Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Venetian Bridge Brawls in 17th and 18th Century Art

publicdomainreview.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 34 posts

Re: Venetian Bridge Brawls in 17th and 18th Century Art

#11

Post by soiltype »

jubilee33 wrote: post #7
AlecSchueler wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's why there really isn't any "great art" anymore, at least in the classical sense This is a tautology, no? There's plenty of great art being made today by people feeling the same emotions as those in the past.

Well "great" is rather subjective. But in terms of collective agreement we can conclusive say there really isn't anything like the art of the past made today. As an artist I was invited to a much vaunted exhibition in Venice itself recently. It consisted of a woman sitting in urine ...but with a kind message asking bystanders to please not poop in her tank.. The link if you fail to believe it. https://www.nytimes.com…

I do not think this pseudo-intellectual desire to ape art styles of the past is really very compatible with the soul of an artist. Artists make two things: what moves them, and what they are paid to make. Ideally, these are the same thing.

No one is stopping you from commissioning paintings such as the ones you revere as the peak of art, by the way. Open your wallet if that's what you want. That's how great art was made back then. But if the depth of your insight on the human condition is whatever you're posting here, I do not know if your commissions would capture the meaning you seem to want.

Re: Venetian Bridge Brawls in 17th and 18th Century Art

#12

Post by soiltype »

jubilee33 wrote: post #5

Great art is rooted in the hardest of human emotion. Is why we look back to ancient culture with reverance and sometimes nostalgia. We wouldn't want to be there in the midst of the brawl, most of us moderns would rather jump from the bridge. But our human spirit and memory recognizes the suffering and sacrifices of the ancestors. It's why there really isn't any "great art" anymore, at least in the classical sense, as…

> those with the means to produce it don't have any great emotions.

Actually, re-reading your original post, this comes across as so asinine I do have to wonder if I'm replying to an LLM. Because it makes no sense to say that artists don't have emotions today that can compare to checks notes rowdy Venetians beating the shit out of each other.

Re: Venetian Bridge Brawls in 17th and 18th Century Art

#13

Post by jubilee33 »

soiltype wrote: post #11
jubilee33 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well "great" is rather subjective. But in terms of collective agreement we can conclusive say there really isn't anything like the art of the past made today. As an artist I was invited to a much vaunted exhibition in Venice itself recently. It consisted of a woman sitting in urine ...but with a kind message asking bystanders to please not poop in her tank.. The link if you fail to believe it. https://www.nytimes.com…

I do not think this pseudo-intellectual desire to ape art styles of the past is really very compatible with the soul of an artist. Artists make two things: what moves them, and what they are paid to make. Ideally, these are the same thing. No one is stopping you from commissioning paintings such as the ones you revere as the peak of art, by the way. Open your wallet if that's what you want. That's how great art was m…

Your absolutely correct. The Venice exhibition was made with 600 thousand euros of public money. The great art of the last age was also commissioned by rich nobility, basically the same as there was no public funds at that stage of developmemt. So you admitted that the public purse and what it is willing to pay to commission for public art is useful measure of a pseudoscientific constant, namely that of the public consideration of the "great art" of that age. I'm not sure that fountains of human excrement convey the grandeur that your attributing to modern art however.

We can make better than the past for sure, there is no point to rehash the glory of old, but we so far have not. In archeology there is a constant and agreed upon "decadent" style that can indicate when cultures have experienced conditions, for external or internal reasons, that ultimately led to their decline and downfall.

It's amazing that we cannot recognize the same precursors in our own. But perhaps this is interdisciplinary blindness?

Re: Venetian Bridge Brawls in 17th and 18th Century Art

#14

Post by coffeecantcode »

ziofill wrote: post #8
nailer wrote: post #4

If anyone's played Assassin's Creed II (or any of the Ezio games) (these older games were produced with help from historians) Ezio's scar comes from a street fight on Ponte Vecchio in Venice: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKTXd7L01pI2

Ponte Vecchio is in Florence

Interested in whether these bridge brawls were isolated to just Venice, maybe tanners and butchers had it out on all checks notes 3 of Florence’s main bridges

Re: Venetian Bridge Brawls in 17th and 18th Century Art

#15

Post by Insanity »

soiltype wrote: post #12
jubilee33 wrote: post #5

Great art is rooted in the hardest of human emotion. Is why we look back to ancient culture with reverance and sometimes nostalgia. We wouldn't want to be there in the midst of the brawl, most of us moderns would rather jump from the bridge. But our human spirit and memory recognizes the suffering and sacrifices of the ancestors. It's why there really isn't any "great art" anymore, at least in the classical sense, as…

> those with the means to produce it don't have any great emotions. Actually, re-reading your original post, this comes across as so asinine I do have to wonder if I'm replying to an LLM. Because it makes no sense to say that artists don't have emotions today that can compare to checks notes rowdy Venetians beating the shit out of each other.

It’s a new account (2h old as of me commenting) and it does read like LLM content to me.

Re: Venetian Bridge Brawls in 17th and 18th Century Art

#16

Post by soiltype »

jubilee33 wrote: post #13
soiltype wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not think this pseudo-intellectual desire to ape art styles of the past is really very compatible with the soul of an artist. Artists make two things: what moves them, and what they are paid to make. Ideally, these are the same thing. No one is stopping you from commissioning paintings such as the ones you revere as the peak of art, by the way. Open your wallet if that's what you want. That's how great art was m…

Your absolutely correct. The Venice exhibition was made with 600 thousand euros of public money. The great art of the last age was also commissioned by rich nobility, basically the same as there was no public funds at that stage of developmemt. So you admitted that the public purse and what it is willing to pay to commission for public art is useful measure of a pseudoscientific constant, namely that of the public co…

Actually this is a very interesting comment so I do want to continue to engage. Thanks for not rising to my tone, I suppose.

> So you admitted that the public purse and what it is willing to pay to commission for public art is useful measure of a pseudoscientific constant

No I did no such thing. I said rich people paid for art they wanted to exist in the past and still do today. It measures nothing.

> I'm not sure that fountains of human excrement convey the grandeur that your attributing to modern art however.

You've quite missed my point if you're looking for grandeur in it. I see an artist pushing the boundaries of art. Your questioning of its value is the value (or, part of it).

> we so far have not.

That can't be stated definitively even if we limit ourselves to large-scale painting. But of course, we have far more media available to us today than 2D paintings and other traditional art forms. Breathable tanks of piss, films, video games - none of these existed in the 17th century. And each of them is capable of evoking great emotions, greater even than looking at a painting of a hundred Venetians beating the shit out of each other. You've never watchec a movie that left you feeling awe? Ah, even the piss? Sure. What if it was a thousand women in a tank of piss? Use your imagination - that's what art is about.

> In archeology there is a constant and agreed upon "decadent" style that can indicate when cultures have experienced conditions, for external or internal reasons, that ultimately led to their decline and downfall

I have never in my life heard of this claimed in an academic setting - only from retro-fetishist cranks, if you'll pardon me saying, making some "hard times create strong men" argument (which can't be entertained, being ahistorical). Nor can I think of any such phenomenon in ancient Greco-Roman history from Mycenae to the Visigoths. Are you able to expand on that?

Re: Venetian Bridge Brawls in 17th and 18th Century Art

#17

Post by romanhn »

jubilee33 wrote: post #7
AlecSchueler wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's why there really isn't any "great art" anymore, at least in the classical sense This is a tautology, no? There's plenty of great art being made today by people feeling the same emotions as those in the past.

Well "great" is rather subjective. But in terms of collective agreement we can conclusive say there really isn't anything like the art of the past made today. As an artist I was invited to a much vaunted exhibition in Venice itself recently. It consisted of a woman sitting in urine ...but with a kind message asking bystanders to please not poop in her tank.. The link if you fail to believe it. https://www.nytimes.com…

I don't think we can conclusively say anything like that. Sure, a bunch of modern art is... odd, but that's more to do with the world generally being more ok with experimentation, and there's plenty of more classical work happening around the globe, even if it doesn't get the same recognition as various "clickbait", if you will. For instance, the bronze work of Luo Li Rong channels the art of the past pretty well, I'd say. https://mymodernmet.com/realistic-sculptures-luo-li-rong/

Re: Venetian Bridge Brawls in 17th and 18th Century Art

#18

Post by jihadjihad »

Cockbrand wrote: post #3

Gotta love how some of the spectators on the larger Joseph Heintz the Younger painting enjoy the entertainment. Too bad that these images predate the invention of popcorn!

> predate the invention of popcorn

Popcorn's been around for thousands of years.

Re: Venetian Bridge Brawls in 17th and 18th Century Art

#19

Post by shermantanktop »

romanhn wrote: post #17
jubilee33 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well "great" is rather subjective. But in terms of collective agreement we can conclusive say there really isn't anything like the art of the past made today. As an artist I was invited to a much vaunted exhibition in Venice itself recently. It consisted of a woman sitting in urine ...but with a kind message asking bystanders to please not poop in her tank.. The link if you fail to believe it. https://www.nytimes.com…

I don't think we can conclusively say anything like that. Sure, a bunch of modern art is... odd, but that's more to do with the world generally being more ok with experimentation, and there's plenty of more classical work happening around the globe, even if it doesn't get the same recognition as various "clickbait", if you will. For instance, the bronze work of Luo Li Rong channels the art of the past pretty well, I'…

> experimentation

That's what I find so tedious about that particular type of modern art (e.g. Piss Christ). It's incredibly repetitive and not experimental at all.

It's always about transgression (body, gender, etc.), it pivots on a sophomoric "what is art anyway?" question, it drives audience discomfort in order to have a visceral reaction rather than any other kind of emotional response. In the end it elevates the artist's intention (in their mission statement) far over the reality of their art.

It's incredibly overdone and yet keeps coming back around...to an installation space near you.

Luo Li Rong managed to grab the other end of the spectrum: classically/romantically-presented T&A.

Re: Venetian Bridge Brawls in 17th and 18th Century Art

#20

Post by soiltype »

Insanity wrote: post #15
soiltype wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> those with the means to produce it don't have any great emotions. Actually, re-reading your original post, this comes across as so asinine I do have to wonder if I'm replying to an LLM. Because it makes no sense to say that artists don't have emotions today that can compare to checks notes rowdy Venetians beating the shit out of each other.

It’s a new account (2h old as of me commenting) and it does read like LLM content to me.

Weirdly favored, if it is an LLM. Of course bad actors will be training them out of the obvious rhetorical tells, but a complete lack of semantic reasoning will fortunately always be a valid reason to ignore or dismiss someone's arguments, human or chatbot.
Post reply on HN