Why couldn't artists achieve this level of graphite rendering until very recently? You don't really see it even in 20th-century drawings.
Another example
>>8017037Because this type of art is mainly produced to flex on other artists or to impress rich normies to hand over their money to make real art. A reproduction is genuinely boring, from an artistic standpoint, and only serves to showcase the artists abilities. Pre 20th century, they knew perfectly well how light worked, they were, and I'm using an extremely broad definition here, generally more obsessed over capturing beauty using paints rather than pencils with lead or charcoal. Look at any painting from the romantic period of art, and you'll get the idea. It's not that it was impossible, they just didn't value reproduction as a legitimate art form.Which it isn't, by the way, if I haven't made that clear. Even portraits done professionally, such as artists like John Singer Sargent, have artistic merits, and served to capture the essence of the subject. Image related, it's one of Sargent's works in comparison to the subject to illustrate interpretations of the subject. He's done plenty of realistic drawings as well, they just aren't famous for the reasons I've mentioned.
the 19th century french art academies could tho
>>8017037Because you basically need a photo reference that you can stare at obsessively for dozens of hours and cheap accessible photography didn’t become commonplace until relatively recently on a historical timescale
>>8017071pretty sure Dorian drew those plaster casts from lifehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ek5Z6J2a0U
>>8017080If you look very closely; this is an art course designed to teach artists fundamentals in drawing, and not art in and of itself. He uses the drawings as legitimacy as a teacher rather than expressing anything other than "I'm a really great technical artist, and you should listen to what I say".
There wasn't a demand and need for it. There isn't any still.
>>8017052Why did the painting turn him into Shia LaBeouf?
>>8017037photography
Optimized for being displayed on a modern screen
>>8017037same reason why there arent much watercolor artists back then
>>8017037Because graphite wasn't invented prior to the 20th century.
>>8017087>>8017052i can't stand this train of thought. art doesn't need meaning, nor does it need to evoke an emotion. art is literally just making things exist, and there are multiple ways to do that. i enjoy precise, technically-minded, accurate depictions of fictional objects, people, and places. i like the idea of "what if this laser gun was a real thing? how would it work?" it's a matter of satiating curiosity. painterly brush strokes and soft shadows might look nice, but they don't capture the true form as well as photorealism does
>>8017926Manufacturing and reproductions. You're talking about manufacturing and reproductions, and maybe aesthetics. They can be nice, they can look pretty, but art is a language. That's why it's called a medium, and we use media as a term for everything art I put upon to communicate with. What you're describing is more closely linked to product design, blueprints and schematics.
This cannot fuckin be a real question lil bro. Please say sike.
>>8017926He didn't even speak about meaning or emotion. It's more about not trying to xerox something and to instead capture essence and to have a pinch of style.
