True

>>3001245

/thread

good thread

>>3001105
>The old masters are praised for their technical skills instead of their expression of the spiritual.

Thats boring af. What about stylization?

>>3001105
they did that because there was no cameras, theres no point on doing that now.

>>3001490
This.
As modern science still incapable of crafting cute 2d gurls, manga will keep being the superior art, period.

>>3001490
Wow I guess when you look at it that way...

>>3001105

I get that you like religious subject matter, I'm a Christian myself, but there's little motivation to contribute to a subject matter that's already been perfected several centuries ago. I would rather read Luke and Mark than see an art piece relating to it.

There's millions of pieces involving rendered naked white girls and while they're good, I want to create something new that reflects the time period I'm in. Even if it's crass or tacky. I'm not saying that theology is boring or outdated, I'm saying that your own subjective interests are better off used to improve your own material as we can't see what you're seeing.

>>3001490
Pretty much this

>>3001490
It's not about the art itself, but being able to make photorealistic paintings. That way you are capable of making whatever you want in a canvas and still make it look real

File: image.jpg (40KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 640x640px

>>3001105
That's why I draw manga and not anime.

>>3001511
>I get that you like religious subject matter
Not necessarily religious, but as long as your dedication to your purest ideal is great, you're making an art.

>already been perfected several centuries ago
Art is timeless. Perfection is the fruit of faith.

>I want to create something new that reflects the time period I'm in
That's good, that's how artists are supposed to do it. The contemporary is always truthful to our own vision. I don't like artists who ape the old masters. Inspiration and aping are different.

>>3001520
this. art for me is to draw ideas and feelings out of my imagination and not make it look like shit. paintings that are essentially copies of photos have little value to me.

File: 13041390_10205872313622746_26004385432176227_o.jpg (98KB, 904x960px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 904x960px

>>3001490
>Hurr durr realistic art is only because there were no cameras in the past
When will this retarded meme die? Realistic life drawing is MORE real than a photograph because it has gone through the eye and processed by the artist's mind, removing extraneous information. A camera can only mechanically/chemically/digitally reproduce the image as seen through a camera lense and can not make judgments on representing the impression.

File: tarkovsky's flower.jpg (49KB, 550x553px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 550x553px

>>3001827
>A camera can only mechanically/chemically/digitally reproduce the image as seen through a camera lense and can not make judgments on representing the impression.
What about the photographer who chose the type of camera he used? And what about the subject itself? Try again.