"Van Gogh used a type of red pigment that gradually faded over time. That suggests the painting looks slightly different today than when it was completed."
There's something kind of cool about older art changing over time and the process of trying to determine what it might have originally looked like. Reminds me of Philip Mould's work removing a yellowed varnish to uncover a painting (more) as it would have looked 500 years ago: https://twitter.com/philipmould
The way art transforms over time is fascinating and can completely alter our perception of entire classes of art and culture. Check out ancient Roman and Greek statuary and architecture:
The Greeks and the Romans prized realism in art above all else. We know this from literature (e.g. the story of Zeuxis and Parrhasius), from surviving paintings (frescoes, portraits, etc.) which show skillful and realistic use of color, and from the shape of the sculptures themselves. They painted their statues because reality is colorful, yes. But they painted them realistically.
The notion that they painted statues with flat, unrealistic colors, without using all the realistic painting skills we know they had, is absurd. It goes against everything we know (from primary sources, not as modern opinions) about classical art, and it is simply not reasonable to believe.
Brinkmann paints reconstructions in the most garish and unrealistic way possible because controversy draws attention, and magazines repeat his claims uncritically for the same reason.
If you haven't seen it already, check out the NHK documentary: "The Lost Hokusai." A masterpiece by Hokusai (the guy who did the famous woodblock print of the ocean wave) was destroyed in a fire, but a single black-and-white photo of it remained. Analysts worked with artists and other specialists to try to recreate what the original colors might have looked like.
I severely doubt they still grind up insects for this. Likely, they use a microbe that has been modified to produce E120 in huge quantities or otherwise synthesize it. Insects are expensive. A bunch of chemical producing bacteria are easy and cheap.
"Producing a kilogram of it requires 80-100'000 insects.
Because of its high cost and the risk of allergic reactions, it's often replaced by synthetic dyes like E122, E124 or E132".
Note that both E122 and E124 are Azo dyes, which severely impact mental development. Those are two of the six dangerous food colorings that give all food colorings a bad name.
In fact, the ground up bugs (E120) are much healthier than the synthetic products.
This was mentioned on the 8 o'clock news in the Netherlands yesterday, which is usually the most watched TV show in the country on weeknights. I was extremely surprised to see this show up on HN and I have no idea why this is getting so much attention.
"The grasshopper may not help in any art historical research but it has become a talking point for museum visitors, peering closely in to the painting to see if they can spot the dead insect."
I thought this was going to be about some crushed insects used to make dyes, for the art inclined almost a click bait title ha. I've pulled another Guardian article which is about crushed bugs and cow urine used for paintings.
25 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 75.6 ms ] threadThere's something kind of cool about older art changing over time and the process of trying to determine what it might have originally looked like. Reminds me of Philip Mould's work removing a yellowed varnish to uncover a painting (more) as it would have looked 500 years ago: https://twitter.com/philipmould
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/true-colors-1788...
The notion that they painted statues with flat, unrealistic colors, without using all the realistic painting skills we know they had, is absurd. It goes against everything we know (from primary sources, not as modern opinions) about classical art, and it is simply not reasonable to believe.
Brinkmann paints reconstructions in the most garish and unrealistic way possible because controversy draws attention, and magazines repeat his claims uncritically for the same reason.
https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/special/episode/201705271...
Nope, it is about a dead grasshopper. In a Van Gogh painting.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmine)
And hey, at least you can't accuse them of clickbait-ism ;)
[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmine
I guess that's kinda cool we haven't been able to synthesize this chemical yet for mass production
In fact, the ground up bugs (E120) are much healthier than the synthetic products.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azo_dye
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castoreum
I guess it would be too expensive to actually use for mass produced goods. Why collects and kill those bugs, when you can just use other red dyes?
"Einstein said 99% of all people cannot find the grasshopper in this picture. Can you?" ;-)
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2017/jun/13...