Why was Roman art more realistic than Medieval art? I imagine

File: Giotto_di_Bondone_009.jpg (474KB, 2024x1878px) Image search: [Google]

474KB, 2024x1878px

>>1851572
the decline of urbanization let to the decline of specialized artisans, in this case artists, and along with their decline much of the techniques that they pioneered would have gotten lost along with their way of life.

Artistic traditions in a period with fewer specialists would have tended towards simpler, more stylized art that could be more easily reproduced. By the time of the migration era the only large patron of the arts that remained was the Catholic church, and it was their patronage that fostered a flowering of artistic traditions during the renaissance which greatly superseded anything which came during the Roman era

Medieval art was germanic tribesmen who just learned to paint.

Different purposes. Most Medieval painting was ecclesiastical, so it wasn't intended as realistic. There was a lot of incredible quality in Medieval artwork, such as the Lindisfarne Gospels.

art is degenerate

>>1851671
>Most Medieval painting was ecclesiastical, so it wasn't intended as realistic.

This is bullshit. Renaissance art had the same subjects and was as realistic as they could make it, as soon as they figured out how.

File: Paris Psalter (10th century).jpg (393KB, 1024x1505px) Image search: [Google]

393KB, 1024x1505px

It didn't completely decline in Byzantium. It was mostly where civilization collapsed in the west that naturalism was lost and replaced by Germanic-influenced art.

Did realistic painting ever actually exist in the West outside of Italy? I've seen naturalistic mosaic from Gaul, but not painting. I haven't looked very hard so maybe I'm wrong, but I'm not sure naturalistic painting was ever a well established tradition in the west.

File: Paris Psalter 14.jpg (1MB, 1275x1455px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1275x1455px

>>1852142

File: Paris Psalter 13.jpg (385KB, 770x890px) Image search: [Google]

385KB, 770x890px

>>1852151

File: Homilies of St. Gregory of Nazianzus, f. 888.jpg (365KB, 1024x1505px) Image search: [Google]

365KB, 1024x1505px

>>1852155

>>1852112
>Renaissance art had the same subjects
but did it really

>>1851572
because classical civilisation reached it's peak then died and christendom rose on it's ashes.

>>1851572

Because most of what we consider "medieval art" is actually book illustrations. Tiny book illustrations, that are also meant to clearly depict what is happening in the text, rather than be a photo realistic depiction of medieval life.

File: 1453975593292.jpg (3MB, 2028x2806px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2028x2806px

>>1851572
Either they couldn't or they didn't even attempt it. Pic related looks like they intentionally went for a stylished thing.

File: nice sword.jpg (333KB, 1100x766px) Image search: [Google]

333KB, 1100x766px

>>1851572
Who are you going to sell portraits too that have a human likeness?

A viking isn't going to wear a painting, he's gonna get some dank ass bling bling. By the time the Urban patriciate started commissioning paintings they got realistic quite fast.