why did medieval European art take such a nose dive in quality?
Firstly, much of what gets called "bad" is little more than doodlings in manuscripts. Secondly, we see a stylistic move away from realistic to representational. See the way that hands are generally sculpted in more elegant elongate forms over more squat realistic forms, something which clearly demonstrates a stylistic choice. In many areas of Europe there would have been a disruption of arts infrastructure with the ebb of the Roman Empire, that said what survives is heavily skewed towards manuscript drawings which are not representative of the whole.
>>2539954
This 2bh
>>2539956
I do too, and there's some that's very good, professional, and demonstrates some of the common stylistic language used, but I don't want to write an essay (not that it's a field of specific interest and knowledge to me) only to have OP be the retard that always asks this question only to go
.>it was deliberately bad!
In reply to any well reasoned response.
I should still start a folder, there was an interesting contemporary drawing guide posted in one.
hmm, i did a dump of medieval pics a few weeks ago and i promised to make another one, which i never did. anyone interested?
>>2540023
Sure, that would be good.
>>2540034
tomorrow though, i need my sleep
Because realistic depiction of the human body is idolatry. See Islam.
>>2539907
Because 99% of art that gets made into dank may mays is from book illustrations that are only a few square inches at best and we're usually looking at heavily zoomed in versions with all the context cut away and every brush stroke blatantly obvious.
You might as well ask why modern artists can't draw, by zooming in on a random Spiderman comic panel and saying it doesn't look like Christ in the House of His Parents.
Because that's what happens when you get culturally enriched.
>>2540116
desu rome the middle east and the renaissance were pretty rich in culture famalam
>>2539907
Fuck you illumination is awesome
Snowniggers