Yes you can doubt it. It's your nature to be contrary to everything, often over mistaken trivialities. By virtual I meant the living, speaking, moving likeness, not an exact measured copy of a particular person (the Romans did that -- and so did some Old Kingdom transitional Egyptian portrait sculptors). Even the Greek archaic sculpture was sometimes signed, with the phrase "...made me", suggesting that the image was not simply a representation but akin to a living, speaking person. The classic work was abstract in its flattened planarity, true, to emphasize contour and wholeness whereas the later work was particularized to suggest parts to be assembled in visual experience. By 530 A canon was developed for ideal measuremenrts and the distortions of anatomy were due to external observation, not intimate knowledge of anatomy. The most abstract part anatomical unit was the head. It can be reasonably proposed that the forward distortion of the forehead and the straight nose, short upper lip, overly rounded jaw, were the result of efforts to manipulate how light affected facial expression, with the aim being that classical calm. Such distortions lessened in the later period. Nevertheless, the notion of a living, breathing, animate ideal human was an underlying goal, as evididenced by remains and scraps of contemporary writing, etc.
WC --- Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > RE: 'I used to tell my students that the > ancient Greeks would have had moving, speaking > sculptures on the Parthenon if they had the > technology > (as in Las Vegas!). We're still trying to come up > with > convincing virtual sculpture in digital games, etc. > The ancient Greeks would love it. ' > > This I doubt very, very much indeed. The Greeks > weren't in the > business of mere illusionism. (Who has been, indeed, > except the > academic 'pompiers' and their numerous modern > descendants?) > > DA > > On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 4:10 PM, William Conger > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Talk about old news. People have known for decades > > that the antique sculptures were painted, and not > only > > painted, but waxed, over (for the Greeks but not > the > > Romans) carefully "fractured" stone to enhance the > > apearance of living flesh. By fractured is meant > a > > chiseling technique that causes tiny superficial > > "crazing" in the stone that refracts light, > absorbing > > some of it, softening the look of the surface. > Over > > that went the waxed pigments. (see Rhys > Carpenter). > > The Romans mostly "pointed" their work, copying > Greek > > poses by measuring and drilling to a depth and > then > > clearing away the surplus, then refining the > surface. > > Leon Battista Alberti described this in his book > on > > sculpture. But the Romans added a highly > convincing > > degree of illusionism in relief sculpture and in > > portraiture. I used to tell my students that the > > ancient Greeks would have had moving, speaking > > sculptures on the Parthenon if they had the > technology > > (as in Las Vegas!). We're still trying to come up > with > > convincing virtual sculpture in digital games, > etc. > > The ancient Greeks would love it. Incidentally, > > painted architecture was also popular as evidenced > by > > traces found on ruins, etc. > > > > > > > > WC > > > > > > --- aesthete aesthete <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > >> > > > http://www.projo.com/art/content/lb_ancient_color_art_05-28-08_96A0OKP_v15.23 > >> 7e99f.html > >> > > > _________________________________________________________________ > >> Give to a good cause with every e-mail. Join the > i m > >> Initiative from > >> Microsoft. > >> > > > http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Join/Default.aspx?souce=EML_WL_ > >> GoodCause > > > > > > > > -- > Derek Allan > http://www.home.netspeed.com.au/derek.allan/default.htm
