It changed colors? Seems pretty DEI to me.
Who the fuck chose to use DEI copper?
This is pretty Fringe knowledge
I’d turn green too if I saw what was going on right under my nose.
Were they getting ready to box it up
No this is the unboxing.
The Donald will paint it gold on his next term.
Don’t give him any ideas
You know what needs copper?
Datacenters.
Time they took it back
Face looks male.
That looks like a proper AI slop image. Do you have any sources for it?
Look up “Statue of Liberty assembled in Paris” as an image search. There are multiple angles of the statue in this scaffolding.
And there are 8 replicas all over France.
8 replicas Ave iirc that’s actually the second smaller version and not the one shipped to the US.
One thing I want to add, not saying you in particular aren’t aware, but it’s important to remember that the creator would have been aware it would turn green. It looks as intended.
About 20 years ago (or so), they replaced the copper roofs on the parliament buildings in Ottawa. I remember reading comments from people upset that they replaced the lovely matte green with bright shiny orange metal.
People are idiots, especially in Ottawa.
We had public Facebook outrage when crews painted fire hydrants grey, the Mayor had to explain it was just primer before the red paint. Fuckwads.
Yeah, if they’d wanted to keep it shiny they would’ve lacquered it in some manner, the properties of copper were pretty well understood by that time. Having said that, I do wonder why they wanted it green and not shiny, what the artistic reasoning behind it was – admittedly, a lacquered exterior would require more maintenance than just going “nah let it be it’ll look fine”, but it’s not like the Statue of Liberty has never needed maintenance anyway.
Copper was chosen cuz it was cheap and light
Okay, but I was more curious about what the artistic reasoning for not lacquering it was, not why they chose the material in the first place. Surely it wasn’t only about maintenance being simpler to just let it turn green, surely the designer had a reason for wanting it to be green as opposed to shiny.
No one lacquers copper. Lacquer would only last a few years. The whole point of copper, or aluminum, is that once the thin oxide layer forms, the oxidation stops.
You don’t need to lacquer it, it petinas and protects the copper.
The material is was made of was chosen for practicality.
You don’t need to lacquer it, it petinas and protects the copper.
yes I know you don’t need to, we just went over that, but we seem to be talking past each other.
The material is was made of was chosen for practicality.
Okay, so, we’ve been over the material choice already, we’ve established this. I know copper doesn’t need lacquering, which we have again, already established. My question, which you seem to consistently be missing, is why did the designer, Bartholdi, decide it would look better with the green patina, than without it, which could have been achieved by first polishing the copper and then applying a clear lacquer?
And if it was for purely practical reasons and no artistic ones, do you have a source for that? Or was there an aesthetic reason that he preferred the look of a pale green over shiny metal (and, if there was, I’d also like a source for it, too)? I got why they chose the material. I understand the material does not strictly need lacquering. Please do not answer these non-questions a third time. The question I have, reading through the Wikipedia articles on Bartholdi and the Statue of Liberty, is not answered. It does say why the material was chosen, but not explicitly why they chose not to lacquer it. There is also reference that, after verdigris had covered the statue, that the Army Corps of Engineers investigated whether it was corrosion that was harming the statue, and they came to the conclusion it wasn’t and that they liked the look, but that’s the government talking, not the designer; and that they bothered to study it seems to point to them being caught off-guard by its appearance, as though they intended it to or believed it should remain shiny (prior to liking its new appearance).
That same sculptor has done many other sculptures in a variety of other materials, and material choice is just as much a question of aesthetics as it is practicality when it comes to works of art (even if practicality is a much bigger consideration when they’re monument-sized). So, if the material was settled on for practical reasons, then there must have also been some discussion as to whether to let that material tarnish or to try to maintain the shiny appearance, and whether or not that discussion and the conclusion it came to was purely out of a desire for less maintenance (which, mind you, the Statue of Liberty has needed maintenance many times regardless), or because the look of verdigris was preferred to the look of shiny copper. That is what I’m curious about. It’s alright not to know, hell, it may be that nobody knows (it is, after all, a discussion that would’ve been had about ~150+ years ago, if anything it’s probably buried in some obscure book), but you don’t need to keep providing answers to questions I’m not asking.
Lol. Cheap copper. I’ll take some.
Yeah. It was cheaper AND significantly lighter to ship over than other things you’d make statues of that scale from (marble, bronze)
Copper is known to tarnish to a protective finish, so it doesn’t need a coating.
It was a smart choice
BUT WHY DIDN’T THEY LACQUER IT
I’m just laughing by today’s standards.
I know just the Sumerian for the job!
Son of a bitch. I I knew I shouldn’t have taken Ge’ez for my ancient language elective.
