this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2026
145 points (98.0% liked)
interestingasfuck
9446 readers
88 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
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.