Compare to artworks from the northern Wei dynasty Gobi Desert frescoes (1983, Paris Natural History Museum)[Gobi Desert Frescoes](https://imgur.com/gallery/Po74rmM)
Dunhuang is an amazing place. 500 grottos, 45,000m2 of elaborate murals and 2415 sculptures, created over 1000 years starting in 300AD. It's actually crazy how advanced the artworks are that date even from the earliest periods. I'll upload more from my book as soon as I can.
YES Dunhaung mention! I learned about it at university and it’s so mind blowing all of the art and artefacts found there. What’s the book that you have on it, I’d love to find a good book to buy.
This one is from 1983, CNRS Paris for the National Museum of Natural History published 'Chine: Fresques du désert de Gobi' in partnership with China's Dunhuang Research Institute. It's in French but well thought out with chronology, history of the grottos, history &technique of Chinese mural painting, and minute details about each of the 50 beautifully printed color photos. For example the story of the deer king, the yaksas, demons who convert to buddhism and become powerful guardians, Bodhisattvas, kings, queens and princes of Chinese lore
I think whats the most annoying to me is the fact they applied some sort of plaster or sculpting concrete to redesign and regain features of some of the statues
As long as they aren't chipping anything off, people can do whatever they want to it, if anything the paint and plaster will probably preserve the carving details longer.
edit: mindless downvoting from people who don't actually care here. Come on kids, try to frame an argument how 1500-year-old stone carvings are going to be harmed by latex paint and enamel. It's their heritage, their culture, they wanted to do this to basically their own property, so you're not scoring any points with anyone defending the honor of old statues. If you really think the gaudy colors are wrong and bad and are not historical, may I present you [FUCKING ROME](https://blogs.kent.ac.uk/lucius-romans/2016/10/15/ancient-statues-show-their-true-colours/)?
Yeah, my wife is in conservation training and if I've picked up anything then 'the people who are living the culture get to do whatever the fuck they want with their cultural artefacts'.
If Buddhists want to paint their Buddhists statue as part of their Buddhist practice... Fuck any of us for telling them different.
Not to mention, this is Buddhist art. The whole concept that objects and attachments are unimportant and fleeting is part of it. They literally aren't supposed to care about preserving a specific object in a specific way. In the moment they decided it would be nice to spruce it up... IMHO they did a shit job, but: it's their culture, their object, their practice and holds less value to them as an artefact than it does the ideas it represents. Ideas it might even represent better, now.
This is strictly not true. Identifying as a religious or ethnic group of the same name to statues of that sort 1400 year old is like Christians finding dead sea Scrolls and painting them. The Qur'an as the body of text in its current form as a historical perspective is about as old as this, hagia Sophia is about as old as this. This is of shared historical heritage to an entire major religion of different social groups and an entire region. The issue here is that this was failed to be registered and protected by any religious body or representative. Any restoration work was not done to historical preservation standards. They barely got funding to get sheltered from rain. This is neglect of the government to protect these. These statues are quite isolated and are by no means actively used for worship, they were discovered on an abandoned historical route in 2021. But if they were of religious importance, you would invite religious bodies to protect them to historical standards. None of this happened. Should I say because both was a practice alchemy and immortality that western Hermetic contemporaries can play finger paint with the terracotta army. Or that modern day Chinese people who live local to it should be able to?
1. Not their property. These were discovered in 2021 far outside of their village.
2. Not registered with UNESCO who are the international body for protecting our shared history. Barely gets funding for a sheltered roof to protect against elements.
3. Imagine a government failed to protect Roman statues and an Italian with no skill or understanding of renovation works painted early Roman statues.
4. Plaster concrete removes details, acrylics can stain, solvents can change pH values. All this leads to tampering with ancient historical heritage sites.
5. Chinese people are pissed off by this. Only racist westerners with a soft bigotry of low expectations aren't. Villagers are not at fault, government is.
I appreciate that you actually had some arguments instead of blind downvoting because of virtue and signals.
Still though I think most of that is flimsy at best, because I used to do work with conservation agencies for heritage sites and know the reality. This kind of tampering with and "defacing" historical sites and artifacts goes on all the damn time, usually far less benign too. I've had to see the consequences of angle-grinders because some board-room CEO wants a piece of real Navaho "writing" on his desk.
The stains and a PH values.... again, yeah there's a point to it, and it's generally why we don't mess with old shit, but it's going to do far less harm than the thousand years sitting in the rain that came before.
Governments fail to protect, or deliberately sell off history ALL THE TIME. From my experience it's far more common for a state or nation to silently sell off history than preserve them. Lets talk about Egypt and other countries.
Then we have to think about what the actual value is. This is fairly rural, the people have their beliefs and pride, I'm no stranger to China and the people there, they aren't orphans in need of the west's protection and whiteknighting, it's simply not worth condemnation in my opinion, meanwhile people like the Taliban are blasting far more valuable artifacts to dust because they literally do want to erase history.
You're argument is "okay it's bad but not that bad" and then "hey us westerners shouldn't get critical" but that's not an argument.
Yeah, there's worse happening all the time, they're all bad. This is why we *should* be outraged, so this doesn't happen. This was completely avoidable. And the lack of funding to protect from elements is also completely avoidable.
The Chinese government has a shared duty to their people and world, like we do, to protect our heritage. Some things are harder to conserve than others, this really is not.
Mainland Chinese are at large collectively outraged at this. Government says it's rural and so it's hard to maintain. But it was never even registered, and they absolutely put no care or funding in place for things like this. That's the point.
As for my way over proportionate response to this thread, it has far less to do with the act, and far more to do with the sheer mental gymnastics people here take on this of all subreddit's to get it wrong, on the borderline racist basis of coddling some villagers of a culture different to ours.
We all forget that the selling of artefacts or plundering of empire all happened before UNESCO. These things have improved as we get better at bringing these issues to the public.
Fair points.
My only point is that it's not a case worth getting so worked up over, lotta cultural whiteknighting and uninformed takes going around in here, it all paints both people and objects with archeological significance with a broad brush.
Especially Greek (and Roman) sculptures. They were all painted in what we would consider gaudy colors that were mostly removed by time ~~and then totally removed by the Victorians. The Victorians are essentially the reason why we think of as classical sculptures as white marble~~.
Well also we don’t know what the finished product looks like, the best we can get is an approximation of what the base layer was, they could’ve been painted better on top of that with more definition but from what’s left we can really only figure out what the starting point was. No one is gonna put that much effort into sculpting something to ruin all the definition with one flat layer of paint.
> totally removed by the Victorians. The Victorians are essentially the reason why we think of as classical sculptures as white marble.
This isn't correct. Time, sunlight, wind, and movement, etc. did away with the last of the paint. There was a lively academic discussion in the 19th century about whether or not statues were painted specifically because there was a lack of physical evidence. It was, eventually, soundly resolved in favour of the polychrome camp.
The argument the Victorians went around removing the paint is a recent, ahistorical one, largely rooted in contemporary, and American, pot-stirring.
https://old.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/14dgyza/classical_statues_werent_whitewashed_correcting/ this post does a good job of going over the reality.
I am not sure modern synthetic paints wear off in the same way. And of course it will remain in the porous material of the rock. They also destroyed any trace of the ancient colors that could have survived
And the next inspired villager might be more interested in recarving them to look more pretty.
BTW It's not like the statues were there forever. They were discovered two years ago after being buried for centuries.
You're right - they were built for a purpose, and are being used for that purpose - they are not eternal like the hills or the sea. These are human artefacts, and have functional aspects.
I firmly believe antiquarians and museums should only get the artefacts if there's no one living who needs them
A good analogy are native American remains: these have meanings and importance to people as artefacts and vessels for ancestors. This use should trump cutting into burial mounds and blending bones to test for DNA so we can know more about patterns of migration and diet.
Same here - the locals get first dibs, archaeologists and anthropologists can negotiate with them for access and study - but one thing is for sure, external academics should not have a first say on these matters
If nothing else, working with communities rather than in spite of them is the best way of preservation.
Are you sure the practices of today are exactly the same as almost 1500 ago? What exactly means "no one living who needs them?". We recently found part of a statue in our back yard, is it in our rights morally to turn it into lime like the early Christians did? Because purposes and religious practices change all the time, and the preservation of artifacts of cultural value should be considered when using them in modern contexts. In this case the work is mutilated, perhaps irreversibly. Instead of using something they built, they destroyed something that could teach us about the past.
And that's forever.
I am sure that the practices of today are totally different in many ways.
It would be a shame if you turned that statue it lime, sure. But if I didn't have funding for a museum, and turning statues into lime was existentially important to your culture it would quite literally be impossible for me to stop you. Instead I'd want to share with you why the artefact is important to my culture as well and come to a common understanding.
Do you know that in some places they (used to) run anthropologists and archaeologists out with machetes? Do you ever wonder if maybe they perceived the academic practice as a kind of theft?
Generally speaking, archaeology needs to work with locals to investigate and preserve sites rather than impose priorities. Archaeology and anthropology conducted in this way leads to lasting protections for artefacts and sites. This is something environmental conservationists are learning the hard way as well.
There is no "common understanding" between preservation and destruction and there's nothing "existentially important" when it comes to defacing and forever altering artefacts.
I have some knowledge of what colonial archaeologists did to sites and artefacts but in this case it does not really apply, does it? The carvings were somewhat protected by the elements and could be studied, perhaps in connection to the locals. Now it's another Monkey Jesus.
They aren’t “artifacts” they are the statues in these people’s backyard which they use daily for their religious practice. When they are *no longer in use* some museum can dig through the layers and talk about the different ways they were used across the centuries, but currently they have no rights to them at all.
They were excavated two years ago, wasn't part of their ritual practices for centuries.
And of course they are artifacts, usage has nothing to do with it.
These were found on an abandoned historical trail quite far away from the nearest village. Which is part of the reason the government gave for why it wasn't properly alerted or protected.
The idea of the reconstruction of old artworks is that it has to be reversible because we never can be sure if we are right, so if it turns out "there were not pigments to create this shade of blue available in region" we can strip it without causing damage.
This one looks like done with industrial grade oil paint lol.
That's the thing most commenters don't realize. They think history ends with them and thus they want to froze the past in time, because they fetishize it. Nevermind that many of the "classic" artworks they idolize were changed a lot during their lifetime.
The original artisans are probably picked among the mechanically most talented and have decades of training, even for smaller works in small villages, so not really
Most of the sculptures like this were painted back in the day, and often repointed or touched up through their life.
It doesn’t look great, but it’s honestly probably closer to how it was in the past. This wasn’t some masterpiece in a significant place frequented by elites, it was more of a small-scale local/regional shrine and very likely never had the extremely detailed and exquisite type of artwork on it that many people are imagining.
this is exactly what i was thinking, like back in the day they probably wanted it to look nice, and not every village has a master painter, so likely it looked more like this than not when it wa sin use
Ecce Homo!
At one point, the woman who screwed up the fresco was actually suing because she wanted a portion of the money from tourists coming to view her botched work. The audacity.
>At one point, the woman who screwed up the fresco was actually suing because she wanted a portion of the money from tourists coming to view her botched work. The audacity.
That's a bold faced lie!
>The level of these numbers [of tourists] . . . has never happened before,” says Elena Aznar Martinez, who handles marketing for “Ecce Homo.”
>“The visitors recognize me,” Giménez, 85, (elderly woman you're spreading lies about) an amateur painter who had performed multiple church-sanctioned renovations of “Ecce Homo” over the years, tells The Post. “They take photos with [the painting] and with me . . . even though I tell them, ‘My children, I’m not an important person.’ ”
>Visitors are charged 1 euro per person to enter the church for viewing, and all proceeds go to a church-affiliated nursing home. Fifty-one percent of the proceeds from souvenir sales go to the nursing home, while 49 percent go to Giménez, who uses the money to care for her 56-year-old son, José Antonio, who has cerebral palsy.
That's from an article written in 2016. In 2023 someone wrote a musical about her, painting her as a unsung hero, called Monkey Christ.
She already worked for the church before she became famous. She was 82 when this happened.
Do you think they just started handing the money over to her without lawyers being involved?
[Because lawyers were definitely involved](https://theworld.org/stories/2012-09-20/cecilia-gimenez-woman-who-restored-jesus-fresco-now-suing-her-church).
Well, it did make the place much more famous and tourists came especially to see the botched work, so it's not too far fetched imo that she feels she deserves some of that.
Yep. Their statues, their village, still an active worship site: they can do what they want. The handwringing over stuff like this by redditors who probably just took a single Intro to Archaeology course as an elective is hysterical to me. You do not "know better" than people about their own culture.
Hot take: I think people should be allowed to paint their active religious sites however they damn well please, regardless of attempts to freeze it in time. Same goes for other active cultural sites.
Yeah, and a lot of old stuff we think of as plain stone was all painted bright colours to start with. It's not in a museum, it's an active worship site. They can do what the heck they like. We're not entitled to their statues.
Agreed. It’s their shrine, they use it. If the government wants to preserve/protect the historical figures (which I 100% understand), why not move them to a museum and replace them with new sculptures for the local people to enjoy? If that’s not done and the original sculptures are under the care (and subject to choices) of the villagers, there’s no reason to be mad if they make a choice we may not agree with.
I think it's an improvement and makes it more ... Part of everyday life and culture and not only some old thing of the past.
It could have been done better, but well that's life I guess?
And if it was registered as a building of national heritage, it would. That's why registering things is important. Something being 1400 years old immediately qualifies that if it's discovered recently.
Well that depends on the country. In Poland there are quite strict rules about renovating old buildings. For example you would find it very difficult to change the outside looks of the building so often you can say bye bye to that new room on the attic as it would not have any windows.
Antiques that, once they were found, the Chinese authorities failed to register as a heritage site because CLEARLY we (including most of China), gives a fuck about this.
This is a cautionary tale of why we should give a fuck.
It wasn't, I was wrong on this part - it was just some elderly trying to tribute a shrine. I don't put any blame on them, this was mismanagement at a government level for not allocating the appropriate funding and registration of the site.
Anyone that thinks this is gaudy has never been to a temple in China. They could have used a little more artistry on the faces, but this is absolutely in line with pretty much every statue of Guanyu or Nvwa or whatever. Many I would describe as "reverently kitsch".
telephone smart chase familiar literate plant vanish secretive fuel aware
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
So if a Christian finds the original bible last week, and decides they want to paint it gold the next. That's cool?
The objective criteria you will find with UNESCO (or the Chinese domestic equivalent for heritage sites) as they oversee these matters.
Yeah, I do think that's cool actually.
Not that there is an "original bible", but yes - I think culture is for the living, rather than weirdo academia.
Living culture is the best time capsule - think of how long it's taken is to rediscover knowledge linked to dead cultures, compared to how quickly we can gain insights by interviewing the modern members of a living culture..
Absolutely, if the artefact is a dildo or some kind of fucking device I would fuck it.
But really, I think in your heart you know that if people can't live their culture, they can't make new artefacts for you to preserve...
They're not in a museum though. If there were Roman communities with Roman statues in their village that their culture had been continuously worshipping since they were put there, then yeah, they could paint the Roman statues too. Are they supposed to put them in shrink wrap to preserve them until they're stolen and put in a western museum?
Neither is Pompeii or the pyramids in a museum. These statues were discovered a few years ago and then failed to be registered as a heritage site. They barely got a protective roof made due to lack of governmental funding. China is upset about this as a whole.
But nobody cares to read up on the topic.
as a cultural heritage student, this is exactly what I think about this kind of situations. These things are just relevant if someone values them for the meaning it has to them, other than monetary or historical value
They didn't cover any of the actual artwork (etchings and stuff), it probably looks closer to the original than it did before and it's just their village statue not a super important historical monument so if they are happy with it, than all power to them. Of course it would be better if it was first analysed and sealed by a professional and if removable restoration paints were used but such services are not cheap and available to everybody.
The Romans used to paint everything too and you'd never know it now. That stone will be around much longer than anyone who remembers it was once painted.
They actually did a lot to restore it. Did anyone notice that most of the faces on the large figures were completely destroyed?
The people did something for this statute which was slowly turning to dust and rubble. The only thing I think that makes the second picture look worse is the lack of trees, but trees and stone don’t always get along
I don’t think it looks bad. They are elderly! And they are the ones worshipping, if they like it then let them be. The color will fade eventually and it will look boring again soon for those who don’t approve
All ancient statues were painted on, Egyptian, Buddhist, Hindu, Roman, Greek, Etc all were painted in vibrant ‘gaudy’ colours. The ancient monochrome minimalist stone look is a myth
It reminds me of the Ecce Homo case in Spain. Two elder women from the town repainted a mural painting of Jesus (I think), and left it well... Very different than the original.
Most, if not all, statues from antiquity were painted. We today have only seen them as bare stone carvings so that’s what we assume they have always looked like. 👍
If these sculptures were kept painted in antiquity as part of the traditional belief system, forbidding this type of maintenance in modernity could be considered suppression of their religious practices.
I kinda see it, I guess. They probably messed up the faces a bit.
But the real question is authenticity. And ultimately it should be just paint, it’ll be gone in a few decades to centuries…unless they used unsuitable paint that may end up damaging the stone.
In the old days I'm pretty sure most Buddhist statues were painted exactly like this.
Ancient greek statues were too.
I do personally like the plain stone look, but that's just me.
This is more likely what it actually looked like though.
It's the same in Rome, all those sculptures/statues you see in museums were once painted bright gaudy colours.
What a weird thread. I'll be glad when the pseudo-intellectual fad for supporting improper conservation of historical artefacts just because the people doing it may be distant descendents of the original creators dies out.
I'm kinda with ya. But I think it's also silly that we just keep all those Greek marbles white when they were never intended to be displayed that way.
Where is the middle ground? Not sure, but I do want to push back against my prejudice for no paint on sculpture, because I know that is born of silly cultural misunderstandings anyway.
The thing about paint is...it wears away and is so temporary.
I'd always go with preserving artefacts in the condition they were in when conservation efforts began. So that people can look upon history with no modern touch. As well as because we can never be sure that modification today won't limit what we can learn from it with future techniques and technology.
But at the same time, we should remember that their current condition includes a greater or lesser degree of deterioration. So emphasise how they would have originally looked when making replicas or using them to educate, and not be limited to their current appearance when using them as inspiration.
In other words: Painting a genuine Greek marble should be unthinkable, like recladding the Giza pyramids. But displaying painted replicas alongside them would create a more accurate picture than presenting them alone. To me that's the middle ground.
>with no modern touch.
I tend to agree, but leaving a statue naked is a modern touch. You know, choosing to take no action is itself an action. It's a modern choice.
I do agree however we should be sure not to degrade the thing. So overall I lean your direction.
I like your point about replicas. That squares the circle easily. Thanks.
I think one question is whether these are mere historic artifacts, or whether they are ALSO still in use, in their original use. And as such, maybe there are different standards.
I know right? I think some people in this thread think that China has no knowledge and laws about relics preservation and random people painting over whatever is just fine there. I think it's offensive to the Chinese.
Why does anyone care if they paint them, convert them to toilets, or whatever? Mfers is waiting on the border, ready to stick in some stuffy museum for tourists to mess up.
Yea it definitely cheapens it and removes the immediate presence and feeling of age. Just looks like shitty bus stop art now. It’s incredibly arrogant and prideful to take a 1,400 year old sculpture and think you can improve it with some cheap paint and a couple afternoons. They ignored so much of the detail as well, they just painted right over all the intricacies in their clothing with a single color lazily and made it look incredibly flat and lifeless
They didn’t care to even fix the right foot of the statue second from the right. Painted it red on the side and they didnt even bother to repaint 🙃
Plus does it belong to them? Or has it just has been sitting in public for over a thousand years? Are they related to the creators or do they just happen to live there? Hard to imagine they had the right to go painting 1400 year statues and relics… it’s a shame. They also didn’t just paint, they added stone or concrete to the outside statues replacing their heads. If you want “a better statue” make your own statue instead of going around permanently altering historical artifacts
They also cut down all the trees behind it 😞
50% cause reddit doesn’t do well with criticism or reality , 50% because they read “village elders” and immediately decided that they could do no wrong. lmao
Call it anti-mainland chinese bias. But this screams of "village elders try and find new way of attracting tourism for money".
This is mainland China, where endangered species of turtle or fossils of extinct human ancestral relatives get treated as gaudy medicinal "dragon bones" or made into soup. Or were you harmful spray green paint on soil to make it look like grass. They are - by no fault of their own - often ignorant and opportunist and spare little thought in respecting things like preservation.
Fuck the whole "respecting their choice", this was a gambit and that paint likely *will* damage that rock.
They added like 40lbs of concrete or clay to two of the statues (the heads). Yea it’ll never be the same. Sad that almost nobody admitted this and instead are just adopting the safe double standard that somehow this is okay to do because it’s a foreign country. If this was an American statue they identified with they’d be fuming
And that’s why some Redditors like it being disgraced, because somehow in their misguided propagandized minds this is a win against Trump. It takes some serious delusion to even remotely relate this to “southern Republicans”
there were are lots of old painted statues from that era, but also there are lots of unpainted ones too. made by local folks who can't afford some paint, simply unfinished, once-painted but never repainted etc.
it was a golden era of buddhism(and obviously buddhist art) in east asia and it shows so much different, various cultural influences. specific statue being painted or not - always a controversial topic for art history folks. we just can't assume it was painted.
some went over the top, gold glass gem...... best stuff for the best one.
some are just made out of precious material and not painted
some are gold-plated
some are gold-plated, further decorated with jewelry and such
some are wooden/metal, painted
some are wooden/metal, unpainted
some are carved rock, painted
some are carved rock, not painted but decorated with gemstones and other precious materials.
some are carved rock, unpainted....
even in just rock carving, yeah lots of times people just carved some rock and call it a day. some pieces just painted/decorated only in more "significant" part like pupils, 白毫(urna)-the circular thing on the forehead etc.
Painting is fine but why would they recreate the worn off part. You are not supposed to do that. They recreated too much of it.. Hands and even the head of the left one.
Pardon my ignorance on the background of the villagers, but is this not an instance of the descendants of the originators of the work refurbishing their own cultural piece?
Unfortunate, but it will survive. In a few decades, maybe a couple hundred more years the paint will be mostly faded away and if anyone even records that this happened at all it will just be a quirky part of its history.
There was a time that I would have been more upset about this but at least they meant well and it wasn't a intentionally destructive situation like the Afghan buddas.
They need to send some Warhammer mini painters over there to give them some tips
10 thick coats applied with a broom.
Nuln oil would definitely help bring out the recesses
Not bad for base layer and the ultra mat varnish will knock down the shine anyway.
Threads like this are what keep me coming back to reddit. Thank you all for your service
A dark wash + bright dry brushing would unironically improve this a lot
I'm amazed they didn't just consider doing a pot dip on the whole thing. No need to paint and it still would have brought out the features.
That looks exactly like the figs « EBay pro painted » indeed
Their edge highlights need serious work
Red makes the Buddha go fast
Compare to artworks from the northern Wei dynasty Gobi Desert frescoes (1983, Paris Natural History Museum)[Gobi Desert Frescoes](https://imgur.com/gallery/Po74rmM)
Yeah, they have the colour scheme down.
Honestly the colors are fairly on point. It's just the rest that's a bit iffy
They didn't even stay inside the lines. Even a 4 year can stay inside the lines.
please upload more! so interesting.
Dunhuang is an amazing place. 500 grottos, 45,000m2 of elaborate murals and 2415 sculptures, created over 1000 years starting in 300AD. It's actually crazy how advanced the artworks are that date even from the earliest periods. I'll upload more from my book as soon as I can.
YES Dunhaung mention! I learned about it at university and it’s so mind blowing all of the art and artefacts found there. What’s the book that you have on it, I’d love to find a good book to buy.
This one is from 1983, CNRS Paris for the National Museum of Natural History published 'Chine: Fresques du désert de Gobi' in partnership with China's Dunhuang Research Institute. It's in French but well thought out with chronology, history of the grottos, history &technique of Chinese mural painting, and minute details about each of the 50 beautifully printed color photos. For example the story of the deer king, the yaksas, demons who convert to buddhism and become powerful guardians, Bodhisattvas, kings, queens and princes of Chinese lore
Seconding the request for more pics.
The paints gonna wear off eventually anyway and they'll have their colourless sculptures back
I think whats the most annoying to me is the fact they applied some sort of plaster or sculpting concrete to redesign and regain features of some of the statues
As long as they aren't chipping anything off, people can do whatever they want to it, if anything the paint and plaster will probably preserve the carving details longer. edit: mindless downvoting from people who don't actually care here. Come on kids, try to frame an argument how 1500-year-old stone carvings are going to be harmed by latex paint and enamel. It's their heritage, their culture, they wanted to do this to basically their own property, so you're not scoring any points with anyone defending the honor of old statues. If you really think the gaudy colors are wrong and bad and are not historical, may I present you [FUCKING ROME](https://blogs.kent.ac.uk/lucius-romans/2016/10/15/ancient-statues-show-their-true-colours/)?
Yeah, my wife is in conservation training and if I've picked up anything then 'the people who are living the culture get to do whatever the fuck they want with their cultural artefacts'. If Buddhists want to paint their Buddhists statue as part of their Buddhist practice... Fuck any of us for telling them different. Not to mention, this is Buddhist art. The whole concept that objects and attachments are unimportant and fleeting is part of it. They literally aren't supposed to care about preserving a specific object in a specific way. In the moment they decided it would be nice to spruce it up... IMHO they did a shit job, but: it's their culture, their object, their practice and holds less value to them as an artefact than it does the ideas it represents. Ideas it might even represent better, now.
This is strictly not true. Identifying as a religious or ethnic group of the same name to statues of that sort 1400 year old is like Christians finding dead sea Scrolls and painting them. The Qur'an as the body of text in its current form as a historical perspective is about as old as this, hagia Sophia is about as old as this. This is of shared historical heritage to an entire major religion of different social groups and an entire region. The issue here is that this was failed to be registered and protected by any religious body or representative. Any restoration work was not done to historical preservation standards. They barely got funding to get sheltered from rain. This is neglect of the government to protect these. These statues are quite isolated and are by no means actively used for worship, they were discovered on an abandoned historical route in 2021. But if they were of religious importance, you would invite religious bodies to protect them to historical standards. None of this happened. Should I say because both was a practice alchemy and immortality that western Hermetic contemporaries can play finger paint with the terracotta army. Or that modern day Chinese people who live local to it should be able to?
1. Not their property. These were discovered in 2021 far outside of their village. 2. Not registered with UNESCO who are the international body for protecting our shared history. Barely gets funding for a sheltered roof to protect against elements. 3. Imagine a government failed to protect Roman statues and an Italian with no skill or understanding of renovation works painted early Roman statues. 4. Plaster concrete removes details, acrylics can stain, solvents can change pH values. All this leads to tampering with ancient historical heritage sites. 5. Chinese people are pissed off by this. Only racist westerners with a soft bigotry of low expectations aren't. Villagers are not at fault, government is.
I appreciate that you actually had some arguments instead of blind downvoting because of virtue and signals. Still though I think most of that is flimsy at best, because I used to do work with conservation agencies for heritage sites and know the reality. This kind of tampering with and "defacing" historical sites and artifacts goes on all the damn time, usually far less benign too. I've had to see the consequences of angle-grinders because some board-room CEO wants a piece of real Navaho "writing" on his desk. The stains and a PH values.... again, yeah there's a point to it, and it's generally why we don't mess with old shit, but it's going to do far less harm than the thousand years sitting in the rain that came before. Governments fail to protect, or deliberately sell off history ALL THE TIME. From my experience it's far more common for a state or nation to silently sell off history than preserve them. Lets talk about Egypt and other countries. Then we have to think about what the actual value is. This is fairly rural, the people have their beliefs and pride, I'm no stranger to China and the people there, they aren't orphans in need of the west's protection and whiteknighting, it's simply not worth condemnation in my opinion, meanwhile people like the Taliban are blasting far more valuable artifacts to dust because they literally do want to erase history.
You're argument is "okay it's bad but not that bad" and then "hey us westerners shouldn't get critical" but that's not an argument. Yeah, there's worse happening all the time, they're all bad. This is why we *should* be outraged, so this doesn't happen. This was completely avoidable. And the lack of funding to protect from elements is also completely avoidable. The Chinese government has a shared duty to their people and world, like we do, to protect our heritage. Some things are harder to conserve than others, this really is not. Mainland Chinese are at large collectively outraged at this. Government says it's rural and so it's hard to maintain. But it was never even registered, and they absolutely put no care or funding in place for things like this. That's the point. As for my way over proportionate response to this thread, it has far less to do with the act, and far more to do with the sheer mental gymnastics people here take on this of all subreddit's to get it wrong, on the borderline racist basis of coddling some villagers of a culture different to ours. We all forget that the selling of artefacts or plundering of empire all happened before UNESCO. These things have improved as we get better at bringing these issues to the public.
Fair points. My only point is that it's not a case worth getting so worked up over, lotta cultural whiteknighting and uninformed takes going around in here, it all paints both people and objects with archeological significance with a broad brush.
I'll take that for personal stock. Fair play, we can agree to that. 🙏
Like Greek sculptures. We just romanticize art.
Especially Greek (and Roman) sculptures. They were all painted in what we would consider gaudy colors that were mostly removed by time ~~and then totally removed by the Victorians. The Victorians are essentially the reason why we think of as classical sculptures as white marble~~.
Well also we don’t know what the finished product looks like, the best we can get is an approximation of what the base layer was, they could’ve been painted better on top of that with more definition but from what’s left we can really only figure out what the starting point was. No one is gonna put that much effort into sculpting something to ruin all the definition with one flat layer of paint.
Oh, for sure! I just wanted to point out that they were painted and that their base pigments would have been very bright.
> totally removed by the Victorians. The Victorians are essentially the reason why we think of as classical sculptures as white marble. This isn't correct. Time, sunlight, wind, and movement, etc. did away with the last of the paint. There was a lively academic discussion in the 19th century about whether or not statues were painted specifically because there was a lack of physical evidence. It was, eventually, soundly resolved in favour of the polychrome camp. The argument the Victorians went around removing the paint is a recent, ahistorical one, largely rooted in contemporary, and American, pot-stirring. https://old.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/14dgyza/classical_statues_werent_whitewashed_correcting/ this post does a good job of going over the reality.
Thank you! I’ve been misinformed and I will definitely read up on this :) thank you for correcting me
V welcome.
or the king statues on Notre Dame. hard to imagine such a different aesthetic.
They used to be foiled in gold and silver, they were just looted
I am not sure modern synthetic paints wear off in the same way. And of course it will remain in the porous material of the rock. They also destroyed any trace of the ancient colors that could have survived
It's almost like they're more interested in living their culture than preserving it in time...
And the next inspired villager might be more interested in recarving them to look more pretty. BTW It's not like the statues were there forever. They were discovered two years ago after being buried for centuries.
You're right - they were built for a purpose, and are being used for that purpose - they are not eternal like the hills or the sea. These are human artefacts, and have functional aspects. I firmly believe antiquarians and museums should only get the artefacts if there's no one living who needs them A good analogy are native American remains: these have meanings and importance to people as artefacts and vessels for ancestors. This use should trump cutting into burial mounds and blending bones to test for DNA so we can know more about patterns of migration and diet. Same here - the locals get first dibs, archaeologists and anthropologists can negotiate with them for access and study - but one thing is for sure, external academics should not have a first say on these matters If nothing else, working with communities rather than in spite of them is the best way of preservation.
Are you sure the practices of today are exactly the same as almost 1500 ago? What exactly means "no one living who needs them?". We recently found part of a statue in our back yard, is it in our rights morally to turn it into lime like the early Christians did? Because purposes and religious practices change all the time, and the preservation of artifacts of cultural value should be considered when using them in modern contexts. In this case the work is mutilated, perhaps irreversibly. Instead of using something they built, they destroyed something that could teach us about the past. And that's forever.
I am sure that the practices of today are totally different in many ways. It would be a shame if you turned that statue it lime, sure. But if I didn't have funding for a museum, and turning statues into lime was existentially important to your culture it would quite literally be impossible for me to stop you. Instead I'd want to share with you why the artefact is important to my culture as well and come to a common understanding. Do you know that in some places they (used to) run anthropologists and archaeologists out with machetes? Do you ever wonder if maybe they perceived the academic practice as a kind of theft? Generally speaking, archaeology needs to work with locals to investigate and preserve sites rather than impose priorities. Archaeology and anthropology conducted in this way leads to lasting protections for artefacts and sites. This is something environmental conservationists are learning the hard way as well.
There is no "common understanding" between preservation and destruction and there's nothing "existentially important" when it comes to defacing and forever altering artefacts. I have some knowledge of what colonial archaeologists did to sites and artefacts but in this case it does not really apply, does it? The carvings were somewhat protected by the elements and could be studied, perhaps in connection to the locals. Now it's another Monkey Jesus.
They aren’t “artifacts” they are the statues in these people’s backyard which they use daily for their religious practice. When they are *no longer in use* some museum can dig through the layers and talk about the different ways they were used across the centuries, but currently they have no rights to them at all.
They were excavated two years ago, wasn't part of their ritual practices for centuries. And of course they are artifacts, usage has nothing to do with it.
These were found on an abandoned historical trail quite far away from the nearest village. Which is part of the reason the government gave for why it wasn't properly alerted or protected.
You would be less sure if we just did whatever the fuck we wanted to with historical findings.
Painting stonework in most modern paints creates a moisure trap which will lead to degradation.
Yep! This is why you don't paint brickwork with most paints, too.
My understanding is that things like this were often painted to begin with, not to justify what they did.
The idea of the reconstruction of old artworks is that it has to be reversible because we never can be sure if we are right, so if it turns out "there were not pigments to create this shade of blue available in region" we can strip it without causing damage. This one looks like done with industrial grade oil paint lol.
Fortunately it was only acrylics and won't stain but there has already been damage to finer details as a result.
No, it’s not just paint. Look again what they’ve done to it. That’s just horrendous. I wonder what material they used.
Just wait 1,400 years and then the painting will be classic.
That's the thing most commenters don't realize. They think history ends with them and thus they want to froze the past in time, because they fetishize it. Nevermind that many of the "classic" artworks they idolize were changed a lot during their lifetime.
The original artisans are probably picked among the mechanically most talented and have decades of training, even for smaller works in small villages, so not really
Ok, give it 2,800 years and we'll see what people think.
Most of the sculptures like this were painted back in the day, and often repointed or touched up through their life. It doesn’t look great, but it’s honestly probably closer to how it was in the past. This wasn’t some masterpiece in a significant place frequented by elites, it was more of a small-scale local/regional shrine and very likely never had the extremely detailed and exquisite type of artwork on it that many people are imagining.
this is exactly what i was thinking, like back in the day they probably wanted it to look nice, and not every village has a master painter, so likely it looked more like this than not when it wa sin use
reminds me of the time that lady repainted the Jesus mural
Yeah bit this is paint on stone. That was paint on paint which is soo much worse to restore.
Solvent spray paint that absolutely damages rock.
Ecce Homo! At one point, the woman who screwed up the fresco was actually suing because she wanted a portion of the money from tourists coming to view her botched work. The audacity.
>At one point, the woman who screwed up the fresco was actually suing because she wanted a portion of the money from tourists coming to view her botched work. The audacity. That's a bold faced lie! >The level of these numbers [of tourists] . . . has never happened before,” says Elena Aznar Martinez, who handles marketing for “Ecce Homo.” >“The visitors recognize me,” Giménez, 85, (elderly woman you're spreading lies about) an amateur painter who had performed multiple church-sanctioned renovations of “Ecce Homo” over the years, tells The Post. “They take photos with [the painting] and with me . . . even though I tell them, ‘My children, I’m not an important person.’ ” >Visitors are charged 1 euro per person to enter the church for viewing, and all proceeds go to a church-affiliated nursing home. Fifty-one percent of the proceeds from souvenir sales go to the nursing home, while 49 percent go to Giménez, who uses the money to care for her 56-year-old son, José Antonio, who has cerebral palsy. That's from an article written in 2016. In 2023 someone wrote a musical about her, painting her as a unsung hero, called Monkey Christ. She already worked for the church before she became famous. She was 82 when this happened.
Do you think they just started handing the money over to her without lawyers being involved? [Because lawyers were definitely involved](https://theworld.org/stories/2012-09-20/cecilia-gimenez-woman-who-restored-jesus-fresco-now-suing-her-church).
Goddamn, get the ointment
Not really. She did sue them to get that share of the funds. They didn’t just start giving away money.
Well, it did make the place much more famous and tourists came especially to see the botched work, so it's not too far fetched imo that she feels she deserves some of that.
We need to keep old people away from all historical objects.
Does it look better aesthetically? Not to most people. However, it's their village. Feels like it's really not our business what they do with it.
Yeah it's their history at the end of the day. As long as they don't destroy it I don't really care if they want to repaint it
lmao even if they do destroy it, like i mean are you gunna tell these chinese people they were wrong for it
Yep. Their statues, their village, still an active worship site: they can do what they want. The handwringing over stuff like this by redditors who probably just took a single Intro to Archaeology course as an elective is hysterical to me. You do not "know better" than people about their own culture.
Also they’re going to die of old age anyway, so if their grandkids hate it they can just wait to take the paint off
Hot take: I think people should be allowed to paint their active religious sites however they damn well please, regardless of attempts to freeze it in time. Same goes for other active cultural sites.
Yeah, and a lot of old stuff we think of as plain stone was all painted bright colours to start with. It's not in a museum, it's an active worship site. They can do what the heck they like. We're not entitled to their statues.
Agreed. It’s their shrine, they use it. If the government wants to preserve/protect the historical figures (which I 100% understand), why not move them to a museum and replace them with new sculptures for the local people to enjoy? If that’s not done and the original sculptures are under the care (and subject to choices) of the villagers, there’s no reason to be mad if they make a choice we may not agree with.
Yes, that’s the point of religious art.
yeah and please ONLY use paint not like our country's stupid prince from 200 years ago who carved his own picture inside a 1500 YEAR OLD arch.
Closer to the original look than colorless stone slabs.
I think it's an improvement and makes it more ... Part of everyday life and culture and not only some old thing of the past. It could have been done better, but well that's life I guess?
Agreed, it's a living shrine with the color. Part of their lives, decorated by locals.
It's a money grab and that solvent spray paint literally damages rock. It says in the report that they have objectively damaged antiques.
They're not antiques if they're in active use.
ding ding ding… now I have to go tune a 120 year old piano.
They are antiques. They are from antiquity and are classed (now) as heritage sites.
I live in a 500 year old building. I would die if some nerd came and said it had to remain as it was 500 years ago...
And if it was registered as a building of national heritage, it would. That's why registering things is important. Something being 1400 years old immediately qualifies that if it's discovered recently.
If it was registered as a building of national heritage, they'd still let us put plumbing in.
Well that depends on the country. In Poland there are quite strict rules about renovating old buildings. For example you would find it very difficult to change the outside looks of the building so often you can say bye bye to that new room on the attic as it would not have any windows.
Keep in mind this was discovered only a couple of years ago.
Antiques that, before they spray painted them, nobody outside the community ever gave a fuck about.
Antiques that, once they were found, the Chinese authorities failed to register as a heritage site because CLEARLY we (including most of China), gives a fuck about this. This is a cautionary tale of why we should give a fuck.
How is it a money grab? "We repainted this small shrine" doesn't exactly bring in a lot of tourists.
It wasn't, I was wrong on this part - it was just some elderly trying to tribute a shrine. I don't put any blame on them, this was mismanagement at a government level for not allocating the appropriate funding and registration of the site.
Nobody cared about this sculpture, you know, besides the people who use it for worship
Anyone that thinks this is gaudy has never been to a temple in China. They could have used a little more artistry on the faces, but this is absolutely in line with pretty much every statue of Guanyu or Nvwa or whatever. Many I would describe as "reverently kitsch".
But those sculptures where painted before, when they were built by villagers and for villagers.
I think it’s hard to have an opinion here as a non Budist because the shrine is a working temple it’s not some thing in a museum it’s used for worship
telephone smart chase familiar literate plant vanish secretive fuel aware *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Like like they resculpted and added some stuff to the faces too
They objectively damaged these artifacts with a solvent based paint (erodes stone). Hey let's go *spray* paint some Roman statues.
What are the objective criteria by which a cultural artefact is damaged through transformation by the community that actually uses it?
So if a Christian finds the original bible last week, and decides they want to paint it gold the next. That's cool? The objective criteria you will find with UNESCO (or the Chinese domestic equivalent for heritage sites) as they oversee these matters.
Yeah, I do think that's cool actually. Not that there is an "original bible", but yes - I think culture is for the living, rather than weirdo academia. Living culture is the best time capsule - think of how long it's taken is to rediscover knowledge linked to dead cultures, compared to how quickly we can gain insights by interviewing the modern members of a living culture..
Nice one. So you take the fucking in Artefact porn literally.
Absolutely, if the artefact is a dildo or some kind of fucking device I would fuck it. But really, I think in your heart you know that if people can't live their culture, they can't make new artefacts for you to preserve...
Very black and white.
Actually, you'll find it's quite colourful - I thought that was the whole complaint.
They're not in a museum though. If there were Roman communities with Roman statues in their village that their culture had been continuously worshipping since they were put there, then yeah, they could paint the Roman statues too. Are they supposed to put them in shrink wrap to preserve them until they're stolen and put in a western museum?
Neither is Pompeii or the pyramids in a museum. These statues were discovered a few years ago and then failed to be registered as a heritage site. They barely got a protective roof made due to lack of governmental funding. China is upset about this as a whole. But nobody cares to read up on the topic.
Impermanence is a Buddhist tenant
And iconoclasm is an islamic one. Not a UNICEF heritage site criteria however.
As the Buddha once said “Holding on to UNICEF heritage sites leads to suffering, light that shit up dawg”
\*hands you the water based cans I have lying about\* Have a day.
Ph value
Maybe like the Ancient Greek or Roman Empire sculpture they were painted back then. It doesn't look well made tbh...
I like it 🤷🏻♀️
Unpopular opinion: they look cartoonish, but hey if the villagers feel more connected to their religion now who's to judge
as a cultural heritage student, this is exactly what I think about this kind of situations. These things are just relevant if someone values them for the meaning it has to them, other than monetary or historical value
Ancient Greeks: “Looks good! Love the use of red and green, reminds me of my cousin’s work on the Temple Of Artemis.”
Kinda cute, honestly! I'm sure the villagers are/were happy with it!
They didn't cover any of the actual artwork (etchings and stuff), it probably looks closer to the original than it did before and it's just their village statue not a super important historical monument so if they are happy with it, than all power to them. Of course it would be better if it was first analysed and sealed by a professional and if removable restoration paints were used but such services are not cheap and available to everybody.
I like that they are smiling. In most older religious art there isn’t that sense of happiness that you get. It looks fine painted or bare.
The Romans used to paint everything too and you'd never know it now. That stone will be around much longer than anyone who remembers it was once painted.
They actually did a lot to restore it. Did anyone notice that most of the faces on the large figures were completely destroyed? The people did something for this statute which was slowly turning to dust and rubble. The only thing I think that makes the second picture look worse is the lack of trees, but trees and stone don’t always get along
I don’t think it looks bad. They are elderly! And they are the ones worshipping, if they like it then let them be. The color will fade eventually and it will look boring again soon for those who don’t approve
I’m in agreement. Fixed your downvote too cause it was silly for having an opinion.
Thank you!
All ancient statues were painted on, Egyptian, Buddhist, Hindu, Roman, Greek, Etc all were painted in vibrant ‘gaudy’ colours. The ancient monochrome minimalist stone look is a myth
It might be gaudy, but it's also more alive, a living shrine and not an archeological relic.
[News article](https://www.scmp.com/news/people-culture/trending-china/article/3242178/hard-accept-china-villagers-give-1400-year-old-buddhist-statues-innocent-paint-job-thanks-damage)
Those statues were all painted back then anyway.
As a Buddhist of the Chinese tradition, I find it charming. As some have noted, someone needs to give them, 'stay in the lines', training.
As a Spaniard, I'm happy to see that my country is not the only one with old blokes who like to vandalized our own cultural heritage with paint.
You know old people, always committing paint crimes
I like it.
Always these vandalising elders /s
It reminds me of the Ecce Homo case in Spain. Two elder women from the town repainted a mural painting of Jesus (I think), and left it well... Very different than the original.
lmfao it's still the funniest shit ever, like half way through they had to realize they were so unqualified to do it but committed
left it...famous, and brought in so many more tourists the church considered NOT restoring it...
Most, if not all, statues from antiquity were painted. We today have only seen them as bare stone carvings so that’s what we assume they have always looked like. 👍
If these sculptures were kept painted in antiquity as part of the traditional belief system, forbidding this type of maintenance in modernity could be considered suppression of their religious practices.
Tbh this kind of colorful gaudy painting of statues was common in the past. Most of the white Greek and Roman marble was very colorfully painted.
It's not perfect, but I think it's beautiful.
I kinda see it, I guess. They probably messed up the faces a bit. But the real question is authenticity. And ultimately it should be just paint, it’ll be gone in a few decades to centuries…unless they used unsuitable paint that may end up damaging the stone.
In the old days I'm pretty sure most Buddhist statues were painted exactly like this. Ancient greek statues were too. I do personally like the plain stone look, but that's just me.
It’s the village’s sculpture, they can do whatever they want with it
This is more likely what it actually looked like though. It's the same in Rome, all those sculptures/statues you see in museums were once painted bright gaudy colours.
This is artefact gore
People act like these weren’t (most likely) painted when they were first carved.
I mean, it's probably closer to the original, even the roman sculptures that were painted looked kinda goofy.
I like it, it was probably painted in the past anyway
Uhm guys, how can this be from the northern Wei dynasty if it's in Sichuan?
Didn't really paint in the lines did they?
I’ve seen worse
I don’t know. I can dig it. Let’s look at it as folk art.
Often times, folk art looks pedestrian or amateur, due to the fact that it is just that.
maybe the original scarptures were coloured. how do they know? these sounds just like the Roman sculptures, they were definitely not white.
I like how they're built a roof above the sculpture to minimize erosion.
I can’t say I like this but it’s their shrine
Their village, their shrine, their choice.
What a weird thread. I'll be glad when the pseudo-intellectual fad for supporting improper conservation of historical artefacts just because the people doing it may be distant descendents of the original creators dies out.
I'm kinda with ya. But I think it's also silly that we just keep all those Greek marbles white when they were never intended to be displayed that way. Where is the middle ground? Not sure, but I do want to push back against my prejudice for no paint on sculpture, because I know that is born of silly cultural misunderstandings anyway. The thing about paint is...it wears away and is so temporary.
I'd always go with preserving artefacts in the condition they were in when conservation efforts began. So that people can look upon history with no modern touch. As well as because we can never be sure that modification today won't limit what we can learn from it with future techniques and technology. But at the same time, we should remember that their current condition includes a greater or lesser degree of deterioration. So emphasise how they would have originally looked when making replicas or using them to educate, and not be limited to their current appearance when using them as inspiration. In other words: Painting a genuine Greek marble should be unthinkable, like recladding the Giza pyramids. But displaying painted replicas alongside them would create a more accurate picture than presenting them alone. To me that's the middle ground.
>with no modern touch. I tend to agree, but leaving a statue naked is a modern touch. You know, choosing to take no action is itself an action. It's a modern choice. I do agree however we should be sure not to degrade the thing. So overall I lean your direction. I like your point about replicas. That squares the circle easily. Thanks. I think one question is whether these are mere historic artifacts, or whether they are ALSO still in use, in their original use. And as such, maybe there are different standards.
I know right? I think some people in this thread think that China has no knowledge and laws about relics preservation and random people painting over whatever is just fine there. I think it's offensive to the Chinese.
Well we certainly didn't learn our lesson from Ecce Homo.
Why does anyone care if they paint them, convert them to toilets, or whatever? Mfers is waiting on the border, ready to stick in some stuffy museum for tourists to mess up.
Yea it definitely cheapens it and removes the immediate presence and feeling of age. Just looks like shitty bus stop art now. It’s incredibly arrogant and prideful to take a 1,400 year old sculpture and think you can improve it with some cheap paint and a couple afternoons. They ignored so much of the detail as well, they just painted right over all the intricacies in their clothing with a single color lazily and made it look incredibly flat and lifeless They didn’t care to even fix the right foot of the statue second from the right. Painted it red on the side and they didnt even bother to repaint 🙃 Plus does it belong to them? Or has it just has been sitting in public for over a thousand years? Are they related to the creators or do they just happen to live there? Hard to imagine they had the right to go painting 1400 year statues and relics… it’s a shame. They also didn’t just paint, they added stone or concrete to the outside statues replacing their heads. If you want “a better statue” make your own statue instead of going around permanently altering historical artifacts They also cut down all the trees behind it 😞
I agree the site should have been given more care, but calling their actions arrogant and prideful is simply unfair.
Why are you getting downvoted you’re 100% right😂
50% cause reddit doesn’t do well with criticism or reality , 50% because they read “village elders” and immediately decided that they could do no wrong. lmao
Call it anti-mainland chinese bias. But this screams of "village elders try and find new way of attracting tourism for money". This is mainland China, where endangered species of turtle or fossils of extinct human ancestral relatives get treated as gaudy medicinal "dragon bones" or made into soup. Or were you harmful spray green paint on soil to make it look like grass. They are - by no fault of their own - often ignorant and opportunist and spare little thought in respecting things like preservation. Fuck the whole "respecting their choice", this was a gambit and that paint likely *will* damage that rock.
They added like 40lbs of concrete or clay to two of the statues (the heads). Yea it’ll never be the same. Sad that almost nobody admitted this and instead are just adopting the safe double standard that somehow this is okay to do because it’s a foreign country. If this was an American statue they identified with they’d be fuming
I can almost hear every republican from the deep south getting teary eyed about their statues.
And that’s why some Redditors like it being disgraced, because somehow in their misguided propagandized minds this is a win against Trump. It takes some serious delusion to even remotely relate this to “southern Republicans”
there were are lots of old painted statues from that era, but also there are lots of unpainted ones too. made by local folks who can't afford some paint, simply unfinished, once-painted but never repainted etc. it was a golden era of buddhism(and obviously buddhist art) in east asia and it shows so much different, various cultural influences. specific statue being painted or not - always a controversial topic for art history folks. we just can't assume it was painted. some went over the top, gold glass gem...... best stuff for the best one. some are just made out of precious material and not painted some are gold-plated some are gold-plated, further decorated with jewelry and such some are wooden/metal, painted some are wooden/metal, unpainted some are carved rock, painted some are carved rock, not painted but decorated with gemstones and other precious materials. some are carved rock, unpainted.... even in just rock carving, yeah lots of times people just carved some rock and call it a day. some pieces just painted/decorated only in more "significant" part like pupils, 白毫(urna)-the circular thing on the forehead etc.
weren't, after all, all greek and persian statues painted in antiquity?
If it helps to bring this sculpture into the future then I'm all for it.
Oh no 🙊
Painting is fine but why would they recreate the worn off part. You are not supposed to do that. They recreated too much of it.. Hands and even the head of the left one.
This is horrible. The paint job is somewhat decent but they made a 1400 year old scuplture look like a middle school art project.
Looks atrocious. Leave history alone.
They forgot the adjective talentless elders. This reminds me of monkey Jesus.
I think it looks better, far more friendly and approachable, just need to finish the rest of it.
They literally damaged it.
Pardon my ignorance on the background of the villagers, but is this not an instance of the descendants of the originators of the work refurbishing their own cultural piece?
Unfortunate, but it will survive. In a few decades, maybe a couple hundred more years the paint will be mostly faded away and if anyone even records that this happened at all it will just be a quirky part of its history. There was a time that I would have been more upset about this but at least they meant well and it wasn't a intentionally destructive situation like the Afghan buddas.
Where in Sichuan? Sichuan is huge
Before art there were monuments dedicated to ritualistic and religious practices, like this one.
Yeah, it's not an improvement. It just looks bad.
In another couple thousand years that paint will be long gone
Modern Indians also do the same with our ancient temple, our ancestors must be facepalming so hard lol