Do you think the reason no one is making great paintings like this anymore is because it takes too long to make or because they don't have the talent/skills ?
See anon, there was a whole cultural fallout concerning this very question that happened in the late 19th century and extending well into the 20th. The camera was invented, accompanied by widespread technological, social, and demographic shifts that made classicism and academicism in art no longer resonant with artists (as well as the general populace). Retards will call it jewish money laundry, but that is the actual reason no one is painting Greek myths in sepia tones nowadays.Because your ass would rather watch Netflix or play the 25th installment in the Call of Duty franchise instead. What would contemporary artists even paint in this tradition? Women in yoga pants in line at Starbucks and men watching the ball game at the tailgate party I guess.
>>7775380>call it jewish money laundryYou're naive if you pretend they didn't play a major role in itCamera was probably the biggest factor, but artists could've adapted to the new tools, instead of rejecting beauty for whatever many years.
>>7775380>What would contemporary artists even paint in this tradition? Women in yoga pants in line at Starbucks and men watching the ball game at the tailgate party I guess.You do realize that artists even in the 1400s didn't wear togas and live among centaurs and satyrs, right?
>>7775380if that's true then why do people still flock to museums to see old master paintings? When people visit Europe where do they go first, museums, old churches, parks. All places with sculptures and paintings.
>>7775414Again, what would contemporary artists paint in this tradition? It's a fact that the Greco-Roman world and the Catholic church resonated with medieval and Renaissance artists in a way they don't with us. They painted Greek and Roman legends, and Christian mythology as well. What the fuck would our artists today paint in such somber tones? Our myths are Iron Man and Mickey Mouse.>>7775416People are are interested in the fruits of the classical and medieval world as history, as a vacation opportunity, it doesn't inform their daily lives in an authentic way.
...people are making paintings like that, anon. you're just not following good artists. are you dumb?
>>7775430the only one that kinda comes close is Roberto Ferri, and maybe some Furry artists (there are some crazy good furry artists out there but they make digital art not physical paintings)
also while there are amazing digital artists right now there's no one taking those skills and creating physical paintings. It just stays as a digital medium and so it kinda doesnt have the same effect as oil painting does when you look at it.Recently I have noticed there are some japanese painters that are trying to replicate the style of the old masters. They are still not there yet though, its not easy to make large-scale compositions.
It’s fucking costly and time consuming. Trust me and finding clients is easier said than done.
like imagine how good this would look if it were done in oil. It would be so amazing, but people are wasting their skills on digital media.
>>7775440That anon is right, you are simply not following the right people.
>>7775459I've seen that painting like 10 years ago, has that artist made anything else?
>>7775364Why the fuck would you waste time making a great painting when you can draw porn of the new gacha game that came out this week? How are the thirdies gonna earn like surgeons in their nigger countries if they make this high effort shit like dumb cucks? Just use AI if you want free art, you cheap nigger.
Because salon judges are hacks. Most of them aren't even artists let alone good ones. Picrel is ARCs 17th Imaginative Realism winner and it's very clearly slop reference. Fucking Jeff Watts of all people sponsored this too and it breaks my heart because so many of the finalists were so good.
>>7775614>Fucking Jeff Watts of all people sponsored thisthese people are mercenariesyou can buy them with nothing and have them sponsor slop as real artbut that's a great thing, the faster it devours everything the better
holy shit julie bell still paints? I'm looking at the names and its all famous fantasy artists like donato giancola.
>>7775364>no one is making great paintings like this anymoreWhat do you mean? Like what?
>>7775656classical realism and baroque art, you almost never see it
>>7775661Not really baroque but look at salons and religious/historical art
>>7775668This one didn't even make top 10 this year. Felt really bad seeing it lose against ai slop man playing music
>>7775364because it's boring shit. it isn't worth it
>>7775464The fact that you dont know the answer to that tells me all I need to know.
>>7775661>>7775364Bouguereau paintings can cost anywhere from $2,000,000 – $3,000,000 If you can draw better than Bouguereau you can sell your works for 1000-5000$ if you're a popular artist.goyim artists Will NEVER Get Rich
>>7775661>baroque artPainting like people from a historical time period will always be niche. But you would expect to see more, i think. The answer for that is, its hard.>classical realismWhat do you mean by realism? Bouguereau is anti-realism in some regards. He never depicts the real, but an ideal.
>>7775687I think 50,000 per painting is possible if you are at bougereau's level. I would personally aim for something closer to Carravagio or Rembrandt since they were a bit more loose with their paint and most of the work is in shadow so you can focus on getting the detail done for a few things that are in light
>>7775661But okey, lets take Bouguereau. The guy was a genius, nobody in our day is able to paint like him.The system of academic art is mostly gone, it was replaced with modernistic and later postmodernistic slop at the beginning of the 20th century.Even if Bouguereau lived today, he would probably not be able to paint like this, because nobody would be able to teach him.
>>7775702yeah I messed up I think its called 'academicism' or 'Neoclassicism'? Basically realistic depictions of stories or events, could be real or could be fantasy/religious.
>>7775703>I think 50,000 per painting is possible if you are at bougereau's level.Probably more, many American realist sell for this price and are not even close to Bouguereau.
>>7775711Modern neo-academics are way worse. Why dont they paint like people back in the days, simple, they cant. Why dont? Its up debate. Visit the trad thread if you want more. But basically a hundred-year-old tradition died. Thats the problem.>>7775703>Carravagio or Rembrandt since they were a bit more loose with their paint and most of the work is in shadowYeah, tats what you do when you trace the Camera Obscura.
>>7775703>I think 50,000 per paintingyou're so brainwashed. it doesn't matter how good your painting skills are.what really matters is artist's name. it's just a symbol.goyim Will NEVER Get Richhttps://timesofmalta.com/article/china-s-art-factory-painters-turn-fakes-originals.1022345
>>7775717>Probably more,Warren Buffett is rich, so everybody can become rich. Brainwashed goyim's logic.
>>7775614jesus, would it have killed them to pull up a tuba image on search?
>>7775731The 100 year old tradition is spending 9 months on a painting. Digital studios like SIXMOREVODKA spend 180 hours on a Riot Games piece and people think it's an ungodly amount of time. The fact of the matter is that people who don't go through atelier programs or something adjacent underestimate how long something takes to make. Especially if it's big. For some reason people love to buy huge 48x60 inch pieces.There's a reason why phase 1 atelier training is usually something autistic like 6 bargue plates in a month where they expect you spend 20 hours on each.
>>7775364no market for it, the people who made those paintings were making them for people who paid a lot of money for them, if you did one now nobody would care or buy it
>>7775750Fuck off retarded cunt
>>7775364someone probably paid salary to that painter to be created. No one pays salary to painters now lmao
>>7775364It is not the painters that are missing, but the patrons. State funded schools and competitions are also not really helping with their edgy post modern boomer art. Almost all figurative oil painters have to teach and sell smaller portraits, landscapes and comissions to make ends meet. Investing a full year into one big painting is just not an opportunity people have unless you get grants (which are all going into modernist stuff) or have rich patrons.
>>7775364both
>>7775440And Giovanni Gasparro.
>>7775711This painting was always funny to me. It is supposed to be scary but she has that "nagging about the dishwasher" look on her face. You are supposed to run away, but you are staring at her with a boner and evaluating if she is worth all the nagging.
>>7776629>It is supposed to be scaryDoes it?
>>7775380Art was never defined by the tastes of plebeians, rather the desires of the rich, and as it turns out, what they desire most is exclusivity. Creating paintings like OPs was prohibitively expensive, hence why rich people valued them and why they commissioned them. With the advent of the industrial revolution, however, the lowering price of the materials and the appearance of cheaper alternatives like the camera, made exclusivity of these paintings diminish. And so, rich people no longer valued them, the definition of exclusivity had changed. My two cents at least.
>>7776675Its way too oversimplified.But "democratization" in arts is a bad thing, for sure. The masses are stupid, lazy and tasteless.
>>7776679When I said art, what I was referring to was high-art, which has and still is in the control of the rich, rather the definition of what high-art is has changed. The plebs have always had their own "low" art created by and for the masses, and what was once considered high (e.g. neo-classical) has migrated to low, and something new has taken its place. So I don't think high-art, at least, has been democratized since it's always been in the purview of the rich.
>>7776717What is high art in 2025?Modern museums are full of postmodern-slop.
>>7775364artists that made paintings like this would take years to do it, all while be paid to do so by a patron.even if you could do it, no one is going to pay your ass to make a painting like this in 2025
>>7776720Whatever rich people say it is. If some wall street exec is willing to pay 100 million for a picture of me spreading my ass, then that is now high-art
>>7775661im only 2 years into doing art (only digital) and i genuinely dont understand how its physically possible to do something this good, especially on a physical medium. do you pretty much have to luckroll your reincarnation into a rich family that puts you into art lessons from like age 3 or something?
>>7776737Glazing was the method he used. Very very time consuming. Modern techniques are a bit more direct. He also genuinely just loved painting. Quote from him >Each day I go to my studio full of joy; in the evening when obliged to stop because of darkness I can scarcely wait for the next morning to come … if I cannot give myself to my dear painting I am miserable.” I feel like a lot of people feel this is way especially wagies like myself. Take some time if you have it and learn academic painting. It's like smashing your face against concrete at first but lots of fun.
>>7776734No, consumerism and financial speculation is not high art.
>>7776745my worry is primarily the economic factor, the fact that each failed piece or practice is costing my financially (the paint, the brushes, the canvases) whereas with digital its just an upfront cost and then after that you can fail as much as you want without worry
>>7776772That's why most ateliers start with charcoal and gradually move to oils. Worry about "wasted" materials practicing is only going to hold you back if you try traditional.
>>7776783do you think there's any transfer between the two mediums? i.e. if you do digital for 20+ years and then go to traditional, most of that knowledge about form, lighting, etc, should transfer right?
>>7776745this. he painted nonstop he completed 200+ paintings and some were gigantic would take a normal person 10 years to complete:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIJrQeIvPaY
>>7776802I do both and have doing digital since 2015. I did a year of a physical art medium and yes, the knowledge like, composition, anatomy and other stuff yeah translates, but the physical/eye hand coordination takes a bit to accomodate. Oils are very expensive and take space so I practice a lot doing digital and want to get into gouache as it is cheaper and less space consuming too (you don't need to keep canvases and wood boards in your workshop). I think that digital art is also a tool to create composition and do studies prior to a definite piece. Creating stuff in clay can also help with that. Specially learning how to connect muscles groups and anatomy.
>>7776752It doesn't matter what it is. That art isn't created for people like us, and the people it is created for don't give a shit about what we think
>>7775459Is this a touhou character?
>>7776802I'm going through a program right now and the knowledge transfers but it's like learning a new instrument.I'm not gonna sugarcoat anything, it makes me want to smash my face off a wall sometimes. Seeing work come out as absolutely beginner tier when I used to be a semi professional layout artists is a massive massive ego blow.
>>7776745Boug only stopped painting when it got dark, he drew in pencil instead. Total commitment.
>>7775364The talent is there but nobody wants to spend a week drawing a fucking tree unless there's a handsome pay.
>>7777992These are not even comparable to OP, total overpriced slop.
>>7775364there are hundreds of people making technically and aesthetically magnificent traditional work and sharing their painting process or highlights on tiktok/instagram/other sfv platforms, and many more are only running local gallery circuits without an online presence.you haven't heard of them yet because you haven't actually tried looking and someone hasn't predigested and regurgitated them for you to sink down to your level of search effort, and they haven't died yet making their work intrinsically scarce and consequently more valuable.try harder, i guess?
>>7777992Boy o boy are those bad.
You need people to work together today in order to overcome the time it takesThis was also done before with members of the studio doing certain portions, or say one artist does the backgrounds the other the people Now if you got 10 people together you could easily make many but selling them is another thing still and now you have to split the cash so volume would have to happen You forget too that some of these artists weren’t paid a ton for them compared to what they sell for because they’re famous Oh lol and good luck getting that many artists to work together You have to curate a group like a band of musicians
>>7775440That hyperrealistic rendering is groteque and uncomfortable to look at.>>7775444 Nothing in digital art transfers over to classical painting. Those japanese artists are failing because they dont have the genetics of southern european artists nor the correct technical training.>>7775755No one alive is at the level of mastery for classical painting. Its not just the time it takes.>>7776675 Yes, the rich have lost their aesthetic sense, but there is an objective beauty to classical art that trancends our dead art zeitgeist. The rich can promote ugly things as they do today, but that doesnt negate this objective reality.>>7778024>There are hundreds of people making technically and aesthetically magnificent traditional workNone at the level of old masters, which is why their mediocre art will never be make waves.
>>7777992where did you look up these paintings?
>>7776675It was once art became a commodity affordable to the masses. Not because the plebs have any actual control over art, but because the rich can make a lot of money appealing to their tastes. Selling a $1 painting to a billion people is a lot easier and makes a lot more money than selling a million dollar painting to one person.
>>7775422youre clearly so much of a fucking midwit you cant be reasoned with. You literally cannot be told why youre a fucking retard for thinking modern contemporary artists have nothing to paint just because you said so.backwater inbred hick american trying to preach about how "our myths are Iron Man and Mickey Mouse". motherfucker said "our" as if hes a European raised with any folklore or myth to speak of. Of course you dont know what theyd paint, you see no throughline from antiquity to modernity because you live in a bumfuck nowhere Starbucks adjacent fuckscape. the people who live in the same locales as the subject matter and the artists who painted it have a much greater tie to literally every single facet of art than you can even chat shit about.
>>7778396Thomas Kinkade basically perfected that methodology. He was a very good businessman. Art and prints feels like it's so abundant now that originals are the way to go again.
>>7778304>objective beauty to classical artThis is going to be an unpopular opinion here, but I don't find most renascence paintings aesthetically pleasing, technically impressive but not particularly pretty. Baroque imo is when things start looking good.>>7778396Again, art consumed by the masses is created for the masses. Art created for rich people is a completely different and separate world. Both sides can influence each other but they don't overlap
