness'-the unpainted scupture removes this fear and is acceptable.
Several people have mentioned other matters that relate to the statue debate.
Rulers would always emphasise their power and wealth by displays of colour and comfort-castles would be painted white wherever possible and the floors ,halls and stairways covered with dazzling technicoloured tapestries.
Yet none of this is apparent in any modern historical reconstruction ,from Olivier/Hamlets dismal Elsinore to early nineteenth century Drury Lane productions-and look carefully at the backgrounds in Cranford-a universal dark plain green-as uncluttered as a Docklands minimalist flat
We should always take care about making the past conform to our own fashionable age

[Paul]

I admit colored statues don't always look creepy. The wax dummy effect occurs mainly when a statue is life-size, naturalistic, and free-standing. Mediaeval statues don't offend because, though colored, they are usually smaller than life, highly stylized (e.g. elongated), and integrated into architectural settings themselves many-colored. The Donatello and Michelangelo examples cited by Østergaard were exceptions to those masters' usual practice. The question is, why did they normally choose not to add color to their statues? Apart from keeping art distinct from magic, and from the possibility that they were bowing to a misguided notion of ancient practice, there is the fact that color distracts from form.
This goes for other arts as well. Color photography can produce works of great beauty, but photographers more interested in shapes than in surfaces (e.g., Ansel Adams) have generally preferred to work in black and white. Shadow defines form; color up-stages --even hides-- shadow. Praxiteles must have known this.

[John Price]

As an aside from all this fascinating stuff, Jenny (17 Dec) mentions the decoration in Albi cathedral. She may also have seen the partial restoration in St-Sernin, Toulouse, both these (and others) looking rather surprising (tasteless ?)to one used to the bare (and beautiful) stone of British cathedrals. Imagine them before the Puritan clean-up which sets our northern tastes ...
The Albi and Toulouse restoration of "original" decoration didn't happen without some quite violent (verbal) opposition. And on another slant on getting back to the "original", see the heated discussions about "restoring" the Cité at Carcassonne to what it "was/must have been" like before Viollet le Duc got at it - and before neglect pre-le Duc nearly ruined it.

[SW Foska]

John, one medieval castle was painted only this year - check out
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__C-MjmVUrU
- or search 'Graffiti Project' on YouTube.

[John Lewis]

Someone once told me that our medieval castles were painted as well. Is this true?

[F.Gamberini]

I forgot to enter my name, and for the record I would like to add that the post beginning "Obviously an issue that arouses interest..." (20 Dec.) is my own.
FG

[Eileen]

it should be pointed out that Dontatello's John the Baptist in the Frari as well as his Mary Magdalene were both made of wood.. off the top of my head I cannot think of any (evidence of ) marble polychroming in 15th century italy, although I am sure some one out there can correct me on this.

[Allen Dunn]

Assuming the ancients' human nature was similar to ours, isn't it that likely each generation had its own "in" and "out" fashions regarding sculptural styles and the painting thereof and thereopon. We often forget that objects produced in 200 BC were ancient, very valuable, antiques by Augustus' time, likely widely and cheaply copied all over the empire.

Obviously an issue that arouses interest, judging by the number of comments, and some deep concerns about how things ought to be, whether in the past or in the inherited/imagined antiquity of today. The consensus here seems to be that we like our statues to be white; that at least the flesh parts would have been left white; and that we don't know enough or that more technical research is needed -an uncertainty which allows just enough room for us to continue thinking as we please.
Attention has been drawn to the many possible permutations of the problem. Just one of these might arise from another point made by some of the other commentators here: the use of coloured marble and bronze.
There would obviously be little point in painting a porphyry statue -or one in bronze, as this would nullify the particular qualities of the material. And if it is true that bronze became the main material for free-standing statuary, the issue then -at least as regards Greek sculpture after the archaic period- would seem to be restricted to white marble statues. But details in bronze statues (eyes, teeth, etc.) were, not unpleasingly (see Riace bronzes), done in different metals (copper, silver), and this raises the question of how they would have been dealt with in Roman marble copies.
How, in any case, would painted details look, aesthetically? The Augustus, were it not for his lipstick and eyes, might not be as bad as all that -it could be worse if he had been painted all over, as shown in another reconstruction that Mary's link leads to. But if it was detail that mattered, we may have to sigh and accept that eyes and lips may well have been painted.
Perhaps we could agree that paint in any form looks best on the less evolved statues of the archaic period, and one would like to think that later Greeks and Romans saw it that way too. But did they, didn't they? There's enough doubt there to leave us a bit disconcerted and dissatisfied, and perhaps not even knowing what it is we really want.

[Anu Koponen]

We cannot come close how any painting looked like if you just know some pigments used. So why we expect that we can spread the colour found in small pieces of pigments on the statue and we will see how the original was? In the most cases we neither know the variations of the intensity of the colour used nor the brusch strikes. There must have been numerous ways to add the painted colours as well as to use coloured stones in the statues. Most probably many artist favored at least partially the original colour of the stone especially if they were able to select the stone they preferred. The Romans were crazy for precious coloured stones.

One recent finidng in Herculaneum is a statue representing woman with the long eyelashes painted on the face so that you can see all the brush strikes clearly. But, in the most cases the visual impact of the original remains unknown. Do not trust reconstructions, we are speaking about various kinds of artworks some executed with delicate some with clumsy details, which have disappeared forever and, thus, we just do not know.

The famous statue "Fontana dei Fiumi" in the center of Piazza Navona (designed by Bernini) was originally painted by the painter Guidubaldo Abbatini so that the rocks, plants and animals of this monument were painted. However, I cannot see any traces of colours on this statue even if it is only c. 350 years old now. It is no wonder that most ancient staues that are c. 2000 years old have lost their colours for ever.

[Helen]

Am I the only person brave enough to say that coloured, the statues look like the tacky china ornaments on sale in the cheap tabloid supplements?