Why were the old masters so content with painting stiff, lifeless, cardboard angel wings when it's entirely possible to do so much better?
pic related: Luca Giordano vs some no-name fantasy illustrator
Angels aren't real.
It could be that
A) the people that commissioned the paintings didn't care
B) it was an accepted style and no person dared deviate from it
C) to save time
>>2522170
Have you ever actually seen bird wings? The feathers are very streamlined and neat, much like in the first image. They need to have the feathers fit together almost seamlessly in order to allow proper flight, and in fact birds spend much of their waking time preening their feathers to keep them neat.
Also old masters were very concerned with design and idealization of things, so it isn't a surprise that they would try to make the wings more of a design element. The first pic looks infinitely better than that cheesy one on the right.
>>2522171
Which is why it is even more important for the artist to create a sense of believability.
>>2522176
>The feathers are very streamlined and neat, much like in the first image
that doesn't mean they have to be flat as a board
>>2522171
Prove it
>>2522176
>The first pic looks infinitely better than that cheesy one on the right.
The one on the left looks actually pretty fucking dumb. Like what is up with those bodypaint clothes and that ridiculously tiny girl head? If the noname artist on the right would have painted clothes like that, you would rip him to shreds and rightfully so. Why are some dead masters above any and all criticism just because they could render well?
>>2522189
Well it will depend on the species and the positioning of the wing, sure. But a lot are more streamlined than you may expect, and if the artist used a dead bird as a model then it would also be stiff.
Have a look through a few pages here: http://digitalcollections.pugetsound.edu/cdm/search/collection/slaterwing
>>2522189
some moar
>>2522192
I get where you're coming from but pls I just want to talk about wings for now
>>2522193
Okay, fair enough, dead birds are stiff.
But if old masters can use cadavers to learn human anatomy, and can complement that with live models to pose for them, there shouldn't have been anything to stop them from acquiring live birds too. They could have gotten their servants to handle them if the birds were too rowdy.
This one is a Bernini angel I think.
Look at the quality difference between the clothes and the wings. What the fuck?
>>2522204
Well you are basing your idea of wings in movement off of photographs. Before they existed no one had access to study closely what a wing in flight looked like. To them, it probably didn't look wrong at all.
Also as I said before it was usually a convention of design in the way they used the wings. They sort of frame the figure. Think of how they used to paint halos as a flat circle behind the heads. Or if you look at Gothic art then the wings were more stylized.
>>2522170
>ANGLE WINGS
first ,learn how to spell,you humongus pink fluffy faggot...you make me sick to my stomach..
>>2522170
aesthetics/symbolism
angels were not supposed to reflect the natural world we were used to, they were (to use a more literal interpretation) supernatural, they were idealized, flawless, perfect in appearance, so it makes sense that they'd paint the wings in a very flattened standardized way, because to make them more flawed and "realistic" looking would be to besmirch god's power
>>2522175
B) it was an accepted style and no person dared deviate from it
a bit of this as well, it all depends on the era the painting came from, styles changed a lot throughout the years/different geographical regions
>>2522222
>Before they existed no one had access to study closely what a wing in flight looked like.
But anon, look at the OP pic on the left: there's a bunch of red fabric floating in the wind, something that would have been difficult to study since it would have been constantly in flux, just like wings flapping in flight. Yet it has infinitely more life to it than the wings. Why?
>I said before it was usually a convention of design in the way they used the wings. They sort of frame the figure.
I can almost believe this, though I find it hard to imagine old masters choosing to settle for the stylization of wings, when everything else they do with regards to the figure itself is so polished and dynamic.
also
>quints
>>2522229
>aesthetics/symbolism
Fair enough I guess, though I find it a bit disappointing that old masters would have considered the wings in this >>2522216 an aesthetically pleasing display of angelic perfection. It's certainly symbolic I guess.
Wings like pic related from a modern no-name artist would have been much more ideal that what the old masters did IMO. It'd be difficult to do in an outdoor sculpture, sure -- but at the very least it should have been possible for them to pull off a similarly big set of high-fidelity, dynamic wings for the angels in their paintings.
The answer to this thread is
>FOR YOU
>>2522170
I remember reading the wings were nothing more than accessories for artists/the church, they thought angels flew using divine power, not the wings, that's why they have this neat almost cardboard look, they are symbolic.
They were not birds wings like in the second drawing, they were angels wings, something completely different and trying to explain it would lead to us far from the realm of art and more into theology/philosophy.
ITT autism general
>>2522324
>>2522277
checked
>>2522301
Intersting, seems fair, hadn't thought of that way honestly.
I think I found an old masterwork that actually depicts realistic angel wings instead of a magical cardboard angel wings. I'm surprised it didn't appear sooner, I've been searching on google all morning for something like it.
>>2522330
>carefully cropping out boy penis
Not an angel, but I've always liked this painting
BTW folks I lied when I said the right OP pic is a no-name. It's by based Heather Theurer. Literally the only good modern example of angel wings that I can name off the top of my head.
>>2522336
breddy gud
>>2522351
>the only good modern example of angel wings
On top of Roberto Ferri whose work I just discovered not 10 minutes ago.
No one posted algen's stuff yet? What even is ic anymore
>>2522395
Like most illustration professionals, algen approaches angel wings with just enough understanding necessary to be effective to normies.
>>2522351
>>2522357
I actually hate the way she paints wings. Anyways, there are lots of contemporary fantasy artists that have painted angels, so I'm not sure why you are having trouble finding them.
Example: http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?action=advanced&name=|[angel]&subtype=|[angel]
Plus there are fine artists who have done angels and stuff too. It's been a reasonably common theme for hundreds of years.
An example of wings that look cool and support the painting from a design/abstract way. They don't need to make sense.
>>2522475
>I'm not sure why you are having trouble finding them.
because most those wings are shit? Sorry anon, but I prefer wings that actually look like it could be a limb, and not a prop.
>>2522520
Actually no, a good chunk of the illustrations in the link are pretty cool, thanks anon.
>>2522520
Wings are always just props because humans can't actually fly
>>2522529
Doesn't mean it has to look like a chunk of card.
That's a nice pic though, moar?
>>2522475
>implying both those images are by the same artist
>roberto
>she
>>2522540
>>2522685
I'm well aware of who Roberto Ferri is. I quoted both posts because I addressed both that woman painter and also the comment about not finding contemporary artists.
>>2522529
RIP Bird Person
Because this is not about realism you absolute autusmus. The wings are supposed to look ethereal/picturesque/symbolic. This is religious art, not m-muh creature concepts.
/ic/ has such astonishingly bad taste it's downright terrifying. Suddenly all those threads praising shadman don't seem like bait or shilling.
>>2522170
Shut up an post more qt angels.
>>2522191
"B8?" says the man to the pond.
>>2523193
aaaaand rip this thread
nice taste you fucking retard
>>2522971
>symbolic
It's entirely possible to make wings look symbolic and ethereal without making them look like a pieces of cardboad though >>2522540
>creature concepts.
What? I've posted nothing but the works of academically trained artists. Concept artists tend to do incoherent nonsense-shaped wings anyway, sometimes like cardboard also, >>2522443
>>2522987
anon that is one weird wing
>>2523193
NO ANIME ITT
>>2523325
lol wtf that hand is coming out of her vagina?
