That's cool about the glass muller alternative, nice find!
As for the Victorian assumptions, that thing about Lapis (or whatever blue was used that oxidized black, I could certainly be mis-remembering), the passage was what I had been told/read about back on college, many years ago, but for some reason that stuck with me....Considering how much "more" we know now as opposed to those "experts" only 100-200 years ago who made their sometimes outlandish "theories" stand out as indisputable fact, etc etc. If those earlier art historians only had X-Ray and Gamma-Ray tech to look deeper into the layers, they'd realize how off the mark they were. In a roundabout way, all of that "traditionalist" vs "modernism" attitude I find "hilarious" sometimes when I consider how much the Impressionists got shit-on by the art community for *daring* to use these new-fangled synthetic and metalic paints, that come in a metal TUBE no less! The Horror! Blasphemy! Sort of like that incident with Faust when he showed Gutenberg's books off and it was deemed "Witchcraft" because no way anyone could produce a book so quickly, and the dastardly trickery to make a book look like it was hand-scribed to fool people...*insert Monty Python Holy Grail "She's a witch" scene*
I think you might be right about the differences in how fine a powder - effect of the final product.....I seem to remember seeing something about that in one of the facsimile manuals I have.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2017-03-14 04:34 pm (UTC)As for the Victorian assumptions, that thing about Lapis (or whatever blue was used that oxidized black, I could certainly be mis-remembering), the passage was what I had been told/read about back on college, many years ago, but for some reason that stuck with me....Considering how much "more" we know now as opposed to those "experts" only 100-200 years ago who made their sometimes outlandish "theories" stand out as indisputable fact, etc etc. If those earlier art historians only had X-Ray and Gamma-Ray tech to look deeper into the layers, they'd realize how off the mark they were. In a roundabout way, all of that "traditionalist" vs "modernism" attitude I find "hilarious" sometimes when I consider how much the Impressionists got shit-on by the art community for *daring* to use these new-fangled synthetic and metalic paints, that come in a metal TUBE no less! The Horror! Blasphemy! Sort of like that incident with Faust when he showed Gutenberg's books off and it was deemed "Witchcraft" because no way anyone could produce a book so quickly, and the dastardly trickery to make a book look like it was hand-scribed to fool people...*insert Monty Python Holy Grail "She's a witch" scene*
I think you might be right about the differences in how fine a powder - effect of the final product.....I seem to remember seeing something about that in one of the facsimile manuals I have.