stags are dumb
theyre not
ur mom is doe
LOL?
>>4077254
lol
>>4077266
>>4077191
>MEEEUHHH
-literally all stags all the time
>>4077423
You and me buddy, you and me. heh how do I put this, you're a man of taste, unlike all these uncultured swine heh.
>>4077438
Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.
stags are food
>>4077444
checking these sweet trips
>>4077191
ur dum >:^(
*takes aim*
>>4077504
What's the point of hunting with a bow if you're going to use a modern one? Just use a gun.
It's like people who use the sound of an old-fashioned telephone as a ringtone on their smartphone, or an analog clock face on their smartwatch, or making a realistic looking painting.
Either use the real old-fashioned thing, or go for the superior solution. Trying to have "the best of both worlds" is a sign you want attention but are too lazy to do what it takes.
>>4077644
>realistic looking painting.
99% of /ic/ just commited suicide.
>>4077191
fight me
>>4077644
I just know I'm going to regret asking this but here I go anyway.
What is the "practical" alternative to "making a realistic looking painting?" Taking a photo?
>>4077714
Yes. Painting is a very nice hobby and you can exercise your freedom in infinitely many ways. But if you want to make it as realistic as possible, then you are just wasting your time, because a photograph has superceded painting for that purpose. It was once necessary to paint when you wanted an accurate representation of reality; that's why there are so many old paintings.
If you want to reinact the life of renaissance painter, dress up as one and use historically accurate paint and brushes.
Another comparison: writing a program in assembly language, but trying to mimick the output of a C++ compiler.
>>4077738
I actually find myself agreeing with you on most of your points, and I think I'm going to end up agreeing with you at the end of this. But I do have to ask: how many of those old paintings were made and used for "practical purposes." If you had substituted the idea of "old etchings of anatomy" for "paintings," you would have a solid point. It *is* more useful and efficient to use photography in place of those old tombs full of drawings of human physiology, or the thousands of species of plant and animal life.
But paintings.... paintings were never made for a "practical" purpose of most accurately representing what was seen. Paintings have always been about two things: 1. The painter saying "this is what I can do" and 2. The commissioner or owner of the painting saying "look what I can spend my money on."
Having said that, I might just actually agree with you that painting is an utter waste of time and a complete sham.
can we say that stags from texas are dumb
>>4077802
I'm specifically thinking of portraits. People wanted those, and they still do. The best painters did show off, but most were not that fancy. Painting was just a job. The camera has replaced the necessity of that job, just like many other jobs have been replaced by technology. People take selfies now, or use a slightly better camera, or if they want the best result, they hire a photographer. If you want to express your creativity (and are too afraid of computers to learn photoshop), you can paint. But why oh why is it so important to try to be realistic? Of all the infinite possibilities, they choose the most boring one. The goal of realistic painting (nowadays) is to show off.
>>4077738
Doing something for its own sake is sometimes considered entertaining. We call these things “hobbies”.
>>4077853
You mean "surrogate activities", engaging in which is demeaning.
>>4077847
Ok you make another good, fair point.
I'd counter by saying that "portraits" aren't and never were "practical" things. No one ever "needed" a likeness of themselves for any good reason. People *wanted* them for vain or entertaining purposes. In that nebulous space of "want" is the idea that people might *prefer* a rendition of oneself via paint over digital ink. If you say it was just a "job" and that cameras replaced the "necessity" of that job, then you first have to justify whatever "need" that was. There never was a "need" for a portrait, just like there was never a "need" for painting in general. It's just what people did because of reasons.
To address your lament about the importance of realism: some find it important because to be able to render perspective realism is an incredibly difficult and skillful task. Some people can paint beautifully and skillfully without painting realistically, but at the very least if you can paint realistically then you've accomplished something and done something worthwhile. This can't be said for a great majority of non-realistic painting.
>>4077889
When you talk about "need", you can dismiss almost everything. You only really need food and shelter, and the infrastructure to support it. There are countless ways to show off how rich you are, but rich people chose realistic paintings for some reason. If you're rich, the way to show off is to buy only the best, most expensive-looking thing of everything. Apparently the realistic ones were most in demand at the time. When someone has a painting now, you say "hey cool", but you're not amazed because you see still images of people and things all the time. I imagine people were a lot more impressed back then. If you've never seen a still image, imagine what it's like to see one for the first time.
Okay, it's difficult, so it's a credible way to prove that you're good to people who wouldn't be able to tell if you went beyond realism: the ultimate goal is to show off.
Unless it's just a milestone: first learn realism, then go develop an actual style? But would it be necessary if you did the whole process towards creative stuff in photoshop instead? (I think painting as a medium is worshipped because people romanticize it because of the association with cool/historic images.)
>>4077644
>>4077714
>>4077738
>>4077802
>>4077847
>>4077889
>>4077980
you're all a bunch of stags
>>4077987
>87
FORE!
>>4077988
dubs
>>4077987
Shut the stag up you stagging staggot
>>4077995
High quality post.
>>4078008
I've seen better.
>>4078013
Not denying that.
>>4077980
Nice. Very nice. I think you've resolved some things for me with your first point. I don't think I could come up with a fair response to this that wouldn't be pure conjecture nor would pass muster in comparison to what you just said.
Your second paragraph: yeah I'd like to think it should be a milestone for people who want to make paintings from perspective on their way to developing their own style. As for just skipping that step and going right into Photoshop: the reality is that personal style isn't something you "work on" by waking up one day and saying "I'm going to work on my personal style." It's something that is developed in the process while you are working on *other* things, namely, perfecting the more "objective" craft of rendering perspective correctly. Therein lies the "art" of painting. Aside from that, maybe photoshop should just replace painting? I'd definitely have an open mind to that argument. The only thing missing from this would be the connection to the "artifact." In the art world, prints almost always are valued less than an original, unique piece of art. This is because of the "show off" factor and also because of the idea that there may just be something missing in the original, something special.
>>4078021
Okay. I think with Photoshop, you can start with removing blemishes and zits from people's faces and move on to creating dank memes while you develop your own style. (The learning process doesn't have to emulate that of painters anyway.)
I think the artifact part is the same thing that causes people to want physical CD cases instead of just the digital flac files, and it's why homeopathy is appealing; even though all molecules of the original substance have been diluted away, you want to believe that *this* water still contains something that normal tap water does not.
I've read that Asian culture doesn't care as much whether something is an original or a copy. Not sure about this though.
>>4077980
>the ultimate goal is to show off.
Sure. Why are you even posting? You want to show off. You can explain away much, perhaps most of human activity like that. But just because you can label things doesn't mean people are going to stop doing them, or should.
>>4077191come at me bro
Your fortune: Reply hazy, try again
>>4078081
Yeah but the trick is to show off in a way that tricks most people into thinking there is more to it than that. Painters (as a whole) are very good at this, so they score points. I can take some of those points by carefully arguing that they don't deserve them. But now you're taking some of my points again, so I have to suggest a split (which is the best I can do at this point), which is why I started this post with "Yeah". In other words, you're completely right. I am showing off.
>>4078135
>again
That was something like my second post in the thread.
>>4078070
Interesting. So you have no value for sentiment, it seems.
Let me ask you another question: do you place value on recalling happy memories? Or playing the same video game/watching the same movie/reading the same book that is your favorite?
>>4078172
I do, but I think I have a bit different tastes than other people. Many things that people kind of worship, I consider mundane. There are also things I like a lot more, that people don't see the point of, but I won't say which.
I have nostalgia for some video games I played as a kid. I also play some games over and over, but that's an unrelated issue.
>>4077444
nice trips
>>4078202
thx bby
