6 ms·
Those drawings show better expression of perspective, motion and proportion than what one sees in medieval drawing. And this is on skin, around limbs, as oppos
by topspin 1y ago
Those drawings show better expression of perspective, motion and proportion than what one sees in medieval drawing. And this is on skin, around limbs, as opposed to parchment.
Genuine art.
- ginko 1y agoIt's great art, but I don't see any perspective.
- topspin 1y agoI'm not an artist, so perhaps perspective is the wrong term. Depth could be what I have in mind. In the first drawing, on the left, there are parts of the two cat's both above and below parts of the stag. The tail on the cat on the right is elegantly draped over the cats legs. The few deviations from realistic proportions are deliberate: the exaggerated antlers, for example, are done to fill space. You could engrave that scene into the receiver of a hunting rifle today and it would be admired.
- NL807 1y agoIn addition to what the other commenter said, the art depicted on the article is flattened, whereas the original piece was wrapping around the woman's forearm. Perhaps the art is visually grounded on a curved surface.
- chmod775 1y agoYou're probably thinking about some of the more stylized, iconographic medieval art. That was on purpose, not necessarily for lack of skill. There's plenty of modern art styles around today as well that are flat and look nothing like reality. Besides those "strange" depictions of animals and humans, there is also plenty of medieval art that is still regarded as highly beautiful today (admittedly especially once we're leaning towards the Renaissance).
- tokai 1y agoSo like Corporate Memphis for the medieval age.
- williamdclt 1y agoIn exactly nothing except the use of flatness, yes
- GauntletWizard 1y agoI was taught in school that Perspective was invented in the Renaissance, and before that all art was flat. This is obviously not true to anyone who's studied greecian art beyond a pop-culture level, but that's the level most people have. It does seem to have waxed and waned; going in and out of popularity to the point of being a lost art multiple times. Wikipedia doesn't go so far as to divide it into eras, but given the time gaps, it's possible that there were multiple "inventions" of perspective in the sense of formalized techniques and pedagogy. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_(graphical) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_(graphical)
- whimsicalism 1y agoi was also taught this in school, despite it being bizarrely obviously wrong?
- acuozzo 1y agoIt's a popular meme in education just like the idea of barter being some pre-currency "natural state" of exchange which also falls apart under scrutiny.
- Aloisius 1y agoAs far as I know, the earliest known example demonstrating accurate perspective dates from the Renaissance. That doesn't mean everything was flat. Other projections were used instead of perspective to create an illusion of depth. Indeed, we still sometimes use them today, like for isometric games. There were also some works that show elements of perspective prior to the Renaissance, but afaik, none that converge perfectly across the work
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- otabdeveloper4 1y agoNot really. Just a slightly different art style than what you're used to.
- raylad 1y agoThe designs are beautiful but there’s no evidence at all of perspective which is a specific technique using a vanishing point.
- nkrisc 1y agoClearly art has regressed even further. If you look at Pablo Picasso’s works from the 20th century you can see there is even less understanding of perspective and form. If you look at others like Kandinsky you’ll see modern has actually lost all sense of objectivity and merely reduced to shapes and colors. (I’m being sarcastic and yes, the two artists were chosen for also for the joke some of you may be thinking of). Not all art styles throughout history valued realism.
- ffsm8 1y ago> Not all art styles throughout history valued realism. While there is true, it's also heavily misleading wrt europes history. The techniques really were lost in the dark ages, because the church killed everyone that was talented and didn't join their ranks, effectively wiping out a lot of knowledge (by design) And a lot of medieval European art was clearly aimed at realism, they just weren't very good at it because they didn't know the basics.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- milesrout 1y agoThis is incredibly ignorant. The Church didn't kill anyone for being good at art, and in fact did more for the development of fine art than any other institution in human history.