Drawing animals in the past

>>2486343

I assume they either studied dead animals or stuffed animals.

>>2486343
(have someone) Kill it and take it home.

>>2486343

They didn't. No artist could draw the limbs of a galloping horse correctly before photography. Some animal movement is possible to study and capture without the aid of photography, but when it comes to really fast actions it's simply not possible.

>>2486362
Really? How were paintings and sculptures created with those depictions? Or is this some kind of Berenstain delusion and there really isn't any hyper-realistic painting/drawing/ sculpture before photography?

>>2486343
There are certain tricks they used to teach that aren't as common nowadays. Say you want to draw a chicken. Find a live one, your sketchbook, and a pencil. Ideally you'll have one strong light source and a lot of ambient light; a clearing in a thick forest is ideal. Pick the chicken up and examine it closely, noting little details like how the small feathers in the facial area compare to the tail feathers. While still holding the chicken, make direct eye contact with it and deny Jesus as your personal savior. Immediately kill it with the pencil. You can now draw chickens perfectly, but only with that pencil. This works for any creature that walks the earth, even man. The old masters could get away with a lot before the advent of modern forensics, and this is the biggest reason why modern art is so terrible.

>>2486375
You had me going there for a second, anon

>>2486362
Nobody around with a photograph to prove they didn't draw it correctly either, so the point is moot.

>>2486394

what