Why did it take "realistic" paintingtook so long to

>>3067428
because to know how depth works you have to know how light works and we didn't know that until Arabs discovered it

Here's a little experiment for you since you seem to lack first hand experience with the arts. Take some Play-Doh and attempt to make a representation of a human head, now take done crayons and try to do the same thing.
We live in a three dimensional reality, so representing the world we experience as such comes a little easier. You are able to walk around a sculpture, and a model, and observe/compare things like depth first hand. Drawing and painting are two dimensional abstractions from a three dimensional world, they're inherently more difficult, and it's nothing short of a miracle that some artists managed to do so with accuracy. Like anything else done my mankind, once it had been done successfully once or twice, people learned from the past greats through imitation or teaching.

File: 2880px-Centaur_mosaic_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg (2MB, 2880x1937px)

2MB, 2880x1937px

>>3067428
The classical Greeks were fairly close to the early Renaissance masters, and that's without the understanding of true perspective and with much shittier tools.
Here's a mosaic copy of a 5th century BC painting by Zeuxis - almost 2000 goddamn years before the Renaissance. Imagine how much better the original would have been without the limitations mosaics force. On top of that, Zeuxis wasn't even the best painter:
>According to the Naturalis Historia of Pliny the Elder, Zeuxis and his contemporary Parrhasius (of Ephesus and later Athens) staged a contest to determine the greater artist. When Zeuxis unveiled his painting of grapes, they appeared so real that birds flew down to peck at them. But when Parrhasius, whose painting was concealed behind a curtain, asked Zeuxis to pull aside that curtain, the curtain itself turned out to be a painted illusion. Parrhasius won, and Zeuxis said, "I have deceived the birds, but Parrhasius has deceived Zeuxis."

File: bestsaint.jpg (110KB, 450x621px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 450x621px

>>3067428
>Antiquity gave us so many famously lifelike statues, but even relatively realistic Roman wall paintings struggle to convey depth. Was this simply a matter of technique? It seems strange to me that obviously highly skilled painters would have such difficulty painting scenes which later artists managed to do in great numbers.

Because old Roman and Greek paintings didn't survive, there is a story of some Greek painter whos paintings were so realistic that birds would try to pluck the grapes he painted. The only thing we have left is frescos and mosaics, the fresco you posted is as realistic as you can get, even for Renaissance standards, its just old. Heck i would say its even more "realistic" than the stylized representations of people from Renaissance paintings.

>>3067617

The story is here.

>The classical Greeks were fairly close to the early Renaissance masters, and that's without the understanding of true perspective and with much shittier tools.

Humans have always known how to paint well and realistic, its just that in certain times, realism wasn't needed, in Christian times, aka the """"""""Dark"""""""" ages, people tend to look at the simplistic statues and frescoes and scoff, thinking people went dumber and forgot how to paint, but it simply isn't true, its a shift from Hellenistic realism to Christian art, the shift being from outward beauty to inner beauty, the reason middle age painting and art is primitive is to emphasize the importance of the soul. And unlike today back then most painters were sponsored by the Church or feudal lords, hence the lack of individual """"styles""""

File: painting.webm (2MB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 480x360px

>>3067428
Because its hard as fuck to master. Even contemporary artists who have all the knowledge of the old masters, and more, have a hard time translating that knowledge into the proper motions to create a decent realistic rendering.

>>3067968
What the fuck? That webm is literally the opposite of what i was taught in art school, you paint by layers not.....what ever he's doing. Not that he isn't talented or isn't obviously skillful but fuck that just looks wrong.

>>3067970
If anyone tells you "there is only one right way to paint this" you can be pretty sure you're being meme'd on.

File: Dormition_El_Greco.jpg (191KB, 860x1011px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 860x1011px

>>3067428
Here are two paintings by the same 17th century guy.

Notice any stylistic changes?

File: 910px-El_Greco,_The_Vision_of_Saint_John_(1608-1614).jpg (303KB, 910x1024px) Image search: [Google]

303KB, 910x1024px

>>3067989

File: el greco.jpg (123KB, 1384x1000px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 1384x1000px

>>3067991
Hey why not throw in a third one

>>3067956
Is that the original st George?
Or are there just tonnes with that trope

File: ab0fe3fa68db71b0c9ffa3cbaf42bbd4.jpg (45KB, 363x450px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 363x450px

>>3068332
Thats not St. George mate, thats Teodor Tiron aka Theodore of Amasea.

>>3067507
Of course it's harder to create depth on a flat surface, but as someone with no artistic talent or training I didn't know whether it was *that* hard.

>>3067617
That's amazing, I always thought of Greek painting as those flat images of hoplites and athletes on vases.

>>3067956
So it was primarily stylistic after all, then? Did the early Renaissance painters consciously try to repopularize the styles of antiquity, or were they seen as innovative?

>>3067991
Shit, that looks like something from the 1900s.

Eastern painting also tended towards a two-dimensional style in the same period (for awhile, realistic artists were considered plebian), but they knew how to draw three dimensional space. Pic related is from the 10th century, note how the horses are oriented relative to one another.

File: MongolHuntersSong.jpg (775KB, 844x669px) Image search: [Google]

775KB, 844x669px

>>3068546
Forgot pic

>>3067956

It does make a lot of sense, paintings can deteriorate over time. It's like how we get most of our greek art from pottery, it just happens that pottery doesn't rot, and judging their entire aesthetic sense on that basis is like judging modern art by the appearance of a Captain Crunch box.

>>3067984
He's right though, noone says "there's only one way to paint" but they do say "paint like this" in which case, they usually tell you to layer
The point of layering it to make it (much) easier to hide the stokes and colors and better represent a gradient, which this artist clearly doesn't need

File: pompeiiwallart.jpg (72KB, 468x442px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 468x442px

Romans had some knowledge of perspective, but as that other anon said virtually none of it has survived to present day

File: burialorgaz.jpg (735KB, 1241x1600px) Image search: [Google]

735KB, 1241x1600px

>>3067989
>>3068546
I think it makes more sense to compare that Icon to this painting. Obviously both are by El Greco. But very similar composition.

File: 727px-Sandro_Botticelli_-_Pallade_e_il_centauro_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg (262KB, 727x1023px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 727x1023px

>>3068495
>Did the early Renaissance painters consciously try to repopularize the styles of antiquity, or were they seen as innovative?

Well both tb h. They really liked classical subjects because it gave them an excuse to pain nudes.

>>3068577

>it just happens that pottery doesn't rot, and judging their entire aesthetic sense on that basis is like judging modern art by the appearance of a Captain Crunch box.

Pretty much spot on, i mean, it doesn't make sense for us to think they didn't know how to pain considering the quality of their sculptures.

>>3067507
AND if you want to understand why self driving cars are taking so long, try to do the same but in reverse.