This is ILLITERATE narrative. This is weak science and trash journalism. Painters of the time were literal, which make this hit piece an illiterate writing of

This is ILLITERATE narrative. This is weak science and trash journalism. Painters of the time were literal, which make this hit piece an illiterate writing of history. This is news from the academic synod, and not without purpose to deceive. What evidence do we have that Bruegel was not painting reality as seen? Based on what report and observation does this journalist assume the details they give to you? Soon they will tell you the white whale from Moby Dick was not real, but a phantasy, no such creatures ever existed. This essay is deliberately avoiding Breugel's religious works and feeding you pasteurized scholastic to flavor his psychological profile for you to phancy. Yet they will tell you his actual pastorals "are a study of man in nature", in other words real historical document. They are telling you fairy tales while you look at real pictures, and then present to you, as phact, a CGI of Earth in space and CGI of a hairy ball of fire and CGI of a planet with rings around it. Bruegel's paintings are more real than quantum physical representations, but you believe time travel and aliens are more real than history as displayed in psychical images. This tactic is modern and used religiously, it is no different than character deformation. If you care more about the man than the work, you can write off the result any which way. Now you are set loose to believe a person would only say or do as such because they are "crazy" or have a phony syndrome; in reality they give you the syndrome. The proof of this is simple. If you see beauty, nobody can tell that what you feel is actually the very image and form of the opposite. The thing itself resonates with you, and thus the beauty must be in you also, as if you are the very instrument which measures beauty. If I tell you the character of the person, I am attempting to resonate those personal traits inside yourself, and thus if I say the character was psycho, and achieve that trait in you, your perception of the genuine article becomes psychotic, and you no evidence the person in question was any which way. Beauty does not allow for that, for nobody can tell you otherwise. Not all things are beautiful, but that does not make them unreal. Your sense of beauty is the barometer of sanity, but importantly it is the basis of true relational science, for beauty tells us that we should not be deceived by unreal observations which can only be given to us; your observation is the only real one you can trust. Now, you might ask "But then should we not question the observations of Bruegel?" Yes, that is precisely it, base your judgement on original observations and correlate those with as many findings as you can, rather than lazily accepting reformed observations by psychotic hackwits attempting to dictate what is real and not.