5 ms·
Visual art is overrated and misunderstood IMO. Artists of the past were basically human rendering engines, which was very important because we didn’t have any o
by pfannkuchen 3y ago
Visual art is overrated and misunderstood IMO. Artists of the past were basically human rendering engines, which was very important because we didn’t have any other kind of rendering engine and looking at artificial images can be pleasing.
Can you imagine what seeing a nice painting of a person was like when you had never seen any other kind of artificial image in your life besides handmade ones? It was probably mind blowing.
Photography has probably totally destroyed our relative reaction to visual art, like someone who eats way too much sugar trying a sweet apple.
But now we seem to be running on cultural fumes in this area. It’s as if people still bought hand cobbled shoes for millions of dollars and displayed them pretentiously.
- MichaelZuo 3y agoI don't believe classical style visual art is overrated. My local art gallery, the AGO, had a large exhibition on Caravaggio a few years ago and I remember seeing the shocked expressions on the majority of the visitors.
- pfannkuchen 3y agoThere is social pressure to have this reaction to appear cultured, which is a bit of a confounder. Not knocking the skill involved, being a high fidelity human rendering engine takes a lifetime of dedication as well as a base level of natural talent which very few possess.
- MichaelZuo 3y agoI feel pretty confident in my ability to see through people that are faking it. Maybe I am exaggerating my perceptiveness, but being shocked by Caravaggio paintings is not at all uncommon.
- intelVISA 3y agoI liken camera to art as (recent) ML is to code. The machine may threaten to usurp the mass market but the few, skilled organics will always, hopefully, have artisanal works to sell.
- dagw 3y agohad a large exhibition on Caravaggio What is interesting and telling is that they showed a 'name' like Caravaggio, and not any of the countless contemporary painters who are every bit is technically skilled as Caravaggio was, and perfectly capable of emulating his style. If the classical visual style was still relevant in itself, every art gallery would be showing off those contemporary artists.
- MichaelZuo 3y agoWhich 'contemporary artists' still paint in the classical style? I can't think of any.
- dagw 3y agoGo visit some of the top art academies around the world. There are still schools out there training people in the classical styles. The fact that you can't really think of any artists or ever see their work out in the world kind of proves my points.
- MichaelZuo 3y agoSome of it must have been uploaded onto the internet. Are you sure there aren't any examples you can link?
- SketchySeaBeast 3y agohttps://www.huffpost.com/entry/contemporary-classical-painting-is-still-growing_b_3370484 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/contemporary-classical-painti... However, I've not got a horse in this "classical is overrated" race.
- MichaelZuo 3y agoThanks for the link.
- Bran_son 3y ago
- etrautmann 3y agoLol no. It’s an interesting idea but photography didn’t kill the purpose of painting on the 1850’s, it just nudged human creativity into new dimensions of abstraction and images that were not attempts at rendering reality. There’s no end of history, and we’re certainly not sitting at the death of visual media. The drive for art, beauty, culture, and shared experience will continue. Creativity will meet that demand. Yes many of us have seen a lot and maybe can’t predict what for new creativity will take.
- antiterra 3y agoI think it’s likely you’re projecting your personal experience onto others. I knew someone who was obsessed with the Red Room by Matisse. He was in no way pretentious or academic in inclination, but something about the actual painting itself entranced him and he could disappear into it for long periods of time. I honestly don’t know what was so powerful about it for him, but he was clearly having a genuine experience different than mine. Authoritatively providing my conjecture regarding his ‘relative reaction’ would be immensely pompous. Art is more than technique, the music performances that move us are very often not the absolute highest level of virtuosity. Photographs were incredibly common in my lifetime, but I was still very strongly affected by paintings on books, album covers and in museums. Further, non-representative visual art has a rich history. You merely have to look at the amazing art produced out of Islamic aniconism.
- mc32 3y agoIt's not unique to art, nor does it speak to its importance. You could easily find someone who stares at ants for hours on end. What does it prove? I think we have to understand its meaning and impact on a societal level and determine its usefulness or uselessness[1]. Not all art is useful and not all art is useless but some are one or the other. [1]Very broadly defined and not focused on economic value, though being a. Inner dial success is also valid.
- SketchySeaBeast 3y agoArt really shouldn't be measured on a useful or useless scale. How would we even determine adequate metrics for that? If we look at impact we'd need to consider The Bodyguard Soundtrack as high musical art.
- williamcotton 3y ago"And IIIIiiiiiiieeeeeiiiiiee..."
- laratied 3y agoPicasso was worth $250 million at his death in 1973 dollars. 1.6 billion in 2022 dollars from selling his own paintings. Painters at one point were rock stars. Just like today's rock stars are social media stars and not a group of guys playing guitar/bass/drum/vocals. Artistic mediums have their moment in time and then become niche, historical and retro once their time has passed. Marble sculpture is no less amazing than in times past. That mediums time in the sun though passed a long time ago. Just like if you go to an art gallery that arranges the paintings in period rooms, it completely obvious when photography became an up and coming medium and its effect on painting at the time.
- SketchySeaBeast 3y agoI think you're misunderstanding the history of art. Art up until the invention of the camera wasn't simply to generate the most realistic image possible.
- Bran_son 3y ago> Artists of the past were basically human rendering engines A lie promulgated by modern art as justification for forcing out all prior art styles and aesthetics, but nothing could be further from the truth. Have you ever seen photos like the following? https://www.wikiart.org/en/zdzislaw-beksinski/untitled-1976 https://www.wikiart.org/en/zdzislaw-beksinski/untitled-1976 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kajikazawa_in_Kai_Province https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kajikazawa_in_Kai_Province https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Aivazovsky#/media/File:Stormy_sea_at_night.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Aivazovsky#/media/File:St... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Swing_(Fragonard) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Swing_(Fragonard) https://www.bonhams.com/zh-cn/auction/27421/lot/413/kimura-buzan-1876-1942-sakura-and-rising-sun/ https://www.bonhams.com/zh-cn/auction/27421/lot/413/kimura-b...
- forgetfreeman 3y agoGross take. I generally loathe impressionist work for a number of reasons I won't get into here, but that doesn't change the fact that standing in a gallery in front of Monet's "Woman with a parasol" you can -feel- a light see breeze and smell salt. A powerful and (correctly) celebrated work done after the advent of photography.
- laratied 3y agoGauguin is the best example to me. I could never understand why anyone would think his childish looking paintings were so great until I seen some of his masterpieces in person. The amount of colors is just flooring and mind bending.
- mk67 3y agoAh, yes. Single-minded tech guys' take on art. Not sure what to comment here, but art has nearly nothing to do with replicating a photograph/"rendering". Photorealistic art doesn't count as art to me at all.
- EoinB 3y agoOh wow, what an uninformed opinion. Not surprising, sadly, given that so many in tech are so one-dimensional. Perhaps a course in art history would help you understand that visual art has never been solely about image reproduction. Even cave paintings were allegorical. My goodness.
- nathan_compton 3y agoAbsolutely bizarre opinion, friend.
- shadowfoxx 3y agoI donno, this comment feels like saying, "Machines have really destroyed our relative reaction to the Olympics. Who cares how far someone can throw a heavy ball when a cannon can do it much better and more accurately." When the reality is that people are still very much interested in the extent of human prowess AND other folks (often overlapping) are interested in the extent of mechanical prowess (We call those folks engineers and they are much closer to Art enjoyers than not). There's no doubt that Photography had an affect on "Peoples" idea of "What is Art" or "What do I value in visual Art" but... so does everything? Being extremely wealthy or extremely impoverished can destroy a relationship to Art. Its not so linear as, "All people care about is the ability to render images realistically" I feel like I could type a novel around this concept but I'll leave these seeds planted, for now.
- twobitshifter 3y agoA) Photography is visual art B) What an artist produces with a rendering engine will be starkly different from that of an amateur with the same engine. Art isn’t medium or technology.
- p_j_w 3y ago>Artists of the past were basically human rendering engines, which was very important because we didn’t have any other kind of rendering engine and looking at artificial images can be pleasing. If this were true then the Impressionism movement would never have come after the Renaissance. But it's not, there's more to visual art than just reproducing what we see with our eyes.