Thread 7775364

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 laundry
You're naive if you pretend they didn't play a major role in it
Camera 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?

>>7775380
if 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.

>>7775414
Again, 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.
>>7775416
People 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?

>>7775430
the 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.

>>7775440
That anon is right, you are simply not following the right people.

>>7775459
I've seen that painting like 10 years ago, has that artist made anything else?

>>7775364 (OP)
Why 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 this
these people are mercenaries
you can buy them with nothing and have them sponsor slop as real art
but 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 (OP)
>no one is making great paintings like this anymore
What do you mean? Like what?

>>7775656
classical realism and baroque art, you almost never see it

>>7775661
Not really baroque but look at salons and religious/historical art

>>7775668
This one didn't even make top 10 this year. Felt really bad seeing it lose against ai slop man playing music

>>7775364 (OP)
because it's boring shit. it isn't worth it

>>7775464
The fact that you dont know the answer to that tells me all I need to know.

>>7775661
>>7775364 (OP)

Bouguereau 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 art
Painting 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 realism
What do you mean by realism? Bouguereau is anti-realism in some regards. He never depicts the real, but an ideal.

>>7775687
I 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

>>7775661
But 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.

>>7775702
yeah 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.

>>7775711
Modern 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 shadow
Yeah, tats what you do when you trace the Camera Obscura.

>>7775703
>I think 50,000 per painting
you'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 Rich

https://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.

>>7775614
jesus, would it have killed them to pull up a tuba image on search?

>>7775731
The 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.

>>7775364 (OP)
no 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

>>7775750
Fuck off retarded cunt

>>7775364 (OP)
someone probably paid salary to that painter to be created. No one pays salary to painters now lmao

>>7775364 (OP)
It 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.

>>7775364 (OP)
both

>>7775440
And Giovanni Gasparro.

>>7775711
This 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 scary
Does it?

>>7775380
Art 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.

>>7776675
Its way too oversimplified.
But "democratization" in arts is a bad thing, for sure. The masses are stupid, lazy and tasteless.

>>7776679
When 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.

>>7776717
What is high art in 2025?
Modern museums are full of postmodern-slop.

>>7775364 (OP)
artists 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

>>7776720
Whatever 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

>>7775661
im 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?

>>7776737
Glazing 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.

>>7776734
No, consumerism and financial speculation is not high art.

>>7776745
my 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

>>7776772
That'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.

>>7776783
do 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?

>>7776745
this. 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

>>7776802
I 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.

>>7776752
It 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

>>7775459
Is this a touhou character?

>>7776802
I'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.

>>7776745
Boug only stopped painting when it got dark, he drew in pencil instead. Total commitment.

>>7775364 (OP)
The talent is there but nobody wants to spend a week drawing a fucking tree unless there's a handsome pay.

>>7777992
These are not even comparable to OP, total overpriced slop.

>>7775364 (OP)
there 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?

>>7777992
Boy o boy are those bad.

You need people to work together today in order to overcome the time it takes
This 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

>>7775440
That 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.

>>7775755
No 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 work

None at the level of old masters, which is why their mediocre art will never be make waves.

>>7777992
where did you look up these paintings?

>>7776675
It 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.

>>7775422
youre 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.

>>7778396
Thomas 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 art
This 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.
>>7778396
Again, 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

>>7778437
>Eurotrash fancies himself a humble god-fearing farmer living spiritually in nature, when his nation ranks among the highest rates of atheism in the world
>worse, is actually a Britbong, the most American and the least cultured of Europe
I clearly hit upon a nerve to garner such a furious, emotional response. Can you even think straight? Go ahead and larp like a Renaissance man and paint your scenes of Christ and crucifixion, of popes and paupers. Everyone is going to see how rankly dishonest and inauthentic it is. People can sniff out the fakeness out, like sour milk. You can see in this very thread how embarrassing and cringe modern biblical paintings are. A hollow show of fidelity and imitation, an empty flex - that's all anybody here is interested, after all, the outward appearance of the thing. You don't care about "culture" and "spirituality" or you'd be appreciating the medieval art as well, illuminated manuscripts, folk sculpture, and on and on. If you can't see how stupid it is to paint biblical scenes in Photoshop, you really are an idiot who can't be helped.

>thread talks about dissolution if artistic value in modern times
>le burger appears to shit it up by insulting everyone
I blame Jackson Pollock, Hitler and Paul Gaugin for ruining art, each for very different reasons, so we live in this timeline and not another.

>>7778619
Hitler was all about the larp and hated "degenerate jew art," so I don't get what your point even is. I'm giving you the real answer that you don't like to hear. People are not painting this way anymore because it doesn't make sense to modern man to paint this way anymore. Only larpers desperately clinging to the coattails of better men than them long dead remain.
Whether it's an issue depends upon your politics and temperament. The nationalists and the traditionalists see it as a pretty big issue, right before they go back to watching the latest Chainsaw man flick and masturbating to internet loli pornography. I'm just being realistic about the state of things. The west killed traditional spirituality in art, and here we are today, left trying to find our personal substitutes.

>>7775364 (OP)
Ok, question to all the anons here. If you had the skill, resources and time to paint a wall sized classical painting, what would the subject matter be?

>Do you think the reason no one is making great paintings like this anymore is because it takes too long
No contrary to what someone like Jacob Collins says oil painting in its golden age was defined by the masters working quickly, yes they worked with 50 people, and yes they took 2 years for each painting but keep in mind a mass chunk of that time was drying time and planning, during which they would paint up to 10 projects at a time, this is the case leading to average paintings before 1500 being 20 or so to over 200 per artists in fact Bouguereau produced 800 paintings.
In fact we have exact timing data for how he worked on each figure, it was said that in 7 days he would bring one no matter how detailed to finish.
Mind you he worked 16 hours a day dawn to dusk.
And also contary to what Jacob Collins says this is in fact because very little of these techniques still survive most being lost and most people lack the work ethic to paint AS A JOB.
16 HOURS A DAY.
Anyone who says "it takes too long" is making excuses for themselves even worse than "no one can do this anymore because the techniques are all lost."
The 2nd group of people or "Technique Loss Chads" as I call them are correct and for the record these were lost gradually prior to modernism.
If we still had them and most artists did their JOB 16 hours a day non stop we would still have paintings like these.

>>7775364 (OP)
The main sources of funding for large painting projects are from entertainment companies. A lot of them are digital in format, so the art is going to be digital as well. Tabletop games usually cheap out on artists, so investing physical materials in a work that can’t be resold doesn’t make sense. Wizards of the Coast, for instance, allows artists to sell their traditional works, but the works are limited to certain kinds of subject matter and the composition will be simplified for printing on a card.

Western art education is also ass rn and doesn’t promote any kind of creative fundamentals. Its either you learn to copy shit 1-for-1 or you do whatever the fuck you want as long as you can say enough words to make the art teacher happy.

Still, there are good contemporary artists out there, but they will be painting stuff they are interested in.
Some would be Nick Alm or Mian Situ

We will never have another Monet. This painting genuinely makes me want to cry when I see it. He understood so much and could express it flawlessly.

>>7775671
It's well crafted and rendered, but it's missing the raw emotion and humanity that the great painters of the past like Rembrandt and Repin infused into their work. It just looks like a group of models in period clothing posing for a painting.

>>7775380
Funnily enough, there are still people who try at that sort of Romantic figurative classical stuff, but it's mostly black and Asian artists, because their tradition (and popular depiction) employs a lot of the principles of modernism, and therefore application of classical principles is relatively avant garde. Looking at Kehinde Wiley and sculptures by that Chinese chick neo nazis were holding up as peak white art.

>>7775422
>Again, what would contemporary artists paint in this tradition?

>>7778304
>No one alive is at the level of mastery for classical painting
There are people who can make hyperrealistic paintings in MSPaint. The issue probably isn't skill or observation.

>>7779280
>level of mastery = hyperreal observational painting
Midwit post discarded instantly.

>>7778530
> Art created for rich people is a completely different and separate world

Yes, but also no. The overlap is pretty severe. There is no 'rich people films' or 'rich people books' or 'rich people vidya'. Art created for rich people only exists in extremely specific areas like fine art, and everything else is shared. Even high-end fashion brands are marketed toward regular people now. It creates the illusion that there is no separation between the elites and the plebs when that couldn't be further from the case.

>>7779269
>>7779272
Kehinde Wiley does not paint 1:1 how old masters do neither does anyone alive. Not Ferri (though i have no been able to verify in person like I did for the others), not Gasparro, not anyone from any atelier either, sculpt maybe.
You are correct though. Blacks and asians are starting to over take the market. It's funnt because there was a handful one generation ago now there's probably less than 50% white people at GCA or NYAA. Even European ones are beinf gradually overwhelmed. They'll eventually over take what little whites are left only in existing institutes.

>>7779269
>Kehinde Wiley
Not sure if you trolling or not, but this postmodern trash is the opposite of classical art.
>>7779291
You understand thats not an organic process?

>>7779298
>You understand thats not an organic process?
No no I don't elaborate a bit more.

>>7779303
Not today, glowie, not today.

>>7779317
I'm not a glowie but when then?
Are you talking about great replacement as a whole? I know the Chinese are very heavy on education tourism just to flex back home but why would Israel fund black people to go learn academic realist art?

>>7779319
https://www.thefp.com/p/white-man-who-pretended-to-be-black-poet

>>7779327
Oh right simple DEI. I would say "even ateliers and ARC institutes do it" then I remember how many of their top guys are straight up jews then it msde perfect sense.

>>7779332
>Oh right simple DEI
No, its more then that. Thats just an aspect of it.

>>7779338
Yeah I know it's very intentionally trying to replace white people.

>>7779298
stop blaming shitty western art education on some dumbass conspiracy theory. You get what you invest in and the west has invested in STEM while cutting funding for arts education

>>7779392
Nta
Funny you say that because loss of both classical western techniques and themes are not due to academics but rather market competition among artists themselves.
In fact most mangaka and eastern artists don't train at art schools most submit into contests as teens with talent and get hired as apprentices. Something the eest no longer does or has done for centuries.

>>7779392
Also calling Wiley post modern isn't a conspiracy. If you mean to say that it is a conspiracy to say that ARC realist art institutes are now being intentionally flooded with blacks and asians it isn't.
We have
>public data on both increasing students
and
>data on the jewish head masters accepting them
Which makes sense.
Going back to "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
Niggers. The answer is niggers. They already paint them, nothing like showing off how well you capture them to win ARC awards and praise. We may as well fully replace both artist and subject matter.
Ironically these people, Collins & the rest, did not move to Somalia, the DRC, or even a nation with a foundation for the arts like Benin to teach blacks how to paint other blacks realistically. They only take in ones from here.

>>7775451
oil costs money and space

>>7778304
>None at the level of old masters, which is why their mediocre art will never be make waves.
i'd provide examples of why you're wrong and explain how time and scarcity warps your perspective of mastery, but you'd retort with the most inane bullshit imaginable as you've already shown.

>>7779284
>level of mastery = hyperreal observational painting
Yes. The bell curve is
>Make it look real
>No! True art is expression of deep intellectual principles and the creation of something which has never been seen, the application of craft to the boundless imagination of the human mind! That's why paint splatter is as important as careful portraiture!
>Make it look real

>>7779298
If you don't have the mental capacity to see that it's an attempt (successful or not) to carry aspects of the classical tradition into contemporary art using contemporary subjects, this probably isn't a conversation worth having.

Wiley did Obama's presidential portrait, which is literally the kind of official portrait of a head of state that much of classical portraiture... is.

>>7779291
It's an interesting situation and I think has some parallels to the migration of geographic centers of animation production. When a culture and society land on a particular state (affluence, but not too much; values, influences, etc.), it seems to look at particular modes of expression and say, "Yeah that's for us right now." (Perhaps with puppetry as a predecessor to animation.)

>>7779769
Its postmodern trash and a mockery of classical art.
Every aspect of it is displaying hate for western art.

>>7779764
Your reasoning as to why is midwit tier because you place final product iver technique when the illusion breaks the moment you take a close look at an alla prima portrait vs one from 1500 or painters who use layers. Ms Paint is even worse.

>>7779672
>I totally have 100s of examples, but wont post one because reasons!

The reason you and others like >>7779280 , or midwit right wingers who hail a chinese women sculptor on par with Praxiteles and Bernini fall into the trap of thinking people today are up to the level of masters is because it takes an expert to notice the differences between a realistic painting/sculpture and a master painting/sculpture. Those differences are thousands of miles apart, but even some non experts can intuitively tell they are not the same. Ill be charitable and give you some insight. Ancient Greeks established the pinnacle of Western art and their methods were later rediscovered by Renaissance Italians who established the term "disegno". They were not painting or sculpting realistic humans, but using the most beautiful models they could find to create ideal images of the human form within mathematical proportions. The Romans, after copying the Greeks, later fell into naturalism which was the first decline of Western art we can see, ignoring the ideal form and portraying more realistic humans.

As for OPs question; For Ancient Greeks, the projection of youth and beauty of were their societal principles. Today, with a population of 8 billion, the establishment has no need to project those morals as most elites are transhumanists and hate humanity. There is also a racial component. Lord Leighton spoke of the anglosphere as being brutish and valuing economic efficiency over aesthetics when it came to the art market, and we are still under that same anglo rule. The Dutch painters were similar, as they primarily focused on painting portraits of the elites purely for monetary purposes. The French academy established the Ecole Des Beaux Arts which failed to uphold the original Greek and Italian methods, and is the primary focus of all atelier schools today and explains the mediocre naturalist figure painting that you in ARC competition winners.

>>7779796
You can make all kinds of dumb, incorrect statements, and they will remain dumb and incorrect for at least as long as you refuse to actually explain your reasoning. (At least.)

>>7779799
Technique is in service of the final product. Otherwise you're carrying water for postmodern notions that value craft for craft's sake.

>>7779875
>Ancient Greeks established the pinnacle of Western art and their methods were later rediscovered by Renaissance Italians who established the term "disegno". They were not painting or sculpting realistic humans, but using the most beautiful models they could find to create ideal images of the human form within mathematical proportions.
Oh, like motion and sakuga. (This is you admitting that the Greeks dealt in what are essentially glorified, if visually-pleasing, cartoons.)

Also, the Greeks and Romans mostly worked in sculpture. That has some bearing on paintings of the Renaissance and later eras, but Europeans of those eras were inventing techniques and ways of observing/recording/expressing particular to two-dimensional media that the Ancient Greeks and Romans could scarcely dream of. Like, uh, complex perspective. The idea that the ancients were the pinnacle of Western art is hilarious. However, they did do quite a few things impressively, and many of those values and protocols are studied and preserved by contemporary artists. Have some nuance, you dolt.

>>7779876
Whatever, glowie.

>>7779884
You shouldn't talk about stuff you know practically nothing about

>>7779879
Guy one post above yours explains it best. You are confusing any sort of realism which isn't truly realism with the old ideal brought into reality of old. Sargent and modern painters as such like to use thick paints which can be color matched all you like but still break illusion.

>>7779875
>The reason you and others like >>7779280 , or midwit right wingers who hail a chinese women sculptor on par with Praxiteles and Bernini fall into the trap of thinking people today are up to the level of masters is because it takes an expert to notice the differences between a realistic painting/sculpture and a master painting/sculpture.
>Ill be charitable and give you some insight.
no thanks
your insight is mostly a flawed interpretation of ancient philosophy, and a gross misunderstanding about the practicalities of patronage.
nice bait though

>>7779875
It is very right-wing of you to make the assumption that because a painting doesn't use the exact same skillset as classical art that it's not skilled.

The art history chuds are always nodraw cunts.

>>7779884
>(This is you admitting that the Greeks dealt in what are essentially glorified, if visually-pleasing, cartoons.)

This is you outing yourself as a midwit chinaman.

>Also, the Greeks and Romans mostly worked in sculpture

How do you think masters like Praxiteles, Lysippos, and Polykleitos perfected their highly advanced proportions?

Advanced perspective is only a small portion of what makes classical painters elite. They were master drafstmen first, the likes of which your favorite mangooka artist will never hold a candle to. The amount of nuance in the line quality alone is magnitudes above the greatest jap artist alive or dead. You should heed the advice of >>7779901

>>7779974
>your insight is mostly a flawed interpretation of ancient philosophy, and a gross misunderstanding about the practicalities of patronage and means my favorite shotacon artists are just like michelangelo!!!

>>7780003
>The art history chuds are always nodraw cunts.

Im not going to be baited into posting my work on an anime image board to dunk on a bunch of Asians. Fyi i can draw anime better than all you weebs. Id also be considered leftwing by most alt right fags.

>>7780048
>"my favorite shotacon artists are just like michelangelo!!!"
>if i assume his tastes and i strawman him into a pedophile, my point will have buoyancy!
not beating the "inane bullshit" allegations

>>7780048
>advanced perspective

This is you outing yourself as a nodraw cunt. Perspective isn’t rocket science my guy. It’s certainly not any mark of mastery. It’s a basic bitch fundie. Just because it cripples (you) and 80% of /ic/ doesn’t mean it’s actually complicated or hard.