We do! Smarthistory has an entire section dedicated to materials and their conservation: smarthistory.org/overview/creating-and-conserving/

@@smarthistory-art-history because it was prepared so well before being painted and because the blue color is usually made of lapis lazuli. In this video we see the already restored version. The blue had become way darker over the years, cause it was made with a cheaper material than was mentioned in the contract, which is azurite (source: Uffizi website). Otherwise it would‘ve kept it‘s color. It was restored to it‘s original vividness by the Uffizi gallery. The skin color (called incarnate in professional terms) wasn’t so green when the painting had been originally finished, but because Ducchio di Buoninsegna made an underpainting for the skin in green (which was usual back then) and it has been so many years, the green came through. So to answer your question: very costly and/or high quality materials, elaborate techniques to prepare the painting surface, many layers of paint that have been carefully considered (back then learning how to make the paint keep it‘s vibrancy for centuries was part of the skill repertoire of an artist), the fact that it had been save by the Florentines and wasn‘t exposed to light or weather.

She not taking calls....funny post👍👍👍😂🤣😅🤣😂

Well observed. It’s because Byzantine (it‘s capital was Constantinople, now the city of Istanbul) was so near to the Ottoman empire the ornaments and decorations in their art was greatly inspired by muslim ornaments (cause, well, they are beautiful). And because Byzantine (which was the eastern catholic empire) had spread to parts of Italy and Constantinople (back then) was invaded by catholic crusaders (yes, because money), bringing back art etc. around that time, these influences where going strong in Florence.

Yes, we have an entire video about it, smarthistory.org/alberti-santamarianovella/