repeint* destiné à transformer l'oeuvre en fonction d'une variation de goût (repeint de style*) ou pour des raisons morales (repeint de pudeur*, repeint iconographique*). Code grammaire : M
Contexte
Témoignages matériels des variations du goût au cours des âges, les surpeints ont toujours intéressé les historiens d'art qui ont souvent écrit sur le sujet. Cette preuve manifeste de l'importance culturelle des surpeints conduit à adopter une attitude prudente et très réservée vis-à-vis de leur éventuelle suppression. (BERG-C, 1990 :123) Note
Le terme "surpeint" est souvent employé dans le sens de "repeint"* Auteur : Nancy Widart Liens conceptuels
surpeint "est un type de" repeint surpeint "peut être" repeint de pudeur surpeint "peut être" repeint de style surpeint "peut être" repeint iconographique NEERLANDAIS
Terme : overschildering (2)
Définition
een met verf bedekt gedeelte dat het originele schilderijgedeelte verbergt en omwille van stijlverandering (overschildering om stylistische redenen*) of morele redenen (preutse overschildering*, "iconografische" overschildering*) vervangt. Code grammaire : F
Contexte
Bij de bespreking der methoden van restaureren en conserveren heb ik afgezien van de mogelijkheid, dat de oorspronkelijke schilderingen overschilderingen heeft. In dit geval zal men twee mogelijkheden moeten onderscheiden :- dat de overschildering is aangebracht op het origineel, zonder dat de vernislaag zich daartusschen bevindt en- dat beide door een vernislaag zijn gescheiden. (DEWL-C, 1928 : 149) Auteur : Nancy Widart Liens conceptuels
overschildering (2) "is een type van" overschildering (1) overschildering (2) "kan gelijk zijn aan" preutse overschildering overschildering (2) "kan gelijk zijn aan" overschildering om stylistische redenen overschildering (2) "kan gelijk zijn aan" "iconografische" overschildering
een met verf bedekt gedeelte dat het originele schilderijgedeelte verbergt en omwille van stijlverandering (overschildering om stylistische redenen*) of morele redenen (preutse overschildering*, "iconografische" overschildering*) vervangt. Code grammaire : F
Contexte
Bij de bespreking der methoden van restaureren en conserveren heb ik afgezien van de mogelijkheid, dat de oorspronkelijke schilderingen overschilderingen heeft. In dit geval zal men twee mogelijkheden moeten onderscheiden :- dat de overschildering is aangebracht op het origineel, zonder dat de vernislaag zich daartusschen bevindt en- dat beide door een vernislaag zijn gescheiden. (DEWL-C, 1928 : 149) Auteur : Nancy Widart Liens conceptuels
overschildering (2) "is een type van" overschildering (1) overschildering (2) "kan gelijk zijn aan" preutse overschildering overschildering (2) "kan gelijk zijn aan" overschildering om stylistische redenen overschildering (2) "kan gelijk zijn aan" "iconografische" overschildering
quote: Waarom restaureren? Van Ravesteyn heeft met zijn magistraatsportret uit 1618 een grote artistieke prestatie geleverd. De hoge kwaliteit van zijn werk is echter niet overal meer goed te zien. Eerdere restauraties hebben het doek niet altijd goed gedaan. Bij een vroegere afname van het vernis is vooral de rechterkant van het schilderij beschadigd; de verf is hier deels weggepoetst. En over het hele schilderij zijn onregelmatige geelbruine plekjes – residu’s van eerdere vernislagen – zichtbaar.
Het doel van de restauratie is om het schilderij voor de toekomst veilig te stellen. Restauratie heeft ook een esthetisch doel, namelijk om de hoge kwaliteit van het werk van Van Ravesteyn weer zichtbaar te maken. Zo zal straks weer goed te zien zijn wat Van Ravesteyn met dit doek heeft gepresteerd: de nuances in de zwarte kleding, de details in de gezichten en het rijk versierde tapijt op de achtergrond.
posted
Often lack a piece of the painting then they use your imagination and draw
Posts: 2922 | From: World Empire of the Black People | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged |
The people who restore paintings have made agreements among themselves on the jargon, the technical terms, and how to proceed in a uniform fashion.
As I'm looking for proof of over paints, the persons I speak to act as if they never came across a painting with underneath the pink face a complete brown or black face.
So now I believe they have settled this among each other not to speak about this, and never to remove the over paint, called an 'intervention' for historical reasons. If it was once decided that there were never any Blacks in Europe, than they will never re-alter the painting, no matter how horrible the over paint looks.
As these ‘interventions’ were sometimes performed in a hurry, with inferior materials and technique, these over paints hasten the lost of precious portraits.
All this is fascinating read to me, how knowledgeable a painter has to be of his material and how paintings inevitably crumble away.
Posts: 5454 | From: Holland | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Art restoration: What lies beneath March 16th, 2008 / art restoration Are art restorers unwittingly ruining the paintings they’re trying to preserve? The inventor of a powerful new camera – capable of picking out Leonardo’s thumbprint among the brushstrokes – thinks so. Alasdair Palmer meets the man breathing new life into Old Masters.
‘It’s a revelation!’ Mike Daley exclaims. An artist and historian of art restoration, he is astonished by the reproduction on the giant screen in front of him. ‘It’ is a recently developed digital camera whose primary use is to produce images of Old Master paintings. I can testify that its results are every bit as astonishing as Mr Daley’s amazed reaction suggests. The reproduction is so accurate and the resolution so high that it is possible to magnify an image of the surface of a picture to produce details that no one has ever seen before, and no one suspected were there.
Leonardo da Vinci’s ‘Lady with an Ermine’: the digital image (right) shows that the original background was blue, not black. Below: Leonardo’s thumbprint, as revealed on the painting
Mr Daley and I are in the office of Lumiere Technology in the Boulevard St Germain in Paris. Pascal Cotte, the camera’s inventor, is demonstrating its powers. We’re looking at an image of Leonardo da Vinci’s Lady with an Ermine. The sitter was probably Cecilia Gallerani, who was only 16 or 17 when her portrait was painted; she was also the mistress of Ludovico Sforza, the Duke of Milan, then employing Leonardo on a variety of projects, the least important of which involved him painting something.
M Cotte focuses on the necklace that stretches round Gallerani’s throat and down her chest to her bosom. ‘Obviously, some of the necklace beads are not by Leonardo,’ M Cotte says. He increases the magnification… and lo and behold, we can see that whereas some of those beads have exquisite definition and shape, others have been executed clumsily, almost to the point where they are mere blobs of black paint.
‘Leonardo would never have done that,’ says Jacques Franck, who is also in the audience. M Franck is probably the world’s greatest expert on Leonardo’s technique. He has done what no one else has managed: he has himself made copies of Leonardo’s pictures that are almost indistinguishable from the originals, by simulating the technique he believes Leonardo must have employed.
‘But just take a look at this!’ says M Cotte, an ebullient father of five who has just turned 50. He increases the magnification higher still, and we investigate the delicate contours of the depiction of the exposed flesh between Gallerani’s neck and the start of her dress. We all gasp as we start to see, in unprecedented close-up, the subtlety of Leonardo’s sfumato technique, which models the undulations of the surface of her skin by a series of almost imperceptible changes of colour and tone.
As the magnification increases, the brush strokes begin to be visible – but they are so fine, and they blend together so perfectly, that even at this level of magnification they are difficult to discern.
Someone starts to rhapsodise about the marvels of Leonardo’s technique.
Cleaning of Hans Holbein the Younger’s portrait has left the baby looking one-dimensional (left); a digital image of the original painting, underneath the varnish, reveals a much richer picture
‘No, not the sfumato!’ M Cotte interrupts. ‘I mean this!’ He increases the magnification further still, and we see something that resembles an imprint left by a thumb. ‘That is exactly what it is,’ explains M Cotte. ‘You are looking at Leonardo’s thumb-print!’ The audience gives another collective gasp. But there it is, unmistakable now: the imprint of Leonardo da Vinci’s thumb. ‘Leonardo used to smear paint very lightly with his fingers at this stage of his career, explains M Franck.
But magnifying the surface to produce extraordinary details is not the only thing this camera can do. ‘And now I will highlight the paint that was not put on by Leonardo,’ announces M Cotte, in the manner of a conjurer. We see an image with different coloured patches, concentrated mostly at the bottom and on the sides of Gallerani’s figure.
A brighter, cleaner, clearer image of The Lady with an Ermine appears on the screen. ‘This is how it would look if you took off the layer of varnish and re-touchings that were added in the centuries after Leonardo,’ explains M Cotte. The background has changed from black to blue. ‘All of the background in this picture was added later, possibly in the 19th century,’ he explains.
‘Leonardo would certainly have graded the background,’ points out M Franck. ‘He never painted edges with sharp, ungraded contrasts – of the kind that are now visible in Lady with an Ermine – between the sitter and the background. Leonardo always painted a series of tones, with each tone blending into the other, even when he was depicting the edge of a white face against a dark background. That is part of what gives his figures their extraordinarily realistic look.’
Pascal Cotte smiles and nods in agreement. Jacques Franck advised him at every stage in the preparation of the image of Lady with an Ermine, ensuring that the image was informed by the best knowledge available of the pigments and techniques Leonardo used when he created it. Of course, the camera, unlike M Franck, cannot paint like Leonardo – but it can do a hell of a lot of things, many of them of inestimable importance to art historians and restorers. A ‘virtual restoration’, in which you can see what the painting would look like with the top layer of varnish removed, but which does not involve touching the original masterpiece, is a tool of enormous value.
The whole thing seems to be a kind of magic. How exactly does M Cotte’s camera work? ‘We used to take photographs,’ he explains. ‘Now we take measurements’. His camera can take measurements of unprecedented precision: its lens focuses light down to tiny strips six microns wide – and if you go any smaller than that you run up against the law of optical diffraction, which means the waves of light start interfering with each other.
The wavelength of the light reflected by each of those minute points is then analysed and measured by the camera. There are 240 million such points in each scan that the camera does of any picture – and in order to capture the light from every part of the spectrum accurately, the camera scans each picture 13 times. The final image is constructed from the data from all those billions of measurements. Its colours are determined by an equation, devised by M Cotte, which gives a numerical value for each pixel. That value is the function of a series of variables, including the kind of light the pigments are viewed under, for pigments will reflect differently under daylight from the way they do under candlelight or fluorescent light; this is why paintings appear to be made up of different colours in different lights. The combination of the values generated by each of those pixels is what makes the complete image of the painting produced by M Cotte’s camera.
In order to ‘take off’ the painting’s varnish, M Cotte devised a piece of software that calculates the effect of varnish on the wavelength of light reflected by each colour pigment used by painters during the Renaissance. ‘That was very difficult and laborious,’ he explains. ‘It required us to identify every pigment they used, take some very detailed measurements, then compare the wavelengths reflected by each pigment with light reflected off a plain white surface covered with the kind of varnish used by painters in the past, aged appropriately by exposure to heat and ultraviolet light.’
At the end of that process, M Cotte was able to subtract the effect of varnish on the wavelength of light coming from each point focused by the lens of his camera. That calculation produces an image of a painting, such as Leonardo’s Lady with an Ermine, with the varnish taken off.
‘We can’t,’ M Cotte says with due scholarly caution, ‘say definitely that this represents the final truth of how the picture would look without varnish. We can only say that it is a much better guide – that it is much closer to the truth – than anything else.’
That much is indisputable – and it is going to have some momentous effects on the art world, not least on the way paintings are cleaned.
‘For more than 50 years’, says Mike Daley, ‘an argument has been raging about the merits of restoration. This camera will settle that argument. For the first time, we have an objective way of seeing what a painting looks like underneath the later additions that the restorers always want to clean off.’ The argument between restorers and their critics has been heated and at times vitriolic, which is not surprising considering that one side accuses the other of destroying much of the heritage of Western art.
Restorers, at least in the Anglo-American world of galleries and museums, have insisted that everything they do is ‘scientific’, and that they merely remove paint and varnish added after the original master had finished or abandoned his work. The most they ever do, they say, is to take the picture back to the way it would have looked when it left its creator’s studio.
The restorers’ critics – of whom Mike Daley is one – have a rather different view of their work. The critics say that restorers frequently destroy the pictures they get their hands on. ‘Restorers in Britain and America always say they’re “only” taking off varnish,’ maintains Mr Daley, ‘but only too often they take off far more than that, and scrape off or dissolve the top layer of paint and glaze as well.’
In common with other critics, Mr Daley charges that restorers simply cannot tell where the varnish added by later hands ends and the layers of glaze and paint put on by the original artist begins, since the two bond over time. ‘When oil paintings emerge from the hands of our restorers,’ he says, ‘many of them have lost all the grace and subtlety of the modelling of figures and landscape, as well as the colour harmony. The three-dimensional effects are gone. The result is frequently flat, lifeless, dull – and in my view, wrecked.’
He says examples are only too obvious in London’s National Gallery. ‘Just take one look,’ he adds sadly, ‘at Bacchus and Ariadne, whose surface has been scrubbed by restoration, and compare it with The Worship of Venus and The Andrians, both of which are in the Prado in Madrid.’ All three were painted by Titian, at the same time and for the same room in the Duke of Este’s palace in Ferrara. ‘But the National Gallery’s Bacchus and Ariadne,’ says Mr Daley, ‘has had a lot more than “just” the varnish taken off – certainly far more than was removed when the Prado cleaned The Worship of Venus and The Andrians. Bacchus and Ariadne, post-restoration, is now far brighter than the other two pictures, but I defy anyone to fail to notice how the colour harmony, the modelling and the subtlety of the National Gallery’s Titian has been destroyed. When it was shown next to the Prado’s paintings in the Titian exhibition at the National Gallery in 2003, the comparison was shocking.’
Varnishing act: Titian’s ‘Bacchus and Ariadne’ (left), whose ‘subtlety has been destroyed’; and his better-preserved ‘The Andrians’
Restorers counter that critics such as Mr Daley do not understand the ‘science and technology’ of restoration. They can, they say, prove that they only remove later repaintings, and never take off anything added by the original artist: their critics, they insist, don’t know what an ‘original’ painting would have looked like, and are attached to versions of Renaissance works (for instance) which have been covered in later additions.
So who is right? The restorers or their critics? Pascal Cotte’s camera has already begun to provide critical evidence that will resolve the matter. The Musée des Beaux Arts in Lille has a painting of a mother with her child and baby, probably by Hans Holbein the Younger. Restorers decided the picture needed cleaning, and got to work: they took off what they said was merely ‘later varnish’ from the baby. The restored figure of that baby now looks very different from the rest of the picture. The baby is full of bold pinks – but the modelling is crude, and the baby seems flat and one-dimensional in comparison with the two other figures.
Is the result of that restoration simply the exposure of the reality of the painting that is underneath the varnish? Or have the restorers unwittingly removed some of the painted surface ? The image of the whole painting minus varnish, produced by M Cotte’s camera, provides the answer: it seems to show that the restorers have stripped away some of the original paint during their restoration. The modelling of the other figures underneath the varnish has, according to the image created by the camera, all the richness and three-dimensionality that the restored baby so obviously lacks.
The camera image has already had an effect on the Musée des Beaux Arts’ restoration policy. In 2007, the half-restored picture was exhibited in the Musée des Beaux Arts – and alongside it was the image from M Cotte’s camera of what lies underneath the varnish in the rest of the painting. Alain Tapie, the chief curator, took one look and decided to halt the restoration of the Holbein indefinitely. ‘If Pascal’s camera is used, as it should be, to record images of paintings in collections around the world,’ says Mr Daley, ‘it will change the way restoration is done, and may prevent much of it from being done at all.’ Museums and galleries, he insists, will no longer be able to claim that they alone ‘know’ what a painting looks like underneath, and then assert that their own restoration merely reflects that original state. M Cotte’s camera will provide a publicly accessible, objective image against which any museum or gallery’s claim can be checked. As Jean Penicaut, his partner at Lumiere Technology, explains: ‘In future, you will only need access to the internet to be able to call up images from the camera. We hope to be able to provide, online, a secure database of pictures we have photographed.’
Restoration will not, however, be the only discipline dramatically affected by M Cotte’s new camera. The authentication of paintings and the identification of fakes and copies will be transformed, too.
Every great artist had a unique way of applying paint: each of them had an idiosyncratic style of brushstoke. But at present, it is almost impossible to identify that brush ‘signature’, at least at the level of detail at which the human eye can see. By magnifying the painted surface with such perfect accuracy, M Cotte’s camera can make visible the brush ‘signature’ of each artist. It should make it possible to show, definitively, whether a painting is by, say, Rembrandt or Raphael or Titian – or whether it is not.
But that is for the future. For the moment, the camera’s images simply inspire wonder and astonishment. In Lumiere Technology’s office in the Boulevard St Germain, we seem to be looking, not at a reproduction of Lady with an Ermine, but at the original itself. As Mike Daley puts it, his jaw dropping ever lower, ‘It’s a revolution… no, it’s a revelation and a revolution!’
Via Telegraph.co.uk
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote: Met deze twee portretten is iets vreemds aan de hand. Uit röntgenfoto’s is gebleken dat de gezichten van Nicolaes en Cornelia over andere portretten heen zijn geschilderd. Waarom dat is gebeurd, is niet bekend. Misschien waren de opdrachtgevers niet of niet meer tevreden met hun portretten, misschien ook hebben latere bezitters (de portretten bleven lange tijd in de familie) de portretten laten aanpassen. De wapenschilden op beide schilderijen zijn ook latere toevoegingen, vermoedelijk 19de-eeuws. De kleurstof pruisisch-blauw die in de wapens voorkomt, kwam pas na 1720 algemeen in gebruik. En ook op een tekening naar het portret van Cornelia Vooght, gemaakt door Johan van der Sprang in 1762 komt het wapenschild nog niet voor.
quote: There is something strange going on with these two portraits. X-rays have revealed that the faces of Nicolaes and Cornelia have been painted over the top of other portraits. We do not know why this was done. Perhaps the sitters were not satisfied or became dissatisfied with their portraits; perhaps later owners (the portraits remained in the family far a long time) had the portraits altered. The coats of arms in the two paintings are also later additions, probably 19th century. The Prussian blue pigment used in the coats of arms was not in general use until after 1720, and the arms are not in evidence on a drawing after the portrait of Cornelia Vooght made by Johan van der Sprang in 1762
[quote] The old varnish and retouchings were easily removed from the painting. The retouchings turned out to have been liberally applied and thus covered much of the original paint. Moreover, it became clear that the condition of the portrait of Aletta was not as good as that of Jacob. The paint layers in the background and in her face are very abraded. After the removal of the old retouchings and varnish, a new layer of varnish – a isolating varnish – was applied which restaurated the colours. This layer of varnish also functions as a barrier between the original painting and the additions introduced by the restorer, making it easier to remove them in the future if need be. Subsequently the losses in the paint were filled and the damaged areas retouched to create an integrated entity. A final layer of varnish was then applied to cover the retouchings, and give a satisfactory gloss and saturation [13a–b]
posted
'Iconographical over paints' on portraits are maintained for historical reasons. They are some of the interventions not recorded in research reports. Unless somebody orders a specific search for brown faces underneath the white face, it will not be part of science.
Posts: 5454 | From: Holland | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
whites are degenerate! I am thinking what happened at that time for them to do it? Something very terrible was happening at the time
Posts: 2922 | From: World Empire of the Black People | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
These restorers are retarded? Why they exchanged the wig?
Posts: 2922 | From: World Empire of the Black People | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
maybe Each wig has a meaning the black wig has a meaning and the white wig has another so he changed the wig and took the red cloth. Pure manipulation!
Posts: 2922 | From: World Empire of the Black People | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Marc Washington: They did that with each and every king and queen which enters history as black. They make them white. This has happened hundreds of times.
when did they start doing it? what date?
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malibudusul: These restorers are retarded? Why they exchanged the wig?
Try to keep a cool head, do not become a second Mike111. The whites were enslaved by the nobility. He changed back the hair, but left the face white, I guess. from the example i offered.
Posts: 5454 | From: Holland | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Regarding when these jealousy-bourne conscious deceits began to ursup the revered and honored position that black historical figures engendered and render them white goes back to the time of Socrates.
Context is everything. And the context was invasion and usurpation. When we read Homer’s Iliad and the Odessy, we see the era of history when the Archaic Greeks (which I say are black) saw their lands and islands invaded by arrogant, dangerous newcomers who were freeloaders and trouble-makers. These were the Dorians who wrought such havoc it took a millennium for the lands to recover.
I believe it was these Dorian-types that Socrates that overwhelmed Greece and held its power in their clutches and forced Socrates death upon himself by his own hand.
In any event, the salient matter follows. (1) In the Socratic Dialogues is found V. The Symposium where Socrates debates with one Critobulus over the subject of what is beauty. The debacle that hangs around the neck of academics, scholars, and the so-called learned is that in the nearly 2500 years since their writing that it appears no one has told the truth.
SOCRATES DESCRIBES HIMSELF AS BLACK AS OPPOSED TO CRITOBULUS WHOM HE DESCRIBES AS WHITE (see excerpts below web page):
NOSES AND EYES: Socrates speaks of his snub, wide nose compared to Critobulus’ high, straight nose. Speaks of his bulging eyes that can see peripherally whereas Critobulus’ cannot: “your towering nose looks like an insulting wall of partition to shut off the two eyes.”
MOUTH: Critobulus says, “mouths are made for purposes of biting, you could doubtless bite off a much larger mouthful with your mouth than I with mine.” to which Socrates proudly and haughtily replies: “Yes, and you will admit, perhaps, that I can give a softer kiss than you can, thanks to my thick lips.” Thick lips are black lips.
In terms of physiognomy it is the black who has the snub nose, some among blacks have the bulging eye, blacks who have the thick lips. Whites who have the straight, towering nose. Clearly, Socrates describes himself as black and neither the academics, intellectuals, or the intelligencia of the last three millennium have so miserably failed to do so.
SURREPTITOUS DECEIT: So, here we have it. Socrates clearly says that he is black. What we need to know about Greece in those days is that outside the mainland, there were many islands, nation states. Each had its own school of sculpture, MANY BY THIS TIME were in control of the Dorians, and many produced sculptures of Socrates in the 300 years after his death.
Each, we assume, had access to the Socratic dialogues and the Symposium so all knew that Socrates described himself as black / African /Negro. So, when we find ancient sculptures of Socrates with narrow noses and without thick lips, we clearly see forgery (compare picture 6of a black and white Socrates).
From 2500 years ago, we see that whites were already convoluting the historical facts and turning black civilization, culture, learning, and figures into white. This happened with the portrayal of the gods as well. After some point, the Dorians in power required black sculptures to present Zeus and the other gods as white. Hence, the whitening of history has been going on for millennium.
Soc. Can you tell me, then, what need is satisfied by our eyes?
Crit. Clearly, the need of vision.
Soc. If so, my eyes are proved at once to be more beautiful than yours.
Crit. How so?
Soc. Because yours can only see just straight in front of them, whereas mine are prominent and so projecting, they can see aslant.[5] [5] Or, "squint sideways and command the flanks."
Crit. And amongst all animals, you will tell us that the crab has loveliest eyes?[6] Is that your statement? [6] Or, "is best provided in respect of eyeballs."
Soc. Decidedly, the creature has. And all the more so, since for strength and toughness its eyes by nature are the best constructed.
Crit. Well, let that pass. To come to our two noses, which is the more handsome, yours or mine?
Soc. Mine, I imagine, if, that is, the gods presented us with noses for the sake of smelling. Your nostrils point to earth; but mine are spread out wide and flat, as if to welcome scents from every quarter.
Crit. But consider, a snubness of the nose, how is that more beautiful than straightness?[7] [7] Or, "your straight nose." Cf. Plat. "Theaet." 209 C: Soc. "Or, if I had further known you not only as having nose and eyes, but as having a snub nose and prominent eyes, should I have any more notion of you than myself and others who resemble me?" Cf. also Aristot. "Pol." v. 9, 7: "A nose which varies from the ideal of straightness to a hook or snub may still be a good shape and agreeable to the eye; but if the excess be very great, all symmetry is lost, and the nose at last ceases to be a nose at all on account of some excess in one direction or defect in the other; and this is true of every other part of the human body. The same law of proportion holds in states."--Jowett.
Soc. For this good reason, that a snub nose does not discharge the office of a barrier;[8] it allows the orbs of sight free range of vision: whilst your towering nose looks like an insulting wall of partition to shut off the two eyes.[9] [8] Or, "the humble snub is not a screen or barricade."
[9] Cf. "Love's Labour Lost," v. 2. 568: Boyet. "Your nose says no, you are not, for it stands too right"; also "The Song of Solomon," vii. 4: "Thy nose is the tower of Lebanon, which looketh toward Damascus."
As to the mouth (proceeded Critobulus), I give in at once; for, given mouths are made for purposes of biting, you could doubtless bite off a much larger mouthful with your mouth than I with mine.
Soc. Yes, and you will admit, perhaps, that I can give a softer kiss than you can, thanks to my thick lips.
Crit. It seems I have an uglier mouth than any ass.
Soc. And here is a fact which you will have to reckon with, if further evidence be needed to prove that I am handsomer than you. The naiads, nymphs, divine, have as their progeny Sileni, who are much more like myself, I take it, than like you. Is that conclusive?
Nay, I give it up (cried Critobulus), I have not a word to say in answer. I am silenced. Let them record the votes. I fain would know at once what I must suffer or must pay.[10] Only (he added) let them vote in secret.[11] I am afraid your wealth and his (Antisthenes') combined may overpower me.
quote:Originally posted by malibudusul: Great search I'm learning.
whites are degenerate! I am thinking what happened at that time for them to do it? Something very terrible was happening at the time
I do not condone reverse racism. As a researcher you should ask why they changed the paintings, first. Not our jog to condem, but reconstruct and clarify. The whites were oppressed by the black elite. This over paint is, if I understand right, a 18th century portrait changed to look 17th century, to fake an older ancestor.
Read about 'Van Meegeren en Vermeer fakes.'
Posts: 5454 | From: Holland | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Egmond say: "Try to keep a cool head, do not become a second Mike111."
I am fan of mike
"The whites were enslaved by the nobility. He changed back the hair, but left the face white, I guess. from the example i offered. "
Explain more about this You always talk only half. The first slaves in america were whites from europe OK? Poor and prostitutes .. OK? But there are also reports of Europeans enslaved blacks in america. Mike made a topic about it.
Posts: 2922 | From: World Empire of the Black People | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I made a topic showing a painting of an albino Angola's 16th century I reach the conclusion that slavery was not a question of color because the elite black European enslaved blacks from africa africa albino, white european, european black, Amerindians
Not only whites were oppressed But the whites were not overwhelmed by be white
Posts: 2922 | From: World Empire of the Black People | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged |
what we see here with the LTC crew is a love for European culture.
Normally many Afrocentrics see European culture and religion as a ripoff or cheap copy of Egyptian civilization.
But the LTC crew holds European culture in the highest regard in it's own right, European culture as great, it's just that it was created by Blacks and then whites came in and pretended to be them, that's what happened. A big trick was pulled on us. they are fake us. Little by littled they switched and whitened us out of history. There's a certain genius in being to be able to pull that off. damn these white people are magical. Some sort of wicked elves that switch things, leprechans or some shyt
Pythagoras, Aristotle, Plato, Socrates all Black
then the Romans came in with more Blacks, look the brother Cicero:
what I'm not sure about is the date when white people took over. Mike says 1648, while Egmond says 1789. Not that far apart though. So it's probably safe to say any European king or noble after 1789 was white. I'm not sure where Marc dates as the white take over point but I'm guesing around the same time. Obviously whites must have been building up their numbers in Europe for a while to be able to pull of this take over. After all fake Europe wasn't built in a day. These whites are tricky, got most of us us not even knowing when they switched things up.They seem to have painted us out of existence. But luckily they up and forgot, left the real paintings underneath so we could find out waht really happened, Luckily the LTC is setting things straight.
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malibudusul: I made a topic showing a painting of an albino Angola's 16th century I reach the conclusion that slavery was not a question of color because the elite black European enslaved blacks from africa africa albino, white european, european black, Amerindians
Not only whites were oppressed But the whites were not overwhelmed by be white
You should ask yourself what these Blacks (1100-1848) you dig up are and how and why we do not know they are Blacks. By what means this is kept from us, even in this thread by flagarant scientific misconduct. Blacks do oppress, enslave and murder other Blacks: they are not sacred. To assign blame, to judge, is not the purpose of scientific research. I should advice you to become an intellectual. Try to be informed about history, literature and culture. Your idol seems to belief that all Blacks are getto-trash, because he adresses them in crude language. Crude language, crude person, crude thinking, trashy research.
Posts: 5454 | From: Holland | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic