Talk:Augustus: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Arne Eickenberg (→Images) |
imported>José Leonardo Andrade (→Images) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
Hi. I see some black-and-white images have been added to the article. I'm sure we could also find colour pictures in places like Flikcr (take a look at this [[http://flickr.com/photos/euthman/490882050/]] or Wikimedia Commons. --[[User:José Leonardo Andrade|José Leonardo Andrade]] 06:08, 23 May 2007 (CDT) | Hi. I see some black-and-white images have been added to the article. I'm sure we could also find colour pictures in places like Flikcr (take a look at this [[http://flickr.com/photos/euthman/490882050/]] or Wikimedia Commons. --[[User:José Leonardo Andrade|José Leonardo Andrade]] 06:08, 23 May 2007 (CDT) | ||
:I'm actually more a fan of black&white photos, because all of these statues are themselves without color, even if it's a modern color photo. The only thing you have is the rather undistinguished color of the sandstone, the marble etc.. Often it simply looks plain ugly, e.g. [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:August_Labicana_Massimo_Inv56230.jpg here] with the red background color. Rather no image than a bad one! ;-) In addition the Romans painted their houses and statues quite colorful, draped the busts, attached jewelry like earrings, painted the eyes etc., so what we see today as "ancient statues" is actually only the rudimentary and rather vacant basis. Therefore a black&white image would not give any wrong impression. But the image that you showed on Flickr for instance, with the corona civica, is much better than e.g. [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Aug11_01.jpg this one], especially since the typical Augustan "hair pincer" above the forehead is more pronounced and accurate. —[[User:Arne Eickenberg|Arne Eickenberg]] 07:00, 23 May 2007 (CDT) | :I'm actually more a fan of black&white photos, because all of these statues are themselves without color, even if it's a modern color photo. The only thing you have is the rather undistinguished color of the sandstone, the marble etc.. Often it simply looks plain ugly, e.g. [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:August_Labicana_Massimo_Inv56230.jpg here] with the red background color. Rather no image than a bad one! ;-) In addition the Romans painted their houses and statues quite colorful, draped the busts, attached jewelry like earrings, painted the eyes etc., so what we see today as "ancient statues" is actually only the rudimentary and rather vacant basis. Therefore a black&white image would not give any wrong impression. But the image that you showed on Flickr for instance, with the corona civica, is much better than e.g. [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Aug11_01.jpg this one], especially since the typical Augustan "hair pincer" above the forehead is more pronounced and accurate. —[[User:Arne Eickenberg|Arne Eickenberg]] 07:00, 23 May 2007 (CDT) | ||
Anyway, I don't think images are the most important issue right now, it's more important to develop the article. You're right about the statues (the same thing goes for Greek ones), but I just think that black-and-white images end up giving a bit of an old fashion feel to the article.--[[User:José Leonardo Andrade|José Leonardo Andrade]] 09:02, 24 May 2007 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 09:02, 24 May 2007
Note on the introductory paragraphs
Introduction / Names & Titles / Early life: These paragraphs (incl. the footnotes) are a translation of the Augustus-article in the German Wikipedia. It's material that I wrote myself, so as per this policy page the article in its current state doesn't need to be flagged with "Content from Wikipedia". —Arne Eickenberg 12:59, 13 May 2007 (CDT)
Images
Hi. I see some black-and-white images have been added to the article. I'm sure we could also find colour pictures in places like Flikcr (take a look at this [[1]] or Wikimedia Commons. --José Leonardo Andrade 06:08, 23 May 2007 (CDT)
- I'm actually more a fan of black&white photos, because all of these statues are themselves without color, even if it's a modern color photo. The only thing you have is the rather undistinguished color of the sandstone, the marble etc.. Often it simply looks plain ugly, e.g. here with the red background color. Rather no image than a bad one! ;-) In addition the Romans painted their houses and statues quite colorful, draped the busts, attached jewelry like earrings, painted the eyes etc., so what we see today as "ancient statues" is actually only the rudimentary and rather vacant basis. Therefore a black&white image would not give any wrong impression. But the image that you showed on Flickr for instance, with the corona civica, is much better than e.g. this one, especially since the typical Augustan "hair pincer" above the forehead is more pronounced and accurate. —Arne Eickenberg 07:00, 23 May 2007 (CDT)
Anyway, I don't think images are the most important issue right now, it's more important to develop the article. You're right about the statues (the same thing goes for Greek ones), but I just think that black-and-white images end up giving a bit of an old fashion feel to the article.--José Leonardo Andrade 09:02, 24 May 2007 (CDT)