4 ms·

The two men have realistic skin tones, but the woman and baby look like they're carved out of marble or covered in chalk. I guess the latter reflect what the a

The two men have realistic skin tones, but the woman and baby look like they're carved out of marble or covered in chalk. I guess the latter reflect what the artist considered to be an aesthetic ideal and aren't intended to be true-to-life realistic.

pvaldes 3y ago
Creating contrast between the ugly real world, with all its pain, suffering and grotesque details, and the spiritual world of gods where everybody is rewarded with an inner glow in their perfect skins. An universally employed narrative
- unmole 3y ago
  You see something similar in Hindu iconography. Humans are painted brown, the colour of the earth. Gods like Rama, Krishna and Shiva are painted blue, the colour of the heavens.
NHQ 3y ago
The contrast tells us "the right side is obviously stylized, and this illustrates that the left side is rendered with realistic perspective". Which means the rock is round and proves the authors incorrect because they overlook this obvious perspective to claim the rock is flat and axe-like to make their comparison. Their theory rests entirely on the rock in the painting being flat, which could only be true if the perspective was flat. The painter made sure we can see that is not the case. The painter is telling us there is a narrative and a reality. They baby appears unconvinced and suspicious, as if he knows there is an alternate truth to the story. He appears to be pointing at rock. The baby is telling us he is not the subject, the rock is.
- pavel_lishin 3y ago
  Isn't the rock on the left, "realistic", side?
  - NHQ 3y ago
    The rock is shown in realistic perspective, indicating depth. However, the authors presume that we are looking at the exact front of a flat object, such as an axe blade. The realistic perspective disqualifies that presumption. If the rock was flat and blade-like, the painter could have shown this explicitly by painting the rock at an angle, like the corner of the wall behind them men.

pvaldes 3y ago

Creating contrast between the ugly real world, with all its pain, suffering and grotesque details, and the spiritual world of gods where everybody is rewarded with an inner glow in their perfect skins. An universally employed narrative

unmole 3y ago
You see something similar in Hindu iconography. Humans are painted brown, the colour of the earth. Gods like Rama, Krishna and Shiva are painted blue, the colour of the heavens.

NHQ 3y ago

The contrast tells us "the right side is obviously stylized, and this illustrates that the left side is rendered with realistic perspective". Which means the rock is round and proves the authors incorrect because they overlook this obvious perspective to claim the rock is flat and axe-like to make their comparison. Their theory rests entirely on the rock in the painting being flat, which could only be true if the perspective was flat. The painter made sure we can see that is not the case. The painter is telling us there is a narrative and a reality. They baby appears unconvinced and suspicious, as if he knows there is an alternate truth to the story. He appears to be pointing at rock. The baby is telling us he is not the subject, the rock is.

pavel_lishin 3y ago
Isn't the rock on the left, "realistic", side?
- NHQ 3y ago
  The rock is shown in realistic perspective, indicating depth. However, the authors presume that we are looking at the exact front of a flat object, such as an axe blade. The realistic perspective disqualifies that presumption. If the rock was flat and blade-like, the painter could have shown this explicitly by painting the rock at an angle, like the corner of the wall behind them men.