Is there any expert in art history who can explain to me why people didn't learn how to draw until the late middle ages? We have all these examples of great sculptures and architecture from antiquity but there aren't any great illustrations & paintings.
>>1164106
Creating the appearance of depth on a flat surface required specialized materials and techniques. It's a lot easier, as it turns out, to create a three-dimensional look on something which exists in three dimensions.
>>1164106
Check out the Pompei frescos and wall paintings senpai.
>>1164124
So people just forgot how to draw after the collapse of the roman empire?
>>1164106
Well, for one, that's not a drawing, but an embroidered cloth.
>>1164139
I'm no expert, but according to some anons in older threads on that topic, a lot of skills were lost with the fall of the western empire. Learning how to draw and paint requires living physical masters, books won't cut it, and if those masters are dead or exiled without students then their knowledge is lost.
What I am more curious about would be the state of the arts in the Eastern Empire at that time.
>>1164124
The fayum portraits also ought to be better known.
The reason we have so few examples of ancient illustrations and paintings is that they are much less durable than stoneworks.
Exceptional conditions are needed to preserve them, like in pompeii and fayum.
And yes, art suffered a lot from the decline and fall of the empire.
jews
>>1164106
Well thats not a drawing its a tapestry, as in sewing.
>>1164106
I think a lot of early western european art is based on traditional painting styles (i.e. rock paintings). I mean, if you look at byzantine art there's plenty of realistic styles going around.
Just look at this, 6th century from St. Catherine's Monastery in Sinai.
>>1164380
woops, though not exactly Rembrandt, it's still fairly realistic.
>>1164214
This famous mosaic of Justinian's face is in the west, but was made by easteners (of course).
Or you meant just painting?
>>1164106
autism
>>1164214
It declined there as well, although not as much. Art became a little more stylized to compensate for the lack of technical skill.
I'm pretty amazed by the Fayum portraits though. You could put these in an art gallery today.
>>1164106
No time for art school when you're too busy fighting off barbarians, vikings, huns, muslims and your neighbors too.
that see trougth clothing..
>>1164106
Because 90%+ of what people consider to be "medieval art" are book illustrations that are a) really small b) trying to convey a message or idea which is more important than a 100% photorealistic drawing
>>1164106
Because advanced techniques of perspective and other artistic methods are basically tricks that can't be learned through talent alone. Sculpture is inherently 3D and thus it's easier to replicate a 3D form. I spoke with a professional artist about this and they said that sculpture is in some ways the most intuitive and talent-based art form.
Not even the ancient Romans really had painting at the level of the Renaissance. No culture in the world developed paintings at that level before those techniques were discovered. It's like the artistic equivalent of scifi technology.
They drew just fine - I'd say even better than today. They focused on showing all sides of an object, until perspective came along and became the dominant technique in art. Now all we have are tragically flat drawings.
>>1164106
> but there aren't any great illustrations & paintings.
1. Style. Some cultures preferred different styles.
2. Materials. Take a look at pic related. See the size of the canvas? That's no ordinary paper; that's no ordinary paint. The materials for this painting cost a fortune.
3. Time. See the size of this painting? It took three years to complete. Professional artisans were few and far in between during antiquity.
4. These extraordinary paintings were done at a specific time in European history. International trade was at an all time high, materials were being gathered, and artist had more free time than ever
Aesthetics are culturally relative. Medieval paintings are more abstract because the artists and viewers were interested in the subjects' inner spiritual nature, not their outward appearance. Realistic size and proportion and perspective weren't a concern, because in their worldview the relative viewpoints of individual subjects simply weren't important. Things were depicted according to their size according to absolute importance from a God's eye point-of-view. Stop projecting your modern expectations on ancient art.
>>1166340
>mental gymnastics
Bro, some of that might be true, but it's also true they couldn't draw for shit
It is because people didn't understand how reality is represented in 2D. If you look at "the last supper", everyone is looking at the 'painter'. This is to show everyone's faces and perspective was not fully understood. You have to remember they were not trying to depict a moment exactly, but to tell a story. Realism came later
Lighting is something else that is key and is most beautiful in pieces such as Rembrandt's. Realism became more prominent during the enlightenment, very basic photographic and glass lensing methods helped to move art along. You can say science had a substantial influence in art!
>>1166340
Or maybe they were just really bad at drawing people
maybe there wasn't enough rich people and brokers to commission art
>>1164139
Art was declining during the Empire. You can tell by comparing the various Imperial statues.
>>1166309
>artist had more free time
Ugh
