Art History as it Relates to Learning

File: newthing.jpg (1MB, 1072x1260px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1072x1260px

Personally I started about 3 years ago, and I moved out of the simpler Picasso period rather quickly, making pieces like this.

File: february-15-2017.jpg (401KB, 1000x852px) Image search: [Google]

401KB, 1000x852px

>>2862985
and I've moved into I think just before the Post-Impressionism period, or right before the 1900s with pieces like this (remember that originally Picasso was a Post-Impressionist)

>>2862984
Yeah you are wrong. Rembrandt and Michelangelo are the peak of the Grand Manner, so there's no way you would have gotten there at the Ingres phase.

>>2862994
not sure what you mean... my point is that art got simpler over time, but incredibly more simple before and after impressionism, so if you try to work your way back through art history you will see incredible strides made in a short amount of time, and then incremental improvements the closer you get to Michelangelo. Then once you've mastered that you can truly call yourself an illustrator.

>>2862984
Your entire premises are wrong to begin with.

I get the sense that you don't really care about what is good in art, and care more about historical styles. Consciousness of art history, as you are doing, doesn't lead to good art. It leads to empty stylism and impulse to be "relevant."

Michelangelo and Rembrandt are two very different artists in terms of theory, forms, application, subjects... That artists were pretty much the same from the Renaissance to the academic 19th century is a lie in a similar sense that artists of that time only tried to recreate reality like a photograph is a lie.

Art doesn't become simpler in a linear way through time. The term simple can be used in many different ways and is used erroneously often besides. One could draw a figure that is quite simple but well proportioned and others would call it "detailed," that is, the opposite of simple. A jumbled up piece could be termed simpler than a Raphael Madonna based purely on how close to observation something is. A case in point that art does not become simpler linearly through time, that Rococo and Baroque are not as simple as the Renaissance.

Your own experience is not at all a good representation of what largely happens. And if there are others who have these phases of styles, it is closer to a vice than a virtue. Journeying back to art history in that chronological manner holds no significance. If it does happen, it's almost as accidental as the whole of art history is.


>>2862994
Rembrandt did not paint in the grand manner.

>>2863900
saying art get's "simpler" as you travel through art history is more a way to say art gets "worse"... or that all artists, even the old masters, strived towards an idealism in their work that became harder and harder to reach as time progressed. At least on a technical level.

I think there is as much beauty to be found in the Sistine Chapel as is found in a portrait by Chuck Close, but I think purely technical ability, or rather effortlessness (again it's weird to say this because the Mona Lisa was not "effortless") is something that changed over time.

Picasso said it took him 5 years to paint like Raphael. I don't believe him. I think had he lived during the Renaissance he'd have been drawing and painting with the best of them, but the circumstances and public opinion of what art should be dictated the art he created. I think the theory I'm trying to posit is that there IS a linear simplification of art, and as much as we'd like to think we are simplifying, iterating on, and stylizing our work on purpose, it is totally subconscious. The closer we get to inner peace the "worse" our art gets.

To truly create great artwork, we must struggle. And the longer we struggle, the "better" we get.

>>2862984
You're being simplistic af. Art history isn't that linear, at any era. You can say that experimentation became much more central in the modern era but the rest is just tunnel vision.

>>2862984
What the fuck are you on art history is a history book not a rule book moron. Learn from the past done repeat it. There are plently of painters that dont fit this cannon.

>>2862984
Hmm indeed but I think the real question is why did Michelangelo make Adam a trans roastie?

File: Vincent_van_Gogh_-_A_crab_on_its_back_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg (3MB, 3376x2481px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3376x2481px

>>2862989
Cum-farti strikes again.

>>2862984
After Picasso art became weak.
People would rather watch film these days and since film makers exist almost everywhere (i mean that smartphone you're holding is just enough). Right now art is bouncing back but it's still out-shadowed by the motion picture industry.

The Aquarian shift also made us jump into or rather seek 'what is new' rather than stagnate into 'what is traditional.' I hate those people who shun Abstract art. Abstract knowledge has so many applications and we take it for granted.

>>2864770
I like you, you're a knowledgeable person. You don't shun abstract, and understand the art world.

There's now a shift in the art world though. We're really moving back into figurative work, not traditional figurative per se, but figurative none the less. There's excellent contemporaries such as Eric Fischl, Jenny Saville, Marlene Dumas, Peter Doig, all super great figurative artists (worth checking out if interested).

I think the whole idea of an art-illustration divide is retarded as all paintings and drawings has a narrative to a certain degree.

>>2864932
>Eric Fischl, Jenny Saville, Marlene Dumas, Peter Doig

They all make people grotesque. Yawn.

>>2862985
Out of curiosity, did you have some overarching plan in mind for the flow of lines, or did you just jot them down randomly? I don't like this, but I think I could like something like this.

>>2864963
I see no issue with grotesque, doesn't grotesque say much more than some lady lying naked to look good to the viewer?

Also Eric Fischl's work doesn't make people seem grotesque, in my opinion anyways. I think he captures a side of people we don't regularly see, quite vulnerable but vigilant at the same time, they have life to them. That's just my own opinion anyways. :)

Marlene Dumas and Jenny Saville, queens of grotesque, I just like their aesthetics though. Try to reproduce Dumas' work and you'll have a very tough time, it seems so simple, yet its complicated!

Peter Doig creates a strong relationship between the figure and the space they are in, I find a lot of his paintings feel nostalgic, or reminiscent of photos I've seen.

What figurative contemporaries work do you enjoy?