3 ms·
Really interesting. A key part of the cultural argument is about the change in art over the centuries. Of the sculptor of the Tetrarchs, the author says: > Th
by dash2 5y ago
Really interesting.
A key part of the cultural argument is about the change in art over the centuries. Of the sculptor of the Tetrarchs, the author says:
> The artist is not trying to represent the emperors photographically, but rather trying – and succeeding – at representing the ideal emperors, who fully embody the qualities an emperor should.
And:
> Often this transition is, I think, misunderstood by students whose knowledge of artwork essentially ‘skips’ Late Antiquity... and leads some to conclude that the fall of Rome made the artists ‘bad.’ There are two problems: the decline here isn’t in quality and moreover the change didn’t happen with the fall of the Roman Empire but quite a bit earlier.
How do we know that?
One interpretation of the Tetrarchs sculpture vis-a-vis the "verist" sculpture c. 60 BC is that the artist was trying to do something different. Another is that he was just less capable. The earlier artist could capture a realistic portrait of an individual; the later artist couldn't.
How do we know that the first interpretation is the right one?
The author's argument is that the later artist was still really skilful - as he puts it, "look at those folds!" Yeah, sure, he sculpts way better than I could! But that doesn't seem to prove that he is as skilful as the first artist.
- nolta 5y ago"[L]ook at those folds!" I'm looking at the folds, and they got worse. And take the cover of the Lorsch Gospels: the misshapen fingers, the bulging eyes, the blank expressions -- this is crude, not stylized. You get the sense that art is devolving back to the "archaic smile".
- jcranmer 5y agoThe parallel I would draw in art isn't anime, but the trend in art in the 19th century away from trying to make more photorealistic art. For example, Impressionism. You can look at the works of, say, Claude Monet, and see that the heavy brush strokes and seemingly incomplete nature of his Impressionist paintings aren't because that's only as good as he can do.
- dash2 5y agoI understand the parallel. I accept that sometimes, whether it's Monet or anime, people aren't trying to be realistic. What I want to know is, why should we believe that to be the case here?
- naravara 5y agoHe does mention one emperor in the middle of a chain of them who prefers the older, “more true” style. It stands to reason that if such skilled craftspeople were available for him they would have also been available for the ones immediately preceding and succeeding him. It being a hipster affectation or intentional throwback makes more sense than assuming he lucked into the handful of guys with the requisite skill sets that nobody else can find.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 5y agoBut with regards to impressionistic painting, the impetus away from photorealistic painting was the invention of photography. Artists could not compete with photos which could do literal photorealistic images at a fraction of time and effort of an painter doing photorealistic images. With regard to these scultures, I am not aware of any such technological push.
- DuskStar 5y agoSince my personal opinion on "modern" art (read: essentially everything you'll see in a museum that was made after 1900) is that it sucks, this isn't a particularly compelling argument to me!