Live data from Hacker News

Classical statues were not painted horribly

worksinprogress.co

321–330 of 351 posts

Re: Classical statues were not painted horribly

#321
post #249
post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but medieval European art generally sucked. (Call this a hypothesis if that helps.) Compare the damn cave paintings of buffalo to most medieval European art. Some of the 10k-year-old stuff is much better observed. Europeans between about 500 and 1300 mostly couldn't paint. I'm sorry about that. It's just not always taste. Sometimes it's taste. Sometimes people are bad at making art.

I won't bother getting into trying to demonstrate Medieval art doesn't "suck", it's not worth dignifying. But you should be aware you might be placing too much emphasis on painting and drawing specifically as opposed to other art forms.

Isn't the actual topic of this thread specific to painting? On sculptures, but the skillset is painting; you can't paint a marble bust with a chisel.

Re: Classical statues were not painted horribly

#322
post #160
post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but medieval European art generally sucked. (Call this a hypothesis if that helps.) Compare the damn cave paintings of buffalo to most medieval European art. Some of the 10k-year-old stuff is much better observed. Europeans between about 500 and 1300 mostly couldn't paint. I'm sorry about that. It's just not always taste. Sometimes it's taste. Sometimes people are bad at making art.

I have my own take that painting as art peaked long ago. And now we are mostly at similar level to that in middle-ages... Paintings used to be better, and before that they were worse.

Pre-Raphaelites still exist. Your tribe!

Re: Classical statues were not painted horribly

#323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weell, there's a reason the Renaissance is called "renaissance" and not something else.

The Renaissance is really the tail end of the Middle Ages historically, and the name is a bit of propaganda, just like "Enlightenment". People flatter themselves.

> The Renaissance is really the tail end of the Middle Ages historically

And the Space Age is really the tail end of the Steam Age. Human history doesn't have any sharp divisors, aside from total genocides or the even rare natural disasters on the scale of Pompeii's demise.

The admittedly artificial definition of the start of the Renaissance, however, does help frame an explosive growth of useful new tools in art (and other endeavors), like perspective, oil paints, and so on.

Re: Classical statues were not painted horribly

#324
post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They only started adding feathers after they found evidence of them being feathered, though. Plus there's zero direct evidence for their colours so there's no option but to use guesswork in these cases. And a lot of dinosaur reconstructions may be more for edutainment value rather than reflecting a scholarly best-guess. There's no uniform methodology across all these disciplines.

> Plus there's zero direct evidence for their colours This is no longer true! Starting with Sinosauropteryx in 2010, paleontologists have identified what they believe to be fossilized melanin-containing organelles. These organelles, called melanosomes, have different shapes depending on which color they produce, and those shapes are preserved well enough to be visible under an electron microscope.

Amazing, thanks for pointing it out. In the meantime, there's been some rejigging of the classification so it's this related genus where they've found the melanosomes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huadanosaurus

Re: Classical statues were not painted horribly

#325
post #270
post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An awful lot of the things hanging in museums look "bad" to me. I'm not just talking about the easily-mocked contemporary art. I mean things like Medieval paintings with Jesus painted as a baby-sized adult man. Everything before the development of perspective looks like a grade-school cartoon. I'm sure you're right that reconstructions of painted statues are inaccurate. But I'm not sure that a good-looking reconstruc…

> An awful lot of the things hanging in museums look "bad" to me. I'm not just talking about the easily-mocked contemporary art. I mean things like Medieval paintings with Jesus painted as a baby-sized adult man. Everything before the development of perspective looks like a grade-school cartoon. Perspective wasn't developed! The Greeks and Romans used it just fine, for example. What was lost was artistic training bec…

"since the economic market for artists is being destroyed"

I don't see it being destroyed. I mean the market for art. That's a market for tangible things made by specific humans, pieces that are unique.

Very hard to see how AI will affect that since the market is dominated to large extent by the need by the art salespeople, art institutions, and art collectors to sustain prestige and investment value.

If it just about volume, China would have destroyed it decades ago. Clearly adding even more volume will hardly put a dent to it.

Re: Classical statues were not painted horribly

#326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. 2000 years is a long time.

But you'd think at least some would be unearthed in Pompeii.

Most of Pompeii remains unexcavated, so there is still hope.

Latest excavation: https://www.pbs.org/video/episode-1-eyvf5d/ (Also on Apple TV)

Re: Classical statues were not painted horribly

#327
post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I mean you find lots of wonky sculptures and reliefs in medieval art but people in Europe still made some really stunning pieces of art, e.g. see The Lady and the Unicorn ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lady_and_the_Unicorn ), or the Choir Screen at the Amiens Cathedral ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiens_Cathedral#The_Choir_scr... .)) and so on. So it's kind of a sweeping generalisation to say that "med…

Mmm both of those are from 1400s and OP do limit it to 1300. And that 1300 limit is for good reason. Renaissance is usually dated after 1453 and that's when European art quality exploded. So yeah, those examples instead prove OP's statement.

[deleted]

Re: Classical statues were not painted horribly

#328
post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I mean you find lots of wonky sculptures and reliefs in medieval art but people in Europe still made some really stunning pieces of art, e.g. see The Lady and the Unicorn ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lady_and_the_Unicorn ), or the Choir Screen at the Amiens Cathedral ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiens_Cathedral#The_Choir_scr... .)) and so on. So it's kind of a sweeping generalisation to say that "med…

Mmm both of those are from 1400s and OP do limit it to 1300. And that 1300 limit is for good reason. Renaissance is usually dated after 1453 and that's when European art quality exploded. So yeah, those examples instead prove OP's statement.

If you want to nitpick, I can point out that the full quote is "Europeans between about 500 and 1300 mostly couldn't paint"; stress on "about", and those aren't paintings.

Besides the comment started by saying that "medieval European art generally sucked", so it covers the work I mention.

That's if you want to nitpick. If you don't, both those works are hallmarks of medieval art and while they're not necessarily exemplars, it is important to remember that there were still artists who knew their stuff in and out in medieval times and the Renaissance didn't come out of nowhere.

Edit: I travel through Europe by train a lot (mainly France and Italy but also Switzerland and Germany occasionally) and I visit museums, cathedrals, and art galleries in every city I stay. I have seen a lot of medieval art because those places just seem to have it lying around by the bucketload. There is a broad range in quality, but I have seen some very high quality woodcuts and, indeed, paintings, although those tend to be religious icons. Sculptures also, but mainly in statues of saints on the outside of cathedrals (see e.g. the Rouen cathedral). I'm trying to say that I'm not some kind of art authority or expert on medieval art, but I have seen my fair share of it, and no, Europeans didn't just suck at art in the medieval. I think what happened is there was a lot of mostly religious art that was lower quality, sort of like you can find plenty of slop on the internet today, but there were still skilled artists that created shockingly good art. You'd be more likely to find it in the palaces of the rich and powerful, I reckon, because they were the ones who could afford/support talented artists, as opposed to more ordinary craftsmen, who would be paid less. For the same reason you might find less of the good art lying around than the rougher, cruder kind, because the former was more expensive and thus harder to obtain. This also goes for religious art, which tended to include a smorgasboard of art forms, from painted icons and sculptures to reliquaries and liturgical equipment like communion chalices. But good medieval art existed, I've seen it, and it wasn't that rare.

Re: Classical statues were not painted horribly

#329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've not seen the latest Jurassic Park movie, but I've seen a clip with velociraptor's with feathers, and maybe quetzlcoatalus too? Along with colourful skin on eg compsagnathus. They seem to have moved on a bit, they're balancing audience expectations with latest research, I expect.

This guy had feathers and they made him the right size https://jurassicpark.fandom.com/wiki/Oviraptor

They didn't revisit any of the previously featured dinosaurs. The T-Rex in the latest film looks like the best science can ascertain ... in 1990.

Re: Classical statues were not painted horribly

#330
post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mmm both of those are from 1400s and OP do limit it to 1300. And that 1300 limit is for good reason. Renaissance is usually dated after 1453 and that's when European art quality exploded. So yeah, those examples instead prove OP's statement.

If you want to nitpick, I can point out that the full quote is "Europeans between about 500 and 1300 mostly couldn't paint"; stress on "about", and those aren't paintings. Besides the comment started by saying that "medieval European art generally sucked", so it covers the work I mention. That's if you want to nitpick. If you don't, both those works are hallmarks of medieval art and while they're not necessarily exem…

It's not nitpicking. 1450 is not between 500 and 1300. You may stress "about" but I certainly didn't.

I put the cut-off at 1300 very intentionally. As soon as you go much past 1300, you start to see stuff like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Rublev#/media/File:Rubl... That's some good shit. I see this in Wikipedia dated 1338: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lorenzetti_amb.effect2.jp... Not bad at all. They're already creeping up on or El Greco or Da Vinci or something.

And if we move the cut-off all the way to 1450, fuhgeddaboudit. You have freaking Albrecht D\:urer by that time. No fair. I'm sorry. The challenge concerned a particular 800-year period, which I chose carefully.

Yes I hear you about the range of quality. You're right. Many of the best pieces may have been "exhibited to death." There was presumably lots of student art and whatnot, probably not considered very good at the time, but it happened to survive. I accept that. But I'm only asking for a single counterexample in an 800-year block of time. I think that's fair.

If you like, though, I'm happy to amend my claim to this: "No, medieval European art did not suck. European art between 500 and 1300 sucked. But from 1300 until whenever the Renaissance starts, watch out. Those folks did some really nice work."

Post reply on HN