Why did Europeans forget how to draw with any sense of reality in the Middle Ages?
White people were all blind in one eye until 1624
>>205814
>forget
It was never known before either
All those painting you see about Ancient Greece and Rome are from the Renaissance
>>205820
>>205822
Indeed, Roman art is elementary school tier. Had some great busts and architecture though
>>205814
Because painting in realism is hard and time consuming. No one thought to do it until the renaissance.
>>205822
>>205903
That's not true.
![f11-pompeia-fresco-segundo-estilo-cerca-50e2809340-ac[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/yVjMVxg.jpg "f11-pompeia-fresco-segundo-estilo-cerca-50e2809340-ac[1].jpg")
>>205903
ok
>>205927
Officially elementary school tier
>>205814
When could they draw before
Drawing is pretty hard anyway. Most people suck at it.
>>205927
Middle school tier?
>>205937
>>205943
Still better than Picasso
>>205814
what is the most middle age book ever?
>>205927
I could do that at 13.
And we all did this throughout highschool
ayy lmao
Intentional stylistic choices until the knowledge of how to do it the old way was lost.
>>205814
>implying
>>205814
>le dark ages
>>206025
dark ages? more like dank ages
>>205982
Wtf lmao. Give me more like this!
>>205814
Because the people are more important than the buildings. Not everybody has to use perspective, if the narrative doesn't demand it it's perfectly ok to break the rules of perspective.
It's not like Hitler, he didn't know shit about perspective and draw as if he did.
Anyway,in artistic terms that's pretty ok and doesn't dismiss the artist a bit.
>>205927
It's fine.
>>205982
lelo why dont they just jump
>>205960
but desu picasso was amazing, there is literally no reason to shit on him
>>206046
The HYW produced plenty of retarded "art" like sad
Sadly, they arent avaiable in bigger version
>>206086
>>206096
wtf are those archers doing? They are literally facing each other
"Surely this will stop them"
Man, Europeans built castles for ants back in the day.
There's literally a dude carrying a bridge in his arms to put it on the river lmao
>>206153
I Need more retarded art!! Stat!
>>206153
is that joan?
>>205982
lmao @ the pube cannon
just some lads taking a break from killing muslims
This one is pretty good apart from from the boats
>>206172
Looks like it
>>205814
The basic answer is Christianity. Art was considered idolatrous and effectively its form was restrained by Christian teachings. A lot of classical knowledge of realism was thus lost, but some was preserved in some Byzantine art if you look for it (e.g. how to accurately render clothing).
Source: The Story of Art (Gombrich).
>>205814
>>205822
>he doesn't know about sculpting
>>206199
wew
>these horses
Beware the fall from 1.5 meters high!
>>206200
Greeks didn't use perspective either.
>Let's throw the baby's bed on them, it sure will teach them!
Hmmm
>>206200
>being this retarded
>>206238
That looks more like a bench t͏bh fa͏m
>>206298
desu senpai
a lot of these examples look pulled from illuminated manuscripts; really the goal was just to help illustrate the text with these using very basic materials. they didn't have the capacity for rendered subjects nor would it serve much use as an iconic reference for the event
>>206230
They did, actually. Renaissance artists developed geometrical perspective but Greek's also developed and employed it via foreshortening.
You've posted an image of early Greek art that is not representative of the achievements of Greek artists, and one that isn't a painting (although to be fair, almost all Greek painting has been destroyed).
Note the feet in this later image for example (compared to the depiction of feet as a whole foot in your image). The artist has made serious attempts to realistically render people, by employing perspective.
See also: http://www.essential-humanities.net/western-art/painting/greek/
>>206294
Good post.
>>206341
by they i meant the scribes
>>206238
keep going
>>205822
I find it funny how you can see humanity get better at drawning stuff as a collective.
Like as if it was one shitty artist slowly progressing.
>>206202
>Sculpting is the same as drawning to me
>>206153
thesiegeofcastlemanlet.jpg
>>205822
Yeah, this ass is surreal.
>>206341
compare this to cimabue's work from the 13th century. this was made 200 years before the post i've quoted, and it shows the difference context can make in medieval/early renaissance work
>>206434
BLACKED
>>206434
Were ancient the Greeks black?
>>206458
That's a Sicilian.
>>206482
Were the ancient romans black?
>>206458
That's polyphemus you tard
>>206213
>those faces
LOL
>>205822
Thats objectively wrong
>>205960
>Still better than Picasso
He was 15 when he painted pic related.
The guy was an unabashed genius in the visual arts.So, if you dont know what the fuck you're talking about, you better
>>206492
No, they were nordics.
The anatomy on his legs is retarded though.
>>206515
Early picasso is goat
Later picasso is hipster shit
>>206515
or it was his father's painting and picasso just signed it
Western Rome collapsed so most Classical artistic traditions fell apart, except in Byzantium. When the West re-emerged its art was influenced by Germanic/Celtic art rather than purely Classical art, leading to stuff like pic related. Meanwhile the Muslims had hardly any painting at all until the 12th century, again without purely Classical influence. This wasn't just because of lack of skill but due to changing artistic values and breaks with earlier traditions.
Western art gradually came under Byzantine influence from the Carolingian period onward, becoming strongest in Italy (which is why you get very early naturalistic paintings there). Gothic painting arose in the 12th-13th centuries, breaking with Byzantine tradition, and gradually grew more naturalistic over time. Renaissance art emerged out of Byzantine-influenced Italian painting as well as late Gothic art with the use of oil painting.
Naturalistic sculpture is fairly common throughout history, but painting is different because it involves projecting a 3d space onto a 2d surface, which is not something that comes naturally. That's why most painting traditions are highly stylized and lack perspective, even when they're detailed and naturalistic, as in Chinese art. Truly realistic art didn't exist before the Renaissance when linear perspective was discovered.
>>206574
cause realism is literally the only art, right
I fucking hate uncultured plebes
Realism wasn't the point of art then. It still isn't in the Orthodox Church, that's why all the art is flat even today.
>>206669
Why? Is it supposed to be more holy?
>>206662
Realism is the only worthwhile art
Go fling some paint at a canvas
>>206712
Flat art levels all the sinful curves.
>>206739
>Realism is the only worthwhile art
No anon, you are the hipsters.
>>206519
the male subject clearly has the spiked hair and blond shaggy features of a celt.
the celts were basically IRL conan the barbarian to the romans. if you look at roman descriptions and depictions of celts, you see the mentions of nakedness, large size and spiky hair. pic related
it makes sense. celts seem to have been a society of hard drinking, headhunting, mushroom eating fratbros.
also: the romans have form for fetishing the savage martial races at their borders. iot makes rome look pretty rad for having successfully overcome them or staved them off.
when i guy boast about how big another guy is, it's usually a prelude to how much that guy was BTFO'd. the romans (and all empires) did this, too. a man and a society are measured by their enemies.
>>206747
Maybe it's not the *only* worthwhile style, just the most worthwhile. Forgive my hyperbolic shitposting.
Cubism is still deviantart tier.
>>206739
Here go jerk off to some of 'art'
Some people like their art to be more than pretty lies they can enjoy for 20 seconds
>>206766
>Cubism is still deviantart tier.
You've gone too hard in the memes
Perspective wasn't very developed until later.
Replicating a 3D object in 2 dimensions realistically requires a lot more advanced technique than sculpting, which is just creating a 1:1 copy of an object, which is why sculpting advanced quicker.
>>206772
And some people like their artists to have technique.
>>206739
clearly, socialist realism is the art style for you, you proletarian hero.
perhaps you could, if you're lucky, contribute stakhanovite levels of endeavor to fellow workers in the cauldron that is the peoples' restaurant of macdonalds.
>>206795
That pic is literally dark magic, anon. I wouldn't save that on my computer if I were you. Its a demonic incantation in visual form.
Plus, it looks like absolute shit.
>>206795
Jackson Pollock's style is actually very difficult to replicate. There was a technique involved.
>>206795
lol, i bet you think your opinion on Pollock is worth anything
and if you're looking for "technique" then you would love Pollock, but of course you don't understand the words you use
>>206795
t. 13 year old Dream Theater fan
>>206827
My opinion is worth more as yours, you overeducated trash. He had a technique, sure, in that his muscles sprayed paint at the canvas in a characteristic way. Reproducing things realistically, and allowing emotions to come from the scene, is better than trying to imitate a random number generator and calling it art.
>>206816
>Plus, it looks like absolute shit.
No it's a masterpiece :^)
>>206816
>>206827
well said, comrades. truly this decadent art reeks of elitism and international finance!
the peoples' art should be comprehensible and capture the realities of the working man's life, and not just baubles for the bourgeoisie to display the wealth they have stolen from the proletariat!
>>206845
>No it's a masterpiece :^)
Yeah, if you've sold your soul to Satan.
>>206850
It's garbage, sure, but isn't that taking it a little far?
>>206858
Nope. Savonarola was right. We need a Bonfire of the Vanities 2.0.
Humanism is steeped in alchemy and occult mysticism and othersuch Gnostic bullshit. The Renaissance was just Satanic trickery on a massive scale.
>>206894
Lucifer did nothing wrong
>>206894
>can't tell if edgy provocateur or genuinely mental
>>206899
I rebuke the Satan in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ!
Somebody get some wood chips and a massive stake. We need to have a barbecue.
>>206776
No, he's right. Picasso's later art is hipster shit, it's like that rubbish they discuss on /mu/, some guy who made a "song" that was four minutes of silence. Makes me want to publish a book with all blank pages, hipsters eat that ridiculous shit up.
>>206920
Get out of here /lit/. /his/ is a Christian board.
>>206925
Well, the music will be shit. Devil has the best tunes, to be honest, family.
>>206615
>and lack perspective, even when they're detailed and naturalistic, as in Chinese art.
ok
>>206962
*tips mitre
>>206958
who the fuck talks about john cage on /mu/. everyone is too busy arguing if art angels is shit or not.
>>206611
or maybe you're just a dumbass
If you actually knew how to draw or paint, you would know that some of the shit that picasso did later in his career would be completely impossible without a huge mastery of drawing.
>>206574
You clearly have no fucking clue of what you're talking about, and worse, you seem proud in being ignorant
>>206973
>I didn't finish the right side of the painting
>uhhh
>I'll just write a fucking haiku there and call it good
>>206712
Dimension and excessive detail makes you think in terms of the physical qualities of what is depicted, rather than the spiritual.
>>206958
>being this fucking dumb
anyway, /mu/ is more insterested in discussing k-pop or the last video from Tony Fandango and use the same level of criticism as you're using instead of actually creating their own individual informed opinions.
>>206615
>>207013
Sounds like rationalisation rather explanation, tovaritsch.
>I-it's more holy like that!
Also, the greeks remained wedded to worship of the past and tradition, so innovation was not encouraged. Quite understandable in an empire beset by enemies whose glories were behind her, but that just results in endless repetition of the same old motifs in the same old way, like an endlessly repeated thought in the mind of a dying man.
>>206958
You realize the shit Picasso did was actually harder and required more skill than realism right? Just because it's not as pretty and doesn't make it worse, trying to actually capture 3 dimensions on a canvas is fucking insane.
>>206973
Yeah, because your pic is surely a good example of perspective... The guy in the front is just a huge giant and the guy in the back is a midget.
>>207144
That guy isn't directly behind him, but you have a point because the second tree behind him should be much smaller.
>>207187
It's a great painting regardless anyways.
>>205820
Is that when they stole art from Africans?
>>207010
Blank space is not always bad
>>206845
You can't argue with modern art fags. Their style appeals to nobody but themselves and when you say it sucks they just go "lol fag u don't get it" and when you ask them to explain they go "lol fag u don't get it".
They have no true confidence in the art. They know that it's shit. That's why they just do the intellectual equivalent of shitposting when confronted.
>>207144
>what are children?
>implying Medieval art isn't the greatest art ever produced
>>207365
This font is absolutely impossible to read
>>207344
Cubism is pretty easy to explain, it's taking a realistic picture, then trying to break it down into multiple simplified perspectives from different angles, and combining them at the edges to form a 'cubic' look in an attempt to depict the nature of 3-dimensional objects on a 2-dimensional plane. It requires a shit ton of skill and is pretty fascinating if you understand what you're looking at. Pollock I don't really know shit about, best I can figure it's a very abstract and basic level of symbolism, interesting I guess but not necessarily good.
>>205982
>>206071
Why son't they just build higher walls?
>>205915
That makes sense. Realism hten would only become possible when there was spare money from the Medici
I'm not one of the anti-modern art guys from before, but could someone explain the appeal of Pollock, or abstract expressionism in general? Is it just like a sort of language that makes it fun to analyze what the works mean or is there some deeper level I'm missing?
>>207778
pollock reduced painting to its essence by realizing that all painted artworks are an arena (the artist is fighting against natural processes of the environment such as paint drying etc.) - his works are a victory of his personal expression over the material of the painter, fought on a canvas battlefield. some people think that it took genius to recognise the aforementioned and to take such a conceptual leap.
>>208050
(also the artist fights against his limitations in getting the thing in his head onto the medium)
>>208050
So the appeal is more about the philosophy behind it than the works themselves? Interesting.
>>208070
well yes and no
people who admire pollock undoubtedly find his work moving, but one of the major criticisms of modern art is that it is so reliant on theory that the works themselves no longer speak for themselves
see, pic related for such a criticism
>>208098
Do you have any examples of arguments for why Pollock's works themselves are moving? I remember someone earlier mentioning how he was all about technique or something.
>>208114
i think it's a subjective experience that people don't really understand themselves but try and rationalize for others
Degenerate culture.
Also poverty, everyone in Western Europe was fucking broke in the middle ages. That meant less artists in training and less people that actually wanted to buy their art. Remember that in the past art was fairly expensive.
The Byzantines were a little better because they had more cash.
afaik most of them didn't feel the need to make paintings realistic. everything you see is realistic, why make the art you look at the same?
MORE RETARD ART
>>207778
Marketing. That's it. That's by and large what the failed art schools succeeded on.
Be eccentric, do some crazy stunt, come up with some bullshit art philosophy on how you are 'revolutionizing art'. A promoter finds rich ass holes that like to collect garbage and your a hit.
Crap art was a failure with the general public so the art critics had to create the narrative that the public was too stupid to understand it rather than just admit the whole thing was a pseduo intellectual fraud.
The idea that it had greatness because of some messgae or meaning is the words of someone that has zero knowledge about art. All art has messages and meaning, even hentai.
>>208129
But there were plenty of Book of Hours being commissioned, those probably cost a lot, and had tons of paintings in them
>>208185
specially hentai*
>>206752
That's actually a copy of a Greek statue but from the time period, it is conceivable that the celts were still in modern-day Austria at the time.
Also, you've read this wrong. This is the greeks showing sympathy for a defeated enemy.
>>206343
Perspective is not drawing a single thing with an atypical perspective, it is composing an entire piece to appear to potentially exist in actual 3d space.
>>207375
>calling writing fonts
>>207455
>filename
>>208963
>,gif
That's some pretty slick shit.
>>207048
You do realize the Coptic Orthodox are the same way about art?
>>206776
>defending cubism
>catalyst of shitty modern art
cmon now
>>208998
modern art isn't shitty
>>208129
this guy doesn't know shit
>>208114
ACTION PAINTING
>>206615
this is the correct answer
>>208998
Not all modern art is dadaism and abstract expressionism, cubism is an interesting endeavor and requires an immense level of skill, the only real criticism of it I've seen is that it's not as pretty.
>>209005
I feel it is, or at least far more cynical.
I'll try to avoid strawmanning, but with the dawn of the modern "art factory" we have become distanced from the original passion and dedication in earlier art.
Pieces considered great (or at least notable) are mostly "bold" or "daring" now, not beautiful or products of great craftsmanship.
Not to say this is the entirety of art today, but the vast majority is poor fare.
The fact that a commercial artist from the early 1900's was so much better then today's fine artists is discouraging.
>>209064
you feel it is because you haven't been exposed to much art, art history, or art theory. for example you seem to think that modern art is the art of 'today' when even the most basic research into modern art would tell you that is false. i don't think you have a sense of the development of art over the past 150-ish years so your criticism is misplaced
early 1900s is modern art
>>209043
It's not that the field is bad in itself, it's the fact that it produced the conditions where a man putting feces on a wall can be sold for at least five figures. It's not the lack of good art, but the visibility of bad art.
>>209073
I misspoke then, "today's art" is shit.
>>209076
a man putting feces on the wall is not an example of modern art. i wish critics of modern art would find something else to talk about other than the gross poopies and peepees meme
>>209084
you don't know what today's art even is. you're making this up
>>209073
To be fair, modernism in general is poorly defined.
>>209104
not really. there's debate over when it started and when it ended but otherwise it's a pretty distinct period of art
>>209073
>All contemporary art sucks!!!!!!
Instead of just thinking all modern day art is feminists ovulating into tin cans and then take a fat ogre shit in it, why don't you actually try and experience some "modern" art?
>>209064
"modern art" generally refers to art of a certain type made roughly since the impressionists into the postwar period. If you mean art being produced very recently, you should say contemporary art.
Lots of people are critical of contemporary art, but almost no one knows whats actually out there, it's not all what you probably envision
>>209085
This case is anecdotal I guess, but I went to my city's art gallery, and to be clear, this is the central city of my province. Side by side were works of skill, but the ratio of simple splotches of color, perhaps applied in an eccentric pattern.
This depends on your view of art of course, but it was annoying that works in oil perhaps done over a month or more was being upstaged by haphazard streaks or simple shapes, which can be replicated in a day.
I like hellenistic stuff the most desu.
>>209181
>>205814
>Why did Europeans forget how to draw with any sense of reality in the Middle Ages?
They did not forget.
They just did not value that particular viewpoint at that particular time for those particular pieces of art.
>>209185
>>209191
>>209193
Still not as bad as this shit. This shit looks like a fucking joke.
>>209188
well, its not like they knew about linear perspective, and it looks like some of them tried and failed (pic related)
And ultimately, linear perspective is a technique that had to be found out, and once it was, you almost never see people painting out of perspective
>>206458
no, that's a mural in a whore house.
It's so foreigners who don't speak Latin could point at what service they wanted.
>>206819
dumping a bunch of fucking dice on the table is also hard to replicate
>>206970
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uv_2x6JmuaE
![M071061[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/ffurkrV.jpg "M071061[1].jpg")
>European elephants
>>209357
![poloillumin6[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/63JcW7V.jpg "poloillumin6[1].jpg")
>European Elephants V.2
>>205822
More or less this. Mosaics and stick figures was the norm until the Renaissance.
>>206202
Medieval sculpting wasn't bad.
>not making gold mosaics
Fucking poorfags.
>>207778
There are a few ways to go about appreciating abstract expressionism.
Speaking incredibly frankly here...
So some people talk about the emotional experience of standing before say... a Rothko. To each their own, wouldn't deny any individual their personal experience but I tend to think this is pretty pretentious as a *general* way of appreciating abstract expressionism. Nonetheless it is an oft cited experience, and certainly at least some people are sincerely moved in this way.
There's also the philosophic/aesthetic angle that can be summed up with "significant forms". Roughly speaking aesthetic experience can be broken up into atomic elements such as line and color and shape and so on, and the goal of abstract expressionism is to remove the distracting elements of representation so that one can directly contemplate the aesthetic without interference. This is the formal goal of abstract expressionism, although I'm not too sure the artists themselves had this specifically in mind.
Finally, my personal angle, is to appreciate abstract expressionism as a visual artist. I'd say they are artists' artists, what they could achieve with purely abstract design elements alone is absolutely incredible. Their technique is impeccible, very tight and controlled, every aesthetic response garnered is earned without recourse to illusionary tricks, there is no proper subject to empathize with, these paintings stand naked before each viewer.
But ultimately, not everybody is going to be a fan. Some people don't feel a thing about abstract expressionism, don't buy the philosophy behind it, and don't see it with the eyes of an artist. And that's fine, I consider abstract expressionism to be a fairly niche category and think it's strange to expect the general public to appreciate it.
>>209377
keked_by_dragon.jpg
>>207778
It's somewhat aesthetically pleasing and it can be used to decorate any room, and beyond the fact that it's randomly smeared shit, it means nothing and is inoffensive and can be sold to anyone regardless of cultural pet peeves, unlike a painting about Jesus smiting Saracens. That's how we moderns like it.
Btw abstract expressionism is a CIA operation.
>>209431
>Btw abstract expressionism is a CIA operation.
No, they "just" bankrolled foreign exhibitions. Which is still substantial, but not the same as the entire movement being a CIA op.
>Goddamnit CIA, you're why we can't have nice things
It was seriously just a style.
Look through the portraits of Byzantine Emperors, you can see them becoming more and more abstract as the centuries go by.
The reasons for the style were touched on in the thread.
>>209431
>Btw abstract expressionism is a CIA operation.
lol nice meme
The fact that the CIA promoted the AbEx artists does not mean they were a 'CIA operation'
The Soviets promoted their own art, the realist, communist art; it only made sense for the US to exhibit their own artists, the free expression they painted compared with the soviets
Elephant jousting when?
>>209219
>you almost never see people painting out of perspective
have you ever seen a painting recently? and by recently i mean "from the past two centuries give or take"
>>206434
BREHS
>>205820
WE WUZ ARTISTZ
>>209219
>and it looks like some of them tried and failed (pic related)
No, it is not that they "tried and failed" to specifically represent a realistic perspective, it is that you consider correct perspective to be paramount in painting - they did not. They just did not have the tradition of painting "realistic" so to speak. The same person who painted pic related had also drawn perfectly normal (from our point of view) perspective studies, like "realistically" looking things.
>>209497
see
>>206200
Jesus christ get a fucking life fedora fags
>>209472
i'm talking about the time directly after the medieval era, in the renaissance. Painters started using linear perspective that was developed in the late medieval / early renaissance, specifically by people like Masaccio. You literally never see painters utilizing the vanishing point technique before this time.
>>209497
>>209500
These are specifically by one of those people responsible for developing perspective in the renaissance, along with Vasari, Brunelleschi, Masaccio, and others
>>209528
you said
"once it was, you almost never see people painting out of perspective"
but that is just not true
you see them painting without it recently (i.e. those two centuries i mentioned)
and you see them paiting without it even in, i dunno, the 16th century, see someone like cranach (both of them really)
>>209528
>These are specifically by one of those people responsible for developing perspective in the renaissance, along with Vasari, Brunelleschi, Masaccio, and others
??? Well yeah obviously? Those are by someone who first started using it in art. Because previously they did not care about it. Uccello knew about perspective, yet painting in perspective was not in vogue. It's basically the same with various imagery, "why didn't they paint XYZ" (like everyday streets as opposed to religious figures or something), because it wasn't done. Obviously through today's eyes you'd consider focusing on portraying saints - and not painting still life or whatever - as peculiar, because both have entered the stage, but they didn't.
![1024px-Pietro_Perugino_-_Entrega_de_las_llaves_a_San_Pedro_(Capilla_Sixtina,_Roma,_1481-82)[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/GPVzTt6.jpg "1024px-Pietro_Perugino_-_Entrega_de_las_llaves_a_San_Pedro_(Capilla_Sixtina,_Roma,_1481-82)[1].jpg")
>>205820
To be fair, the geometrically correct art was based on the perspective from one eye.
>>209421
This is a good explanation, I can't draw or paint for shit but I'd compare it to certain types of music that forego rhythmic and harmonic values to focus on textural qualities of sound. I wouldn't say it has a deeper meaning, the opposite in fact. It bypasses the spectator's desire to find realistic depictions and familiar patterns in the work and reduces it to a sensual experience. It becomes very primal and illicits a base emotional reaction unaffected by context, although some artists may try to create a context through title or the way the art is framed, guiding the viewer's experience somewhat. I think people naturally seek that context though and so they draw from what they perceive to be the artist's technique or skill to fill that void, which leads to the idea of "well I or anyone else could have done this, therefore it has no value". I believe that stems from a desire to be impressed by art, seeing a work as the achievement of an individual to be praised, which I think even super artsy abstract-loving types can understand. Art does carry a craftsmanship behind it after all. I'm rambling at this point, really.
>>209572
Painting in linear perspective was not simply "not in vogue", it was not known to them. Again, linear perspective is a formal technique that was developed in a clear manner
Also i am not saying that one way is better than the other, not even that the medieval artists strived to proper perspective. All i'm saying is that there is a relatively clear line around the development of linear perspective, and that at the time it was developed, it was the major technique adopted
>>209632
Well yeah obviously of course it was not known to them, they did not strive to achieve it in the centuries prior to the Ren., just like today we do not aim for a portrayal of a person in art to be a representation of his purity or greatness (i.e. jesus is big and central, or whatever). There was no incentive for them to develop it, as the focus was on different aspects of art other than experimentation, revival and adaptation of the new. Like I said to op in an earlier post - they did not "forget" about linear perspective. They just did not care about it or achieving it in the first place.
This is one of the best threads /his/ has ever had
>>209688
it's just a prank bro
>>209662
>They just did not care about it or achieving it in the first place
Like i said, they did not know about linear perspective, so you cannot make that first claim, that they did not care about linear perspective. That is akin to saying that, if by some miracle they found an old non-existent manuscript detailing the technique of linear perceptive, that the same depictions shown in this thread would not have changed, that they would not have utilized linear perspective for these depictions.
Why were Medieval people such kekfags?
>>209528
you mean just the italians right because i can think of many examples of renaissance artists not using single-point perspective
>>206812
I'm a huge fan of social realist architecture and 30s architecture in general - soviet palaces have a lot in common with early American skyscrapers. Some subdued classicism of the kind Speer would design before the full on commie block poverty projects.
>>209700
and yet even after they developed linear perspective
they kept making paintings without it
>>207010
Chinese/East Asian paintings ALWAYS come with poetry. Even mundane shit like a painting of a dog for an encyclopedia.
>>209755
Well, it spread from italy. But I'm pretty sure that by ~1600s, it was everywhere
>>205814
Read The story of art by Gombrich.
>>206198
Black bishop to D4
White King to H7
Black Queen to H8
Mate
>>209700
You misunderstand me - obviously someone had to put it into practice first, but in the timeframe we are talking about, before the Ren., they were not interested in doing that. They were not interested in portraying real life realistically, i.e. using correct perspective among other things. The focus in art was on other factors. There is no technological barrier, no tangible reason they would have to overcome that would have prevented them from turning towards this direction of using linear p., as evidenced by its later development and use. Again, like I said in >>209188 when responding to the OP, they did not "forget" perspective. They just were not interested in reproducing it in art (as a subset of "realistic" reproduction of real life in art) because art had served different purposes back then and only with the later Ren. thinkers and artists would its focus shift towards new techniques - and hence an interest in perspective. And even when this shift did happen, you still had - such as religious imagery - which did not make use of it, instead sticking to the previous interpretations of art.
>>206071
That was actually the way they did CPR back then, apparently.
>>209832
queen to bishop 6
>>208845
I believe the original was from Pergamon. And celts were everywhere. The Galatians for example were celts living in what is modern day Ankara.
>>208944
>foreshortening is not perspective
wrong
>>207573
"Greek/Byzantine realism"
>>206819
Didn't Norman Rockwell do it fairly easily once?
>>210456
Not sure if this is what you're talking about, but it looks nothing like pollock
>>210506
How so?
>>210506
Some of the middle looks like it, although it's lacking the curvy thin splotches going overtop, and the angular ones underneath.
>>210521
well I'm no expert in pollock, but its easy to see the paint has no motion..its just sitting there in splotches, thats not how a pollock painting looks. The paint should move around the canvas, move over other colours, it should look expansive. Even just the technical details, in >>206795 the brown paint looks thick, slow, the black paint is thin, faster, etc. None of that in the Rockwell.
Also, you have to understand the size of a Pollock painting, vs something done on an easel, the effect cannot be compared
>>207344
>You can't argue with modern art fags. Their style appeals to nobody but themselves and when you say it sucks they just go "lol fag u don't get it" and when you ask them to explain they go "lol fag u don't get it".
Preach!
>>210675
to be fair if the man left the glove there with that in mind it could probably be considered art
>>210675
Why would you be mad at someone for liking something you don't ?
>>210675
Well you're not gonna just step all over it
>>205814
In the future they will ask the same thing when looking at modernists art and Picasso.
>>210782
It'd be funny if people discovering Picasso thought cubism was a failed attempt at normal perspective.
>>210782
>>210798
>>210805
Fuck that 4 mb limit desu.
>>210812
>>210822
>>210824
>>210830
I got a few more but I am not sure if anyone is still in this thread.
>>210830
What city is this? If it is a real one.
>>210840
I am.
>>210847
It's part of the Ghent altarpiece (1438 IIRC) but I'm not sure what it was modeled on, could be bruges or ghent or just something the painter made up.
>>210859
>>207344
You're like a child who refuses to eat his vegetables. Make an effort, acquire the taste, stop being an actual pleb. Good things aren't always handed to you on a plate.
>>210863
>>210872
Sculpture in steel?
>>210878
>>206343
I like how this artist went to the womans feet and just went...
...
FUCK IT!!! HALFCIRCLES FOR NAILS BITCH! YOU DON'T GET TOES!!!
He seriously fucked that up.
>>210900
Forgot my pic.
Behold! The Sorcerer. The earliest know human drawing of something supernatural.
>>210887
Last one for now, I hope some folks liked it.
>>210913
>>207331
>Blank space is not always bad
What the fuck did you just say to me?
>>210867
To be fair a lot of modern art isn't necessarily good when you learn how to appreciate it either.
>>210878
>sculpture in steel
Sometimes it doesn't go so well.
>>207106
>You realize the shit Picasso did was actually harder and required more skill than realism right?
Sure. That's why Picasso made around 50.000 pieces of art. Because it was so difficult and hard to do
He just shat out thousands of paintings and drawings because he knew there were legions of dumb people without taste willing to pay insane prices for his crap.
