this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2026
145 points (98.0% liked)
interestingasfuck
9446 readers
97 users here now
For exceptionally interesting content
Rules:
- Posts must be interesting
- Posts must be based in reality
- No hateful content
- No harmful content
- Beauty is in the eye of the beholder
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
yes I know you don't need to, we just went over that, but we seem to be talking past each other.
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.
JFC your question was asked and answered.
Ok since you didn’t like my repeated answers, which are all using generally the same source of information (the sculptor himself) then maybe rather than rely on others to answer the question, not to your satisfaction, research it.
There are a number of books on it and the answer to your question is that the material was chosen because it was lightweight and cheap relative to the others.
You can easily assume since he chose not to lacquer it that he wanted it to patina, else he would have lacquered it. This is backed up by his belief that it would patina but not realizing it would go green.
He didn’t. He chose the copper for its material qualities, for practical reasons. The artistic choice was “practicality” and “whoops” was the color choice.
Given the wealth of information about why he chose the material and the lack of “he did it because of the color” it’s pretty easy to deduce that he chose the material for practicality, and history backs up copper was chosen because of practicality. The color was chosen by “whoops”
Given historians claim the material was chosen for practicality and you’re asking what his artistic vision was MAYBE it stands to reason “practicality” since that’s what history points at.
But sure, I’m talking past you.
Practically copper was chosen because it doesn’t need protecting, it’s lightweight and cheap. He didn’t expect it to turn green. He knew it would patina so didnt lacquer it.
Given the materials were being shipped across the Atlantic the design decision was “weight and cost” which is backed up by what he said.
It’s not buried in obscure books, it was (and is) actually quite easy to find this information, you just don’t like the answer provided.
It wasn’t lacquered because Bartholdi didn’t want it lacquered. He expected it to patina.
Now years later he changed his mind and petitioned the government to have it plated in gold.
Basically “cheap and shiny” and he didn’t know it would turn GREEN, just that it would patina and not need lacquering/protecting.
so the answer is "he was a dumbass who had not seen or known about the multiple historical examples of green copper roofs enough to know that that would eventually happen to the statue and thought the tarnishing would just magically stop on its own before then".
Great, that's all you had to say, would've been nice to have some sources too (generally, it falls on the person making the claim to provide sources ;3) but I can at least find some reference (after some google excavation, digging through bullshit) to back up your claim about him later wanting it covered in gold for reflectivity. And since I have no interest in reading another comment from you, I'll call that good enough. Bye now.
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
because it didn’t need it. Which was part of the calculus in choosing the material.
He chose not to lacquer it because it didn’t need it.
The army corp of engineers later looked into lacquering it and similarly decided “it doesn’t need it”
The sculptor petitioned them to plate it in gold cuz he didnt expect it to go full on green, but he KNEW it would patina and didn’t require it
Did the author never saw oxidised copper or smth?
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.