So I recently heard that the idea of Roman cities filled with white marble statues and busts was infact wrong, but that they were all painted over, and Renaissance artists attempting to replicate greek and roman art just never realized it. Did this also apply to the buildings and structures, was there just a large paint industry in Roman society that nobody ever talks about anymore?
There wasn’t really a paint industry, per se, but yes, everything was painted, and apparently it was pretty gaudy. The statues and busts were all painted, and the walls of the homes were plastered over and painted. The paint on the statues that lasted generally wore away, and eventually it was assumed that was how they were intended to look. That became the fashion, to the point that when people unearthed marble carvings that hadn’t been exposed to the elements in the 17th century onward that did have paint on them, they removed the paint. Ouch.
Only recently, when technology allows us to examine the marble closely, did we discover that they all used to be painted.
As for the paint on the buildings, I believe that’s always been something people were more aware of, at least for the interiors, since there are enough ruins with painted plaster still on them to see how colourful they used to be. We have more recently realized that the stone walls on the outside of building, such at the columns, facades, etc., were also brightly painted. The Romans weren’t much into the understated, natural beauty of stone.