If talent is the only thing that matters according to crabs then why was all of Europe terrible at drawing for 1000+ years until the enlightenment where they got books on figure drawing?
>>7897872Ignoring the premise about crabs or whatever, that’s not necessarily a bad illustration, it conveys meaning and is clearly using 3d shapes to do so. Medieval artists could draw “properly,”they chose not to.
>>7897873>Medieval artists could draw “properly,”they chose not to.Lol no.
>>7897873>That's not a bad illustration >Pig looks like a sausage>Man has severe scoliosis and arm deformities >Angles and symmetry are all atrocious >"They just CHOSE to be bad artists"Coping
>>7897880Not every illustration needs to be perfect to be good. It probably conveyed some sort of method for stunning a boar before killing. It does its job, which makes the illustration serviceable as a tool, not a work of art. Therefore it’s a good illustration. And yes they could draw well, there are more accurate illustrations from before the medieval period for example, they chose to illustrate what they thought was important, which looks warped to us today.
Medieval art was stylized on purpose so judging it by realism is kinda mid. Different meta and not a skill issue.
i'd go as far and call it stylistic choice ala church windows. easily understood and symbolic in the literal sense. and if you call romans and greek terrible at art, you are being dense on purpose. great sculptors and artists for more than a thousand years
>>7897893Ancient Rome and Greece got flooded with browns and the art and brains (and especially the artists who taught the next generation) declined
>>7897902hey, its cheap slave labour or workers rights for citizens, not both! everything after that is up to the next guy to clean up. same happening with most western nations now till the inevitable collapse.
>>7897872They didn't have Loomis.If you wanted to learn to draw, you had to wait for the kingdom's bard that came into town twice a year, and then interpret his retarded songs."The body's tall, it totals heads eight, lest don't forget, about your line weight"
>>7897872It was a literal sin to draw loomis, it was considered a graven image.So they kept to more abstract representations.
>>7897872>he talks about Art history again instead of drawing
>>7897872Nice strawman. I think everybody can agree that you also need hard work and information become a good artist. Back then they just didn't have much information so the styles looked a bit weird
>>7897872>Europeans>talentThere's a reason why Asian genes are a meme, and it's because whites don't have them
I've heard of the medieval artist choosing to not draw realistically but I've never seen evidence of them actually drawing realistically. Is this the ancient "muh style" cope?
>>7897902good bait. Here's a (you).But it was actually constant attacks from Germanic tribes that ultimately crippled the Roman economy.
>>7898137Why do people here assume it's obvious you would choose to draw realistically? Like it's such an aspirational thing that anyone would want to do it regardless of context, culture, and demand. Nigger, do YOU want to draw realistically today? Every culture on earth has stylized the human figure in sculpture, painting, and iconography. But you bully your ancestors for having done it for a time, when it was the style?The Renaissance has proven to be an aberration, on the whole. Lessons were learned from it but people basically don't care to depict things accurately, and why should they?
>>7898204People want to have a grasp on fundamentals. Op pic doesn't show good stylized fundamentals instead it's simply bad.
>>7897872Crabs are right in this sense, talent is all that matters. It's only that the talent in question is being able to sit down and actually practice for extended periods of time (say 3 hours per day). If you lack this talent, you won't EVER make it in ANYTHING.Dopamine fiends and ADHD-tards, will NEVER be good at anything.
>>7897872>Cherry picking the worst Medieval meme art>where they got books on figure drawing?Books weren't a thing for drawing and painting for quite some time. They mainly had artist/crafts guilds and masters and apprenticeships. It wasn't until later that mass produced art books even became a thing since producing books like using the printing press was time consuming asf and why produce a how-to art book when there were far more important things to reproduce literary wise. Be it for political, educational, research, philosophy or religious purposes. A lot of the teaching was masters teaching apprentices or guilds. And even then, the "art world" revolved mainly around the rich, royalty, and the church, and guess what they mainly made?
>>7898221Well you're wrong
>>7897872Because 99% of the population didn't even have pencils and paper. They were struggling to eat, they didn't have time to draw. All the art you see from this period was commissioned by the Church, and had to follow the specific Church style (poorly draw). Actual talented artists likely drew in the mud, but their works have been washed away with time.
>>7898204i do not have a problem with them choosing to draw like that. i do have a problem with people coping when the style is called out as dogshit with>Medieval artists could draw “properly,”they chose not toif you have a visual example (this is an art board by the way) of a medieval artist drawing properly, then I will happily gain a new respect for them.
>>7897872It's not like the Renaissance was some kind of cultural light switch that people flipped on in Italy around the 15th century and were suddenly able to draw with an accuracy or style previously unavailable to them. We know that medieval artists understood the principals of mathematical proportion because the gothic architecture they worked with relied on those principals. The Notre Dame cathedral, one of the biggest buildings on earth at the time of its construction, was started in 1163, that's literally hundreds of years prior to the Renaissance.We have examples of pre-renaissance medieval artists working in mathematically proportionate art as well, (like pic related - Plague of Florence, 1348; an episode in the Decameron by Boccaccio) The Renaissance just represents a shift in priorities for the artist, from someone whose role in society is to depict religious icons and moments of faith, to a craftsman exploring the higher ideals of aesthetics and form.There's a shift in culture across Europe following the black death, a huge proportion of the continent is wiped out, the low class and peasant labour is in short supply and is suddenly much more valuable, so workers can pick and chose which feudal Lord to serve for the first time. This means that Lords relax the uptight laws around things like fashion and other forms of self expression like art and music. This frees the medieval artist from the role of dutiful craftsman or religious contributor into a new kind of artist. A self actualized individual creative, with style and taste and self-direction. It's still confined within the uptight world of high medieval European culture to a great degree of course, but the Renaissance represents a loosening of the rules of engagement for artists, more than a upgrade in terms of skill level. Now working in the mathematically accurate forms isn't seen as a kind of arrogant indulgence in the fleeting world and is seen as a kind of rebirth of the artistic mind.
books on figure drawing didn't become common until after there were already artists who could draw. if anything art declined after these books. judging by pure drawing skills which is not the same as realism, high renaissance artists could draw better than later artists. later artists could only mostly realism fraud later because of advances in optics and later camera.
>>7900628Fuck, it's so rare to see an intelligent comment on art and history on /ic/. Thank you.
>>7900628>We have examples of pre-renaissance medieval artists working in mathematically proportionate art as well, (like pic related - Plague of Florence, 1348; an episode in the Decameron by Boccaccio)>XVIII/XIX century print
>>7898403People likely made art as a hobby. It just would have been using random crap they had, on severely non-archival surfaces. And there was basically nobody interested in preserving such things well or at all, unlike those pieces made for the rich or connected.You can use a stick to paint with slaked lime, inks, dyes, and so on. They're just impermanent. We may never know how much art the common people produced.
>>7900836yeah it's an early 19th century print depicting the plague which happened in florence 1348. aside from the printing press not even invented at that time, i could tell from a glance the style is completely much later. the style and subject matter also coincides with medievalist larp which was huge during late 18th/early 19th century.
>>7897872this is 1,000% more soulful than generic pencil realism.
>>7898403>>7900860they had paper and other dry media to draw with. paper was available even for wrapping parcels and produce, which although are less fine than the ones used for writing letters, were more archival than most papers we use today.carbon ink can be as archival or more than dye-based/ferric tannate inks and is cheaper to produce. the real obstacle would be the guilds. if there was much amateur art made it would have been simple drawings. anything more advanced they would need to be recruited by a guild.
>>7897880the expressions made me laugh therefore it is good
>>7897880severe and unbearable autism. ngmi.
>>7897872How much of an uncultured swine do you have to be to see this and think it isn't good?
>>7897872Imagine basing your entire sense of worth of art on how much it can attract shitskins, jeets, niggers, and chinks to click a heart icon on it lmao
>>7897872>>7897879>>7897880>they chose not tothere is at actually SOME truth to thistake a close look at pic rel, sculpted in 1100ad. when you consider how much technical mastery it would actually take to replicate a sculpture like this, you begin to appreciate how deliberate their goofy style was.drawing the 'badly' in ancient culture is often tied to religious beliefs about the purpose of iconography. egyptians built the sphinx, but chose to those draw weird 2d figures for 3000 years. all that being said even when artists eventually began to value realism more it took them a long time to figure out how perspective actually works. even durer was drawing in one point perspective. earlier attempts often involved multiple vanishing points at wildly impossible angles. considering how simple it seems to learn 2/3 point perspective today, this development (or lack of) is far more puzzling to me.
>>7906263pic rel zoomed out
>>7906263>considering how simple it seems to learn 2/3 point perspective today, this development (or lack of) is far more puzzling to me.Every innovation seems obvious in hindsight. I was just watching a video on that earlier. How it's not actually easy to make something as simple as the modern soda can. It took manufacturers years just to think to put a thingamajig on it that secures the tab in place so that people are not littering the earth with metal garbage; and it took additional years of product development to engineer the design of it for mass production. This is before getting to the can itself, which wasn't obvious.It took until after WW2 for someone to invent the modern, mass-produced ballpoint pen, even though a patent for a ballpoint pen design dates back to the 19th century. It was that fucking difficult to get the silly little ball in it to deliver ink consistently, and today we have mastered the technology so greatly that we see them as disposable.
>>7906282>Every innovation seems obvious in hindsight.i agreebut perspective isnt really comparable to soda cans and ball point pens. those are examples of perfectly engineered products, while 3 point perspective is more like a geometric truth.
>>7897872talent is just a convenience word: you see someone being good at something and you don't know why so you just call it talent.As for the medievals think as to why that period associated with the dark ages. greeks could sculpt very well.
>>7906300perspective is not easy at all ive read a book on number zero authors claims that perspective was discovered right after hindu/arabic numerals were imported to the weston top of these numerals being superior to romans in every way it had a way to describe the concept of zero no way to do that in romans. so what this lead to is flexibility in being able to describe 3d space accurately suddenly the idea that things vanish at the vanishing point is not so spooky anymore and easier to communicate and articulate.imagine for a second a language where word for zero doesn't exists how could you come up with perspective in that kind of scenario? and if you could come up with it how could you teach it to others?geometric innovations that came thanks to hindu/arab numbers also helped.now is that author correct? maybe. I feel like ancient Greeks and ancient Chinese could've discovered perspective too if it werent for romans/mongols without these numerals.
