I don't think one needs to like it to appreciate it. I don't really like Ancient Greek and Roman styles of architecture etc. but I appreciate the beauty in it. I wouldn't buy a Romanesque house, though.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Mediaevals Can't Do Perspecti--
- Thread starter Rival
- Start date
We don't agree on much, but when we do
Who says it's inferior? It is its own style but certainly not inferior.
For me, a key to appreciation is understanding, and I simply lack the knowledge that would enable me to appreciate what I do not find appealing. I should consider a decent course in art appreciation and/or art history.
I have come to believe that there are a lot of things medieval people—and ones from previous periods, even ancient periods—could do remarkably well that some people now underestimate them in. Recency bias is highly common, in my opinion.
Cave art is wonderful.
Definitely, as are ancient Egyptian art and Babylonian art. (I'm not biased on that one!
)
On of several reasons i moved to this area.
Like most things it's a stylistic choice. Certainly no stranger to people without knowledge judging the difficulty, knowledge or skill for a style or medium they just don't find a esthetically pleasing. *points at digital art.*
Samael_Khan
Goosebender
It has to do with figuring out how to create the illusion of realism. The greeks did it well with their sculpture, so they understood how people looked in real life, but their 2D art was still flat.
We tend to take knowledge for granted. People didn't appear just knowing what we know now. We build off discoveries of others. The same with art. People don't just know how to portray realism. People have to first discover how to do it or even consider it a possibility in the first place.
We see this today. Children don't draw realistically naturally. They draw quite surreal things without even proper concepts of realistic form. They have to learn to draw more accurately from others. It might even be that without other art around them they won't even grab the concept iof proper form.
When it comes to adults, most adults cannot draw realistically. They either didn't learn or they can't comprehend how to do it. There are people who studied for years who still can't grasp tone, colour or drawing hands. I have been an artist my whole life and there was a point where I couldn't understand colour, and I don't even know how I began to understand it, and I still struggle to draw hands because they are such weird structures.
In summary: realism isn't obvious. We only know how to draw realistically because someone discovered the techniques to do so. And we see how realism is obvious by most children and adults still not being able to comprehend it.
Samael_Khan
Goosebender
Reminds me of people who don't like retro videogames because they either aren't 3d or aren't realistic 3d. To me, Pixel art in gaming has its own charm. And, if realism is the goal, why not then just take a photo? If they want to brag about skill, I can bet that artists who aim for hyper realism would be able to draw more abstract art correctly because they don't have the skill for that. I find stylisation and the creativity behind it to be more difficult yet more exciting than realism. Art gain progress in range of ability, but it doesn't progress in terms of "better art".
Samael_Khan
Goosebender
"cough" Like the Egyptian Pyramids "cough"
Samael_Khan
Goosebender
I have the Egyptian Book of the Dead. It is so much like a comicbook to me because . The art assists the spells and ritual so well.Definitely, as are ancient Egyptian art and Babylonian art. (I'm not biased on that one!
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
Because while it may be simple enough to recognise perspective or the lack of it in a painting, the geometric principles which enable a 3 dimensional image to be portrayed in 2 dimensions, require considerable thought, effort and understanding on the part of the artist.
Last edited:
I do not understand.
Of course, but no more was required in the Middle Ages (or, for that matter, the Yuan dynasty) than was required later.
The will, mostly.
But -- if you'll forgive the play on words -- does this not paint perspective-rich art as a one-off that took off? After all, we've had centuries of prior art reflecting the life long dedication of numerous artists spanning multiple cultures. It's hard to believe that they all mostly lacked the will
It was the theology behind the art. They were forbidden to paint/draw too realistically so that the image was not confused for the actual subject (e.g. God), so that people would not start worshipping the images themselves. This is why icons are deliberately painted to look like cartoons. The decline of Mediaeval style religion coincides with a step towards realism in art, but this is mostly founded upon the idea of the individual. Mediaevals, for instance, by and large did not do portraits or family portraiture, but this became common during the Renaissance. The Mediaevals focused upon different things and were opposed to making anyone look too realistic by design, so such techniques were not necessary. For example, no-one actually bothered to do a portrait of the strongest man in Western Europe in the 11th c. - William the Conqueror.
Samael_Khan
Goosebender
Sorry. I mistyped. I meant that "we see that how to draw realistically isn't obvious"