Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 1993206" data-attributes="member: 177">Yep. Just backing you up with flaws that you hadn't mentioned. Yes.  You might be able to do soemthing long these lines, but not with a statue.  What you would need is a well designed etched plate of metal that is heated and then applied to the cloth.It would leave a negative scorched image for about the same reason that you leave handprints - the surface has something on it that interacts with the cloth.  You get the negative image because the raised metal surface burns the cloth, while the valleys in the surface don't touch the cloth, and so don't burn them.I say again, you don't have to use paint or pigments at all.  It isn't that paint oxidizes the cloth - it's that you applied a chemical oxidizing agent to the cloth in the same manner as paint.  You seem to buy the heated metal story.  All that is is a burn on the cloth - which is chemical oxidation.  So, why not simply paint a chemical solution on the cloth that will have similar effect? Depending upon the agent in question, it might not leave much in the way of residues after centuries of exposure to air.  Because the artist is trying to create an image akin to having put a cloth against flesh, of course.  Whoever made it is tryign to sell it as a burial cloth.  A talented sculptor like Da Vinci would realize that the raised portions of the face and body would touch the cloth, and hollws in the face wouldn't.  But, he wants an image that'd be recognized by laymen, so he paints it like a painting, rather than like it was really wrapped around the face.Ah, but you see, for a very long time, the Shroud was not on open public display.  It was locked away in the hands of some noble family (I forget which) for a very long time - possibly centuries, if my memory serves.  There is absolutely no proof that the thing we call the Shroud of Turin is the original.  We've only the word of some very Machiavellian people.  It is possible that the original was even destroyed (likely by fire), and the one we now see a forgery designed to keep that house's prestige intact.  All you'd need is an old piece of cloth and an artist...And, btw, if you compare the image on the shroud to self-portraits by Da Vinci, you find they have strikingly similar proportions in their facial structures.  Da Vinci was known to be a vain man with an odd sense of humor.  Ankh-Morpork may be correct - it may be Da Vinci's face  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification