有哪些现代人觉得很好但是古人觉得很烂，或者相反情况的古代艺术作品？ 第1页

古典希腊罗马的雕塑是上色的。现代人会不会觉得烂嘛，你感受下复原

先来一张人尽皆知的断臂维纳斯

如果你觉得还可以，继续看下面的

这些是本来雕刻水平就一般的，一上色更土了

但是雕刻精美的复原后也难以避免艳俗，这两件算是罗马不同时期的最高水准作品了，上色后依然会让很多人别扭

而且有没有发现，这两张复原图的配色比较正常了，因为古典时期的颜料其实很稀缺，这俩雕塑前者是罗马领袖的人像，后者时代较晚，可供选择的颜料多，殷红＋惨绿那种恶心搭配基本不会出现

不过比较搞笑的是，因为古典雕塑到近现代基本都掉色了，然后文艺复兴时期开历史倒车没开到点子上，很多人误以为，或者故意不承认古典雕塑是艳俗的彩色，统一纯白大理石。其实雕塑不上色是中世纪的养成习惯，比方说圣母玛利亚的袍子是蓝色的，而中世纪看着不恶心（有神圣感）而且不易褪色的蓝色颜料只有阿富汗产，那只有东罗马能较大规模的给玛丽亚上色了，西班牙或许也能搞些蓝颜料，英国、北欧基本就没这个可能了，只能不上色。而且由于颜料稀缺，不论古典还是中世纪，天空、大地、海洋这类背景大都不上色。

中国的兵马俑也是上色的，但当时的中国颜料制造并不发达，甚至会买东方返销的上色丝绸；也没有独立制造紫色颜料的能力，都是红蓝混合。也就是说，实物肯定比复原版更难看。

（当然上色后很好看的也不是没有）

更新：回复评论区 @栗子驴

同一时期的雕刻水平差异是确实存在的。这尊考丽像和上边的考丽像都是古风时代末期，相差大概十年左右，已经可以看出两者细节雕琢之间的明显不同了。有人可能会奇怪为什么上色比另一个考丽好看得多？很简单的道理，雕刻水平反映经济水平，经济水平影响获得颜料的丰富程度和工匠上色水平。这尊雕像来自希俄斯，爱奥尼亚最古老富裕的城邦之一，可能是最早铸币的城邦。并且希俄斯位于小亚细亚沿海岛屿，与亚洲贸易非常方便。

为了不让读者被评论区一些人带偏，顺便作为回应，贴论文。

一篇可以解答大部分人的疑惑的科普文章：

The white, clean, minimalistic concept of the art of the Antiquity has been formed in the 18th century by Johann Winckelmann, a German scientist, considered the first European art historian. His pioneering book "The History of Art in Antiquity" established the idea of the pure, monochrome characteristics of the Greco-Roman creative work and that view prevailed for centuries over the scientific world
……
Rains, winds and heavy weather for more than 2000 years have done their work and have worn out the brightness of the ancient marbles. But a close examination of the classical literature tradition could expose an abundant evidence of the colouring practices among Greeks and Romans. In the Euripides’ tragedy "Helen" (5th century BC), Helen of Troy, tormented with remorse said: “If only I could be wiped out like a statue, assuming an uglier form rather than a beautiful one”. The words of the tragic character confirm the old custom of using colours on statues. They also express the ancient idea that bare, uncoloured sculptures were, in fact, considered unpleasant and unsightly.
The tinting of statues is expressively shown in Plato’s "Republic" (5th century BC). While giving an example of what an ideal state would be, Plato mentioned: “It is as if we were colouring a statue and someone blamed us, saying that we did not apply the most beautiful pigments to the most beautiful parts…”
Romans followed that tradition, as the Roman writer Vitruvius (1st century BC) informed us in his work "On Architecture". He advised that a Pontic wax should be used for preserving colours; it would prevent them from fading out caused by strong sun or moon light. This technique, the author said precisely, was applied both to walls and sculptures.
……
After hundreds of years of erroneous ideas, our perceptions of what constitutes a good taste have been built and cultivated with (and into) different notions. For ancient Greeks and Romans, the colours were not just decorative means for embellishment, but also conveyors of meaning. According to the modern taste a white, colourless statue would probably blend better with the environment, but that is exactly what ancient people tried to avoid. For them, a colour expressed value and status.
As superiors, their gods received the best people could afford – golden, bright paints. They were considered the most appropriate for deities and enhanced the best way their transcendent nature.
The nobles also used colours as a system of codes representing their status. As some tints were difficult for producing (thus, very expensive), the owner of a garment in a specific shade could use it for declaring, silently but firmly, his position in the society.
Today, where dyes and paints have become regular commodities, colours are not more than an aesthetic expression. Still, even now they can imply meanings. When I look at the coloured head of Emperor Caligula, I discern little, tiny facial features that otherwise would have sunk under the white surface. I think I could easier get the sinister image of Caligula built by the ancient authors.

一些雕塑上色和建筑上色的证据，以及对最初接触到上色雕塑的考古学前辈们观点的分析：

In 1825, when printing began on the third volume of the Encyclopédie, the reconstruction of one of the telamones allowed Quatremère to update the Telamon entry and to insert an interesting note on these sculptures. He stated that they were surely covered with stucco and "probably painted using the same colours as used on the building"
……
As happened with "savages," the early Greeks made their idols and statues of wood. They were painted and dressed like mannequins, and a very similar thing had happened with architecture: the first stone buildings were merely a copy of their wooden precedents, and wooden statues were gradually replaced with stone ones (or some other, precious material). So it was that Quatremère was the first to use the term "polychrome," and in 1806 he overturned the world of historiography with his information about the colours used on ancient sculptures. He did it in an extremely sensitive and far-sighted way, and would involve generations of architects in this debate.
……
In any case paints and other colours were used to simulate some other material than the ones actually used, and therefore to make them seem more precious.
Nowadays it is widely known from the wealth of ancient temples in Sicily and elsewhere in Italy that all the outer columns and other parts were coated with a thin layer of plaster. This was to give the stone a smoother appearance, and to take the paint which would make it look like marble. All the Doric temples in Sicily were decorated in this way. Different colours of paint were applied to the bases of the metope, mouldings, and details on a profile. (Quatremère de Quincy 1832, p. 298)
The colours of which Quatremère speaks are never clearly specified, but he always stresses the range of tones used:
The countless remnants of colour which have come down to us are proof that the stucco was painted in a range of colours, that the various parts and divisions in an entablature were painted different colours, and that the triglyph and metopes, the capitals and their astragal collars, and even the soffits on the architrave were always coloured. (Quatremère de Quincy 1832, p. 465)
……
Actually, the use of marble by the ancients was so widespread that to leave it unadorned would have struck anyone who saw it as something rather cheap, especially in a temple. Colours were not merely used to make other materials look like marble, but to change the appearance of marble too.
——Antoine Chrysostôme Quatremère de Quincy (1755-1849) and the Rediscovery of Polychromy in Grecian Architecture: Colour Techniques and Archaeological Research in the Pages of "Olympian Zeus."

古希腊罗马雕塑上色这个结论在现在是根本不需要论证常识，谷歌图书谷歌学术一搜一大堆。觉得颜料用的有问题的可以讨论，否认上色就散了吧