23 ms·

I think you can say this about a lot of 20th century artists. Most of them could paint like the masters if they wanted, but point has changed somewhat. Where a

I think you can say this about a lot of 20th century artists. Most of them could paint like the masters if they wanted, but point has changed somewhat. Where a famous picture of Napoleon was painted to commemorate an like this https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fd/David_-_Napoleon_crossing_the_Alps_-_Malmaison2.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fd/David_-_... we use photography for the same thing https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/Raising_the_Flag_on_Iwo_Jima%2C_larger_-_edit1.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/Raising_... This increases the value of the artistic side of painting relative to the technical side. That said, Jackson Pollock sucks and I'll die on that hill

boppo1 4y ago
>Most of them could paint like the masters if they wanted... This opinion is common and untrue. If you've ever seen Tim's Vermeer, David Hockney, a well-known and very successful 20th painter, claims that Vermeer absolutely could not have achieved a particular gradation without some sort of optical aid. Then, check out https://www.instagram.com/grandcentralatelier/ https://www.instagram.com/grandcentralatelier/. Buncha 19 year olds with proper instruction developing near-absolute control over the kind of gradation Hockney claims is impossible. Hockney just can't paint, like most 20th century painters.