3 ms·
I like the photorealism in some of these images. They look somewhat like contemporary people even though it's more than 200 years ago.
by asveikau 2y ago
I like the photorealism in some of these images. They look somewhat like contemporary people even though it's more than 200 years ago.
- argiopetech 2y agoPeople haven't changed much. We just wear cheaper clothes. No disagreement about the excellent art.
- asveikau 2y agoObviously clothing and hairstyles change. More recently, average BMI is higher, or people are more likely to be tattooed. I'm sure there's other differences that aren't coming to mind. But even setting aside any of that, it's pretty rare that I see a portrait that old and I think it could conceivably be recent.
- r14c 2y agoeven the amount of tattoos depends on culture and region. lots of cultures around the world practice some form of tattooing. even the BMI thing varies somewhat because different BMIs are healthy for different ethnic groups.
- Modified3019 2y agoThis is a tangent to the mention of cultural BMI, but I recently came across these: Ritual fattening of Massa men https://www.researchgate.net/publication/32978275_Guru_-fattening_sessions_among_the_Massa https://www.researchgate.net/publication/32978275_Guru_-fatt... Leblouh, the force feeding of girls to fatten them. https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-tradition-leblouh-in-africa-force-feeding-girls-for-marriage.html https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-tradition-leblouh-in...
- saagarjha 2y agoWell the clothing and hairstyle in the top photo looks pretty modern to me
- tetris11 2y agoPeople haven't changed much over the last 2000 years I think, just different tools and terminologies
- DiscourseFan 2y agoIts funny that you say that since photography was invented in France in that period. Was it the paintings that were photorealistic, or the photos that were painterly?
- TacticalCoder 2y agoMirrors did exists since a long time though. You can substitute "photorealistic" with "looks like the square (or rectangle) picture in the mirror". Turns out photographic pictures did capture that "image in the mirror" picture. Funnily enough, using... Mirrors. > ... or the photos that were painterly? The answer is simply no. The real world doesn't work like that: photons/mirrors/prisms/our eyes "capturing" photons. Physics vs dialectic if you want.
- kingkawn 2y agoThe nature of the photographic mechanism becomes a new definition of “reality,” but it is still a cultural byproduct, leaving Realness to be still uncovered in all kinds of ways
- taejo 2y ago> You can substitute "photorealistic" with "looks like the square (or rectangle) picture in the mirror". Reflections in the mirror have depth and motion. Even without the viewer or the subject moving, the viewer can see depth in the mirror that isn't in a photo. In those respects, photos are more like paintings than mirrors. Of course, in other respects, they're more like mirrors.
- spython 2y agoIn early photography history there was a pictorialist movement where people used special sort focus lenses to introduce more of a painterly quality. These lenses, such as Rodenstock Imagon still exist and are sought after.
- DiscourseFan 2y agoSo what you’re saying is that the mirror is the measure, and that the projections based on photons, etc. are fundenmentally evidenced by the form of the mirror image?
- throwup238 2y agoIt's currently closed for renovation and set to reopen in November but if you have a chance to go see the Frick Collection in New York, I strongly recommend it for two of the most photorealistic paintings I've ever seen: the portraits of Sir Thomas More [1] and Thomas Cromwell [2] by Hans Holbein the Younger (sadly the digitized versions are low resolution and don't do them justice). The paintings are 500 years old but look like photographic portraits, down to the individual hairs in the stubble on More's chin. Realism was in vogue at the time but there weren't many other artists who were as good as Hans Holbein. [1] https://collections.frick.org/objects/100/sir-thomas-more https://collections.frick.org/objects/100/sir-thomas-more [2] https://collections.frick.org/objects/101/thomas-cromwell https://collections.frick.org/objects/101/thomas-cromwell
- jajko 2y agoThats an obsessive level of detail for that era. Later Rembrandt's school were focusing more on the play of shadows on given subject and its surroundings, but most of the details were not to this level, at least not those I've seen up close (but still some parts were pretty crazy, ie embroidered collar or vein structure of wrinkled skin of an old woman).
- asveikau 2y agoLast time I was in New York I had lunch not far from there. Noted for next time.