Dump, Discuss, etc
I'll be posting some, feel free to contribute.
will carry on later
>>479958
"Traditional Art" is a misleading term. Pre-1900 Western painting had many stylistic variations, such as Baroque & Neoclassicism versus Rocco as an example.
The closest thing I can think of that could fit the term would be the Academic tradition of those like Gerome and was continued in Russia during the 20th century.
>>482014
yeah it's pretty telling when there's no actual discussion on a thread about 'traditional art'. no one who champions it over 'modern art' knows what they are talking about
>>482014
That's academic nitpicking. With no further qualifications, "traditional art" is generally held to encompass all and sundry western art (especially painting) from the middle ages to the explosion of modernism from the late 19th century to the early 20th.
Don't be a pill.
>>482049
you mean pre-modern art then? there are many different 'traditions' in traditional art. like he said, it's a misleading term. speaking with accuracy doesn't make you an academic nitpicker it just demonstrates you have some idea of what you're talking about
>>482037
>no one who champions it over 'modern art' knows what they are talking about
Yup, generally they just dislike "Modern Art" (stuff from the '20s-'60s) and reach for "Traditional Art" (anything from the prior 500 years).
See:>>482049
Seriously, lumping together 500 years of painting like that is pretty silly. An Ingres is quite different than an El Greco, treating them as the same tradition is nonsensical.
>>482071
what i've noticed is they don't even go far into that 500 years. generally all of it are works from the 19th century, save the occasional rubens and rarer still a caravaggio. also a lot of battle scenes. i saw one exception to this in a thread here recently but it has generally been the same since art threads were on /lit/.
>>482081
well really this thread is an exception too
>>482062
>you mean pre-modern art then?
That depends on whether you distinguish "modern" from "contemporary", as there are a number of artists who have kept more traditional work alive.
>there are many different 'traditions' in traditional art.
Right, but they all share a commonality in that modernism and postmodernism split from them utterly because they represented the old guard. I would say that pitting tradition versus modernity (or perhaps progress would be a better term? I know that modern art is often defined as "progressive trends in the visual arts from the late 19th century onwards") is an entirely fair line to draw in the context of art history.
>like he said, it's a misleading term.
Only if you know better, and in that case it doesn't really matter because you can disregard the term.
>speaking with accuracy doesn't make you an academic nitpicker it just demonstrates you have some idea of what you're talking about
Contextually it's very nitpicky, Even on 4chan the details of art history aren't necessarily common knowledge. I agree that it's an insipid term to start a thread with but I think that the moniker of "traditional art" itself is fine colloquially.
>>482081
>>482090
True and true.
Though in all fairness to the OP, I'm really just busting their chops because I'd like to see more nuance in these "Trad Art" threads.
>>482135
>the moniker of "traditional art" itself is fine colloquially.
No it isn't. The reason isn't that it doesn't work, it obviously does, but it stems from gross ignorance of a cultural heritage that the same ignorant people presumably champion.
I mean, what is one asking for when they ask for "traditional art"? And why is that important?
In practice it stands for "All the stuff between 1400-1900" and it matters because "It isn't modernist". But the problem with that is in "modernist" discourse they take "traditional art" to mean "All the stuff between 1400-1900" and it should be abandoned because "It's all the same shit for 500 years", which isn't true and basically boils down to "It isn't modernist".
>>479987
When the keta hit too fast
>>482173
>No it isn't. The reason isn't that it doesn't work, it obviously does, but it stems from gross ignorance of a cultural heritage that the same ignorant people presumably champion.
Right, but everyone has to start somewhere and "traditional art" is both as easy as it gets in that department and good at drawing people in who don't have the chops to participate in discussions at a higher level.
Can anyone tell me why there is so much straight-faced lewdness in modernist art (not modern art, I mean from early modern period and onward)? I mean, there's plenty of it in Medieval art, but it's mostly comical.
>>482210
Eh, I disagree.
I think "Neoclassical Art" with an OP pic of a David would do just as well and maybe teach people something.
>>482217
Lots of reasons. In some cases it was a challenge to conventions, in others maybe irony of some sort, and sometimes it was even outright seriousness.
For example here's a Balthus. Seems to me a very serious expression of pedophilia in a negative light, possibly a release of inner demons Goya style.
But in general, lewdness sells I guess. Lots of it all throughout Western art, not just the last 100 years.
>Inb4 DELETE THIS
>Inb4 FBI knocks on my door
>>482135
>kept more traditional work alive
i don't know what you mean. have artists been keeping romanesque sculpture alive? international gothic? mannerism? byzantine icons? these are all pre-modern traditions not represented in contemporary art. do you mean academic art? specifically history painting? grand manner?
i'm not really sure what you want out of a 'traditional art' thread honestly other than to offer some sort of refuge from the 'modern'. all that happens when you use a term like 'traditional' in comparison to 'modern' is entrench people on either side of such a split, and everyone is too concerned about the opposite side being bad art that they don't question their own tastes or knowledge, and don't appreciate the art on its own terms.
>>482217
there's plenty in academic art as well
This is my favorite painting
I love the brutality of it
these two men locked in primitive combat, all bloodstained, broken and desperate
>>482239
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHgW2z61_9k
>>482239
But lewdness before the early modern period was all comical, regardless of whether it sold. Even in Greek and Roman art it was mostly comical.
>>482286
his work gets plenty freaky
there's nothing in essence wrong with "modern" art, just a lot of it has some pretty negative ideas behind it that creates some trashy stuff, basically anti-beauty
Taken today at the National Gallery if Art
>>482300
The Rape of Proserpina doesn't seem very funny. You might just be being thrown off by stylistic conventions.
>>482135
>as there are a number of artists who have kept more traditional work alive.
I would wager that the influence of older art is actually increasing with the availability of information, like the influence of older papers
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1411.0275.pdf
>>482286
> Goya...instead of a freak show for shock value
Fucking really? Pic related
Anyways, for anyone who thinks 'traditional art' means 'representational paintings', try googling 'traditional ____ patterns' where the blank is any culture
>>482071
hey buddy this is a blue board, thanks for getting me fired from my job as a UAV operator for Levant missions
>traditional art
fucking old people
>>482347
>Fucking really? Pic related
The thing about painters like Goya, though, is that their works have merits as works of art in addition to "shock value". You're not going to get that out of something like one of Damien Hirst's cute little stunts involving formaldehyde or an art student's videos of two people throwing up on each other.
>>483266
>challenge the art world
>"it's just shock value"
the best memes are the ones that aren't identified as memes
>>482332
That's a modernist work.
Was the human mind the same 7000 years ago?
>>484000
shut the fuck up and get spotify premium
>>482306
it's upside-down
>>483782
>>challenge the art world
What, exactly, is challenging about it? I fail to see how it's anything beyond edge for the sake of the same.
>>483266
I have never met a contemporary artist who likes Damien Hirst. For that matter, I have never met anyone, full-stop, who likes Hirst. Hirst is just noise, and art students who make puke videos are 99% hoping to distract attention from the fact they sat around smoking weed and didn't do any work until the day before it was due. Judging any group by its loudest members is a bad idea.
>>483786
>Rape of Proserpina
>Sculpted by Bernini in 1622 for the Church
>This is Modernist
You've got an interesting conception of "Modernism".
>>485500
Hirst is particularly shitty and enraging. Emin too. They are the very picture of an "Avant Garde" who took the schtick about "If the public likes it then it is bad" far too literally. But hey, they're an incredible success by that measure so good for them I guess.
The best artists IMO are the ones who have produced exceptional works of both the traditional and the experimental spirit. This is why I respect Picasso more than Pollock, or Joyce more than DFW.
>>485618
Constable is a good one on that note.
