Why don't any comics or cartoons aspire to sublime beauty the way great painters throughout history have?
Alex Ross
Comics are made by 3 different artists all overwriting the previous artists work on figures directly, antithetical to how old masters would have worked, all across a month on multiple comics most likely to survive, and did so on pulp papers that did not initially allow for much detail, nor did good art used to sell.Tldr a whole bunch of reasons.
>>150122127There are tons out there you just aren't looking hard.
>>150122127If your pic was put in a modern comic, cartoon or video game, she would be called an ugly tranny
>>150122151>>150122127Noriyoshi Ohrai
>>150122127Anime and manga are the inheritors of classical art.
>>150122185Huh?
>>150122166Stop looking at the screen
>>150122166Except she wouldn't, he face isn't mannish enough.>>150122199Unironically closer in terms of how guild studios produced works than modern Mutt companies so it's expected the material conditions are closer to the works that had similar ones than westerners who inherited nothing and refuse to go back to those times because it would be too communist.
>>150122127loving vincent
>>150122127Check out European comics.>>150122199Nah. European comics.
Animation IS fine art.
>>150124074No.
>>150122127Because you don't watch or read them.
Short answer:The invention of photography killed a lot of the demand for realism.
>>150122127Because those great painters took months or even years to make most of their paintings. You can't just shit out a comic like that let alone a cartoon. Loving Vincent required a whole host of artists to make and STILL took 6 full years.
>>150122127Comics are unable to. Cartoons however do do that sometimes. Look at Tangled the Series.
>>150122127Because until 1995 the printing process only allowed for 4 colors.Jesus you're fucking stupid. How can you be so obsessed with something and have no idea how it's made?
>>150122199Thisss
