Is there any truth to this quote? Why were, by our standards,

>>3060227
because they were centers of trade. also because wealthy patrons paid for those works of art to be made. today they just buy shitty minimalist art

>is there any truth to this quote
absolutely not, just a renaisanceaboo

>>3060227

BECAUSE THEY WERE RELATIVELY LESS RACIALLY DEGENERATED THAN SUBSEQUENT GENERATIONS.

>>3060227
Fucking where in Ohio?
That's your benchmark Teddy?
Croydon?
Are these art places?
Who the flying fuck is comparing midieval Florence to these?

>>3060898
the populations idiot. He's saying Florence had a population similar to some bumfuck town in Ohio yet still produced great works of art that exceed what we produce today.

>>3060227
Wait was renaissance Florence's population really under 30,000?

>>3061370
according to Boccaccio it was 120,000 before the black death hit it, and around 50,000 after

File: Black_Flag_3_(1).jpg (79KB, 960x504px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 960x504px

There's definitely a higher quantity of high quality unpaid art now with the internet allowing the free proliferation of knowledge of techniques, ease of sharing work, and development of new techniques that simplify the process of creating art. There's also a far larger and more mainstream audience for art with the popularization of video games and other entertainment media. There's probably proportionally a lot more wealth now that goes into paying for the creation of art than there was during the renaissance.

Whether this art is comparable to renaissance art is debatable but personally I think modern computer generated art is nicer to look at than most renaissance art.

>>3060227
>not producing anything worthwhile

Well you certainly aren't. Maybe that's why you didn't feel the need to cite a source? Or maybe ur dumb.