So /ic/ what are your opinions concerning the Italian Renaissance vs. The Northern Renaissance? Who's techniques do you find more valuable to artistic progression? Northern detailing and textural work vs. the revival of Classical naturalism of the Italian etc. Discuss.
i should hang myself
>>2382581
Gimme a month to finish learning about this
>>2382554
italians invented perspective wich is end game so ,flemish are godlike .its a very technical discussion , the kind of discussion nobody can handle on ic so...
the same for wet canvas, cgsoc,etc. even artrenwal cannot really handle this topic
Italian Renaissance exhibits an analytical element that I would like to see more of today. Art now has become about feelings and understanding through process. I'd like to see more of Picasso and Michelangelo. Artists that can be political objectively AND subjectively. Northern Renaissance doesn't interest me in the same way auteur theory doesn't interest me. I don't care about how the artist feels or the artist's identity. What have you done for me lately?
I for one follow the Italian Renaissance (classical humanist) theories and practice. Italian learning is much broader than Northern Renaissance which tends to be folkloric and specific either to the region or to the individual. Classical art theory, a large part of Italian art, on the other hand is quite developed and concerns, I think important, conditions like grandeur, grace, decorum, judgment, universality, as well as developing invention and history painting further using wider range of sources from literature. It might be fun to closely study Northern iconology, and I suppose this exactly is what some people like in it, but it ends up being so particular to the time and place that it proves to be a subject for specialist historians and not a universal painter.
