Comments on: New Imaging Technique Shows Parthenon Was Once Brightly Painted

By: Charles Zigmund

Charles Zigmund — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 18:51:48 +0000

Likewise I have read over many years that the Parthenon was painted. The earlier posters to that effect correctly point out that while the article is presented as discovering something new, anyone familiar with art history knows that ancient Greek architecture and sculpture was generally painted brightly. If the Parthenon had been white in antiquity, it would likely have generated comments at the time that it was a big departure from the general practice. It was so well known in the 19th Century that ancient Greek temples were brightly colored that there are many history paintings from that time showing them that way. And the 19th and 20th century archaeologists who built reconstructed scale models of temple complexes such as the one of Olympia adjacent to the games site, also showed them that way. What we do not really know is how they looked. Perhaps these techniques will give us some idea.

15th and 16th century Italian Renaissance sculptors and architects who looked at excavated ancient art and were influenced greatly by it, were led to believe that the marble was unpainted because all the paint had worn away over the centuries. This is why the general tradition as our art developed was to have most everything sculptural and much architecture white. It is interesting to speculate how sculpture would have developed in Europe from the 15th thru the 19th centuries had it been accepted then that ancient sculptures were painted, a fact which did not become generally known until the 19th century.

By: CT

CT — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 15:09:09 +0000

And the next obvious questions:
Do any other “ancient” colors have similar residue detection capabilities?
Can you only see a base coat of paint or can you see layers?
If the materials in Egyptian Blue were mixed to form a new color as we mix pigments today, would we see the same results? i.e. are we only seeing the blue out of a mixture?
Are these all over the columns or are they traces (that spell out “Socrates couldn’t think his way out of a papyrus bag!”)?

By: Willa Jean

Willa Jean — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 20:25:20 +0000

I was taught those same assumptions and suspicions waaaaaay back when I was in college. Back then it was generally assumed that there would never be any proof, one way or another. I’m fascinated to see what science can prove. And disprove. (Remember when dinosaurs were “giant lizards”?)

Wouldn’t you love to see a rendering of what it actually looked like in its prime? How long do you suppose it will be before some version of Google Earth will be able to show us ancient Babylon, or Athens, or Rome?

By: Allison Bond

Allison Bond — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 20:25:50 +0000

Hi, this is Allison, the author of the post. As YouRang alluded to, this is the first time science has confirmed what historians always suspected: That the Parthenon once was brightly colored.

Before this new imaging technology, there were only suspicions or assumptions that the Parthenon was painted. Now there is scientific evidence to that effect.

By: sam

sam — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 16:29:27 +0000

Wow! Some of us don’t have a fine arts degree and find this stuff pretty interesting, actually. Especially since this is a science blog.

By: YouRang

YouRang — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 13:27:01 +0000

Did your textbook have physical evidence Egyptian blue was used or was it strongly surmised? All areas of intellectual endeavor are open to old wives’ tales; and the less hard the IE, the more susceptible. And all history is very susceptible.

By: Landon

Landon — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 05:20:19 +0000

agreed. I attained my B.F.A. 6 years ago, and we were taught the same.

By: Liz D

Liz D — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 21:29:38 +0000

Pff. My art history class knew this last semester.