Why can you tell this is 21st century slop?
>>8016612The alcohol bottle and glasses are constructed in a new-age-format, also both of the woman look new-age; their hair look unnatural for medivel-times. To add up, back than the woman never did a such side-eyes for a painting and to add more to it, why did she forced her friend to drink that much? Did she wanted to pass guilt on someone so she could sue them?
>>8016612Mutt facial features. Classical European women don’t look like that
>>8016612It's obviously painted from a photo, that's it. Even if you don't realize it, your brain can see that it's not composed the same way two eyes and a brain compose an image.Normies that stare into their phone and watch tons of shorts get used to that shit and for them it become second reality, but people that actually draw/paint from life can tell you that it's a photo instantly.
Her face is covered in something glossy. Slicked back hair and brows.
>>8016628This
>>8016612>modern furniture>modern items>modern styling on women>bland modern interior larping as a naturally lit environment >hurr durr how can tell
>>8016612I think it's actually her expression and the content of the painting. What is this even trying to convey? There's no real emotion in it. No real content. It's ultimately soulless. And the girl on the right is clearly bad at acting. Whatever emotion she's trying to convey is not coming through.
>>8016920And the background sucks too. A grey wall? Pfff
>>8016921>>8016920Anyways. The whole just feels fake. That's what gives it away.
>>8016618>>8016624>>8016638Everything in the painting existed a century ago. Are you retarded?No one is asking 'Why can you tell this isn’t a baroque painting?' subhuman retards
>>8016612the absence of background is an obvious tell>>8016628that's just because it's rendered fully. you wouldn't have time to do this from life
>>8016612Probably the drink cans. I don't think I've seen any classical paintings with those before.And since everyone is critiquing the paintings; it honestly would have been a lot more compelling without the duck-lipping woman.A woman who's partied too hard and passed one tells more of a story without the addition of some woman looking to the side whilst pursing her lips like this is a selfie moment. It goes from being a quirky little scenario to a painting that seems to be trying to be deep (but isn't).
>>8016612photorealistic brights
>>8016612This face type didn't exist before the year 2000
>>8016624>Classical European women don’t look like thatThey look browner.
>>8016957Schizophrenic rambling
>>8017035That's the entire site. Try saying something insightful, fucktard.
>>8016949>t. shitskinwhite people can instantly place an image of whites in time
>>8016612What looks weird here to me is lighting it looks like they use studio lights to make this photo that's the first thing and the second... too much realism. While realistic paintings were thing in past too they put lot of awful detail in glasses but it lacks on skin. Also woman face eyebrows this is modern style.
overexposed. no chiaroscuro whatsoever. minimalist illogical background. what is this, a photostudio? what everyone else said basically. its modernist
>>8016618>their hair look unnatural for medivel-timesHoly kek. What the shit are you on about? Side-eyes? Fucking hell, just stop. Do you have any idea what art history even is?
>>8016612The reason for the off putting nature of the painting is the inconsistency in rendering. Her face is overly perfected an pampered. The artist most likely knew the model, which speaks to the ego of the subject. In comparison, everything else more closely resemble a mid 20th century painting, and has a generally more consistent tone and feel. The lighting is also more contemporary than most other types of realist paintings, as it's not uniform and focuses way too much on one subject rather than telling a story.
>>8017120post one premodern painting with that hair
>>8016612>Flat background that looks like a photographers backdrop>Drink cans overall look out of place>Wine bottle labelling and the foil wrap on the neck look more modern. Just replacing the cans and winebottle with a couple unlabelled bottles or other vessel would help.
>>8017222What do you mean "with that hair"? The rendering, haircut, what? Here's a painting from 1850's by Franz Eybl called Reading girl, but I bet that's not what you're looking for, is it? Please be specific.
>>8017251face blind autist
>>8017251The discussion is obviously about the hair style, you disingenuous, obtuse ESL faggot.
>>8017288Sure, face blind. About hair. Prick.>>8017294Excuse me for knowing about art, mutt. Go fuck your sister-aunt, Mr Alabama.
>>8017300You are brown lol
>>8017308Just like you.
>>8017314You wish, brapjeet.
>>8017319Projection suits you, shitskin.
>>8017321Post those poopeyes, poopjeet.
>>8017308>>8017314>>8017319>>8017321>>8017327And I present to you: the american skitzo
>>8016949>Everything in the painting existed a century ago.Beer cans with tapered tops appeared in the 1980s.
>>8016612it's the brush workI pick up a few art magazines every now and then and lots of modern painters have these brush strokes where you can tell they're deliberately trying to make the edges look feathery.This is an historical technique but I think they overdo it
>>8016612Honestly, the biggest giveaway is that the woman looks bitchy.In the past nobody would have given her the opportunity to be painted, she'd be single and alone in the workhouse.
>>8017446This.I was able to immediately tell it's modern because of that
>>8016612she has iphone face
>>8016612the woman looks ugly and like a bitch
>>8016612diffused light
>>8016612Looks like your average instawhore, she has the wide cheekbones bimbo phenotype that modern "men" have been psy-opped to find attractive
>>8016612Too detailed.
>>8017032Egyptians aren’t white
>>8017791True. If only you could be so lucky
The composition is boring as shit, if it had been drawn in the 19th century there would be little demons dancing on the table or little rainbows coming from the glasses
>>8016612Fluorescence light and photographic color rendering.
>>8016612>Glassware, specifically the water glasses wouldn't have looked like that>Wine bottles wouldn't look like that, would have wax instead of cheap sticker shit on neck>Woman looks like a cunt with average zoomoid beauty standards of wide cheek bones and captain quark-tier chin, would never have been picked as subject matter or would have been heavily altered by the artist>Obviously studio lighting>Can tell it was a projection they painted over
Womens faces are ugly fundamentally and the foid responsible for tracing this onto the canvas is too stupid to know that. Classical era work did not make such mistakes.
>>8016612its missing a ring light reflection on her tits, but otherwise its 21st century kino.>>8018007this
>>8018007Found the homosexual.
>>8018017>"Women aren't le ugly ur just gay!!!11!">posts child
>>8018021trvth nvke. women are carried hard by their figure. put the average foids face on a moids body and you get an incel
>>8018021>retard grasping at strawsKek
>>8018040>more kidskeep going pls
>>8018063Young adults retard-kun.
>>8018073not him, but that girl is 15 tops
>>8018084So, a young adult outside of the American retardation standard?
>>8018088okay, so post an adult woman
>>8018088Young ADULT means "not a minor" literally everywhere, because that's what "adult" means. You can't be a minor and adult at the same time, ESLtard
>>8018099Proof those images are minors? Aside from your retarded American standards of course.
