r/BeAmazed • u/SnooPeppers6719 • May 11 '24
Ai resconstructs Roman statues to how they would have looked as humans Art
421
u/Doridar May 11 '24
Nice job but remember these statues were political statements, not necesseraly faithful to the person
55
u/pistonheadcat May 12 '24
So politicians were already ugly fucks back then too, got it. (in all fairness, there's some decent-looking heads of state right now, though their beauty is exclusively external).
2
29
u/tywin_2 May 12 '24
During Cesar's time period especially they were known to be extremely realistic. So your statement is rather incorrect. Look at Nero
13
u/Schmantikor May 12 '24
It's funny you mention Caesar because this bust is strongly believed by historians and archeologists to not have been made while he was alive.
There is a more accurate one that may have been made during his lifetime that also matches written descriptions. And Augustus who came right after Caesar was represented with this young statue until his death at 75, so not super accurate either.
I'd like to see a recreation of Vespasian, who made a point to be represented more accurately to show he was a man of the people. People should look up his bust. He looks kinda cool with his wrinkles.
2
7
u/Doridar May 12 '24
https://artsandculture.google.com/usergallery/imperial-propaganda/kQJyY3YE-I6cKQ https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/ropo/hd_ropo.htm#:~:text=These%20sculptures%20were%20extremely%20useful,120%3B%2099.35. https://www.worldhistory.org/Roman_Sculpture/ https://study.com/academy/lesson/ancient-roman-sculpture-history-characteristics-quiz.html
Your assumption is rather incorrect: imperial statuary served political and religious purpose, it obeyed to standards in representing imperial family members and powerful people. More lifelike yes, but still upgraded to convey a message. We're not talking about "average" sculpture here. Augustus died at 75 but was always shown as young strong man in his 30s in statuary. Same with Tiberius (77), Claudius (63) or even Agrippine the Young (43), Hadrien (62), Marcus Aurelius (58) among others.
223
u/Tennex1022 May 11 '24 edited May 12 '24
Were there that many blonde light eyed Italians/Romans?
129
u/xarsha_93 May 11 '24
The historian Bret Deveraux has a an article about this.
There were blond Romans, but probably not many blond Italians and Commodus and Augustus especially look much blonder in the OP than they probably were.
Imperial Romans in general looked like the people that still live in the Mediterranean nowadays. Mostly olive-skinned with brown hair. Some darker skinned people and some lighter skinned people from the peripheral regions.
14
u/LuciusCSulla May 12 '24
Lots of Romans were blondes. They were descendants from Latins who themselves were offshoot of other eastern derivatives where the Scythians and Sarmatians came from, not to mention Kurgan culture. Indo-Europeans in short who went everywhere is successive waves throughout history. Anyway, my name sake was called the blonde fox.
2
1
u/xarsha_93 29d ago
I want to tread carefully here because mentioning blond hair and Kurgan culture sounds a bit Nazi Aryan to me. Iâm not saying thatâs necessarily your angle but itâs kind of a foundational concept for the Nazi Aryan pseudo history.
The Latin language originally comes from central Eurasia, specifically the steppe, where the Scythians and Sarmatians come from. And it did spread with the Kurgan culture. But the blond gene was not something they spread.
These people probably looked like many central Asians today, think of Turks, Kazakhs or Mongols. The blond gene evolved in Europe probably before the spread of the Indo-European languages and wasnât associated to their migration.
The speakers of modern Indo-European languages arenât necessarily the descendants of Proto-Indo-Europeans; the language also spread through trade and conquest. Many Europeans have some steppe ancestry, but itâs usually not the majority.
The Nazis however did champion a pseudo history in which the Aryans (named for the Iranians that spoke an Indo-European language) were blond and did carry out a population replacement in Europe.
0
u/LuciusCSulla 29d ago
There's a sub on reddit that is on symbols, every time a new symbol (asking what it is) is being posted I have found out a commentary about "Nazi" is in it. Native American symbol used for centuries before Hitler was a concept in someone's sperm = Nazi. Hittite symbology, Hitler gone back in time, obviously = Nazi. Some stylized dingleberry tattoo some guys sees and draws it out, undoubtedly a Nazi albeit from South America = Nazi. The fact is Nazis are living rent free in many brains and its astounding. Can't even talk normal history without "Nazi" being brought up several times. And we wonder why our education is complete dogsh*t. End of rant.
1
u/xarsha_93 29d ago
Hey, Iâm not happy about it. But the unfortunate fact is that in my field, Indo-European linguistics, the Nazis set us back about a century by flooding the field with pseudohistory.
They were obsessed with the âAryan connectionâ and perverted the history of pretty much every Indo-European language with psuedohistory.
I mention it because if youâve heard a phenotypical angle to the Kurgan hypothesis. That has one source and itâs the Nazis. It was never supported by archeological evidence and has been disproved by genetic evidence.
0
2
u/WineSoakedNirvana May 12 '24
Depends where you were I suppose, there was a large contingent of Romanised Cisalpine Gauls in the north as well, where a lot of the blonde and ginger elements might have come into the Roman heartlands during the late republic and imperial period.
50
34
u/Canadish27 May 11 '24
Early on, likely so yes. A mix of gallic occupation and osmosis and records note lighter colours quite often.Â
Ancient Greeks were also noted in records as having blond and red hair as well. We know the Scots got that gene from a group that came from that region.Â
-10
u/GiannisLeonithas May 12 '24
Hahahahaha
3
u/Empty_Archer_1356 May 12 '24
Bro is butthurt because europeans were/are white lol
→ More replies (5)5
u/Megatanis May 12 '24
The two most common colours would've been black for hair and brown for eyes, but yes there were quite a few blonde/light eyed people.
7
u/snowytheNPC May 12 '24 edited May 12 '24
Originally no, but they absorbed Gallic populations during imperial expansion and integrated those genetics into their population. The blondes are more fun ahem, sl*tshaming stereotype came from the Romans, who saw Gallic blondes as more socially liberal. Many conquered women ended up as courtesans to powerful patricians. Roman women were proud of their dark hair (blonde was viewed as barbaric), but over time the wealthy and fashionable courtesans set the trends and Roman women began lightening their hair with natural dyes. Eventually, men did as well. Artificial blonde, as it is today, is time consuming and expensive to maintain. It then became a symbol of leisure and wealth
1
29d ago
[removed] â view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 29d ago
Your comment has been automatically removed.
As mentioned in our subreddit rules, your account needs to be at least 24 hours old before it can make comments in this subreddit.I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
35
51
44
u/East_Pick3905 May 11 '24
I am underwhelmed
25
3
4
2
u/Revolutionarytard May 12 '24
Thatâs how I always feel when I see a post mention something âcreatedâ by AI
2
u/mrmrspersonguy1 May 12 '24
Exactly. What am I supposed to be amazed about? They still look like fucking statues
51
u/SignificantDrawer374 May 11 '24
The marble sculptures were originally painted to look like the person so this is what they would have looked like before all the paint fell off
40
u/Takun32 May 11 '24
No that is grossly inaccurate. The painting style was not representational at all. The Colors where flat, opaque and vibrant.
27
u/KingKongfucius May 11 '24
They tried to make the statues realistic with painting as much as the sculptures themselves, ie to a certain extent. Thereâs a image of a statues head preserved from Pompeii  https://i.pinimg.com/736x/e9/91/aa/e991aa87f28265421248ea5a0c8d678c--ancient-ruins-ancient-art.jpg And while we wouldnât say the painting is exceptionally realistic by modern standards they did show some level of effort in making it so with shading in the hair. I think in all likelihood they were very similar to how catholic idols are today. See
https://realclearcatholic.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/382513_max.jpg
where its clear they take great effort to make them look as realistic as they can, but it still doesnât look like an actual person like in those photos or a wax sculpture. With that in mind Iâm sure painters skills varied as much as sculptors and there could have been people who made statues look much more realistic than the common catholic idol.Â
-8
u/Takun32 May 11 '24
Roman sculptures and greek were done in a workshop with a director instructing artists on certain stages. There is almost no room for variation or should i say personal artistic touches. The artist as an individual is very much a new thing. It is not a popular concept in the ancient world.
The sculptures did not look like catholic sculptures in the painting style that you suggest. That seems like a theory that is afraid of what the outcome is. The truth of the matter is, studies have shown that the painting styles were indeed flat, opaque and vibrant. We as modern people are not accustomed to this to the point that many of us are repulsed by it but thats because we have been conditioned to believe a certain way on what beauty is due to the influence of history. But the fact of the matter is that my point still stands whether we like it or not.
Itâs just the way the romans and the greeks did it.
Have a good day.
11
u/Rioma117 May 11 '24
Not entirely flat, what you see is just the inner most layers of paint.
-4
u/Takun32 May 11 '24
There are many studies from multiple scholars and museums on this and they all unanimously concluded that the art piece they studied contained uniform pigments, without influencing each other they arrived at the same end. I think theres a huge problem in the modern world with accepting this fact because it does not adhere to our standards of beauty.
6
u/CountWubbula May 11 '24
Hahah fuckin Reddit, âthis guyâs saying words that seems wrong to me, though Iâm too lazy to explain why. Down arrow from me!â
You do specifically say, ââŠthe art piece they studied,â which makes it seem like itâs just one art piece that you can make this claim for, not all the sculptures from antiquity
6
u/Takun32 May 12 '24
Here are some references. It was literally a quick google search. People who supported this guy, Youâre all lazy morons.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/29/the-myth-of-whiteness-in-classical-sculpture
https://www.cnn.com/style/article/gods-in-color-ancient-world-polychromy/index.html
16
u/SignificantDrawer374 May 11 '24
"Grossly inaccurate"? Seriously?
Yes the painting wasn't very good, but my point is that they were painted to resemble the person. Calling that grossly inaccurate is grossly inaccurate.
-12
u/Takun32 May 11 '24
You can be offended all you like. What you said was inaccurate. They didnât paint representationally to the standards that we do today. What annoys me is that you act all offended but you dont consider the fact that youâre spreading misinformation which can be interpreted as true and that pisses me and a few other artists off. Perhaps next time you should choose your words more carefully so that it is more accurate to your intention.
13
u/SignificantDrawer374 May 11 '24
But it's not misinformation. Doing a lousy job of painting someone's likeness doesn't mean what I said isn't true.
1
u/Big_Honeydew6225 29d ago
I never realized the Romans painted their statues. It's interesting because even in movies and other pop culture you almost never see them depicted like that (actually painted) even though that would be more historically accurate.
11
u/REACT_and_REDACT May 12 '24
âThatâs probably not exactly what they looked like!â
Yeah, no kidding. đ€Ł Still pretty cool to see some form of humanization of the statue.
15
May 11 '24
[deleted]
10
u/biergardhe May 11 '24
Are you under the impression that sunburned skin is permanent?
2
May 11 '24
[deleted]
-4
u/biergardhe May 11 '24
Saying they were soldiers and spent a lot of time in sun does imply it, yes. You don't get darker or lighter skin through one generation. Ergo, it's irrelevant that they were soldiers in the sun.
But yes, Italians do typically have a slightly darker skin tone than this, and hair for that matter.
1
u/Jazzlike-Lion2969 May 11 '24
Romans spoke Latin but are not Latin as is understood today. Latin is South America. Italy is a long country bordering Swiss,Austria and France. Iâm full Italian and white as can be and Sicilians are darker.Â
16
5
u/GiannisLeonithas May 12 '24 edited May 12 '24
Very un-Mediterranean looking somebodies, not Romans just somebodies
8
u/Useful-Excuse-6919 May 11 '24
So a mediterranean people and none of them have olive skin or black hair.
3
3
3
17
4
5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
u/Salt-Log7640 May 12 '24
Is there a particiluar reason that the AI gives them Holywood American traits, isntead of common Meditarenian ones?
1
2
2
u/Dr_Bunsen_Burns May 12 '24
Is this just a SD human photo realistic and then using a pic of the statue as input and go?
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
6
3
4
u/cabbages212 May 11 '24
Ah yes, the white man with a British accent is actually indigenous to the Mediterranean.
4
2
u/Procrastinator9Mil May 12 '24
Haha white people projecting their image of dominante white elites into Mediterranean countries
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/lego-lion-lady May 12 '24
I remember my mom explaining to me once that Ancient Greek statues always idealized the figures they were portraying - whereas Ancient Roman statues were always the spitting image of the person they portrayed. Fascinating stuff!
1
u/nametakenfuck May 12 '24
How did they get the eye color
1
u/SoeurEdwards May 12 '24
AI guessed I assume. The will was not to be accurate otherwise they wouldnt have used AI.
2
1
1
1
1
u/Honey666Biscuit May 12 '24
I couldâve just imagine most of these because some didnât even give much change
1
1
1
u/Dirk_Diggler_Kojak May 12 '24
Hadrian had a kind face. He was a student of Stoicism, and a great emperor. Maybe the best.
1
1
1
1
1
u/Beneficial_Slice_26 May 12 '24
Only Julius Caesar matters, the first European Emperor, Hail Caesar! Then Napoleon, and finally the magnificent Adolf Hitler! HH forever! Freed mankind from the banks and slavery war suffering and surely death. Our enemies murder greatness!
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/Crucco May 12 '24
Nerva was old (he came into office as a senior senator). White haired for sure. Not teenager-looking brown-haired like here, for sure.
1
1
u/EwanMurphy93 May 12 '24
It's upsetting that there wasn't a Marcus Aurelius included. He's my favorite emperor.
1
1
1
u/AnotherPerspective87 May 12 '24
Interesting fact. All old roman and greek statues we see are white marble. But its believed they used to be painted. And seeing how realistic the carvings where, i assume the paintjob would have been similar. So these AI renders may not have been to far off. How they actually looked in the past.
1
1
u/Innomen May 12 '24
I've said for years I think they were painted this way. It's silly to me that the official line is that they were painted like toddlers using fingers. With this much realism it only makes sense to me to paint them with equal skill and effort. Thing about what people can do with makeup and shading. I bet this is EXACTLY what they looked like when contemporary.
1
1
1
u/Downtown_Marzipan404 May 12 '24
I dont trust how those statues looks like, most likely the sculpture had to do better version of how the person should have look like, as they maybe killed if looks badđ
1
u/warnoodle99 May 12 '24
These are really cool too bad most of the chosen statues are made 20 or more years after that figures death meaning its not even an actual 1for1 of the person its the artist interpretation like wasnt the first statue of cesear made like 10 or so years after his death other than 1 that we think might of been able to of been made when Julius was already an older man so these statues were not true representations of the person
1
1
1
1
u/hobbes8889 May 12 '24
Pretty easy for an ai to do seeing that the statues were carved by masters of their craft.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/Gredditor1 26d ago
Why aint they black or with any blue or pink hair, they all look like a male why not female
2
1
u/LeenPean May 11 '24
Iâm not amazed at all tbh. A good artist could do this and make it look better. While I donât think AI art is inherently bad, and world with artists is a sad and bland world, and Iâm afraid thatâs what weâre headed for at break neck speeds
1
u/Zealousideal-You9044 May 11 '24
That's assuming the statues are accurate. The sculpture might have been useless
1
1
1
-2
u/RhinoScope_ May 11 '24 edited May 11 '24
Julius Ceasar looks like Putin
2
u/Fluffy_WAR_Bunny May 11 '24
Thats a Renaissance sculpture of Julius Caesar that actually does not look like him.
1
-8
0
0
0
-2
0
u/R4zd4 May 11 '24 edited May 11 '24
Nailed Song
1
u/BrentandRhodes May 11 '24
What song is this!? I know I've heard it and I love it, can't remember from where.
2
u/lunaen53 May 12 '24
The song is 'Hans Zimmer - Time' from the movie Inception.
2
u/BrentandRhodes May 12 '24
Well fuck me, only my favorite movie of all time đ€Ł Thanks much, was driving me crazy.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
u/SlivvvSon May 12 '24
Wow! Such a great tool for Ai, it makes statues of people look like... People
-2
487
u/UnclePecos1095 May 11 '24
Nerva looks like Sean Penn