Who was the greatest sculptor ever, and why was it Gian

File: donatello.jpg (172KB, 1200x1200px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 1200x1200px

>>3078054
Not agreeing or disagreeing, but some sources say that apparently Donatello is the best

File: 7422d9b10459e0bf7e46cd95abc8c19f.jpg (110KB, 774x1032px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 774x1032px

>>3078235
They are wrong.

Bernini has best technique. Rodin and Michelangelo are more expressive.

File: Bernini 02.jpg (90KB, 809x1080px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 809x1080px

how is this even humanly possible?

And just when I think I've processed how amazing it is, I say "I'm looking at a rock" and it all starts over.

File: ella_palluzzi-albertoni_di_giacomo_mola_%281622-25%29%2C_con_beata_ludovica_alberoni_di_bernini_%281671-75%29_e_pala_del_baciccio_%28s._anna_e_la_vergine%29_05[1].jpg (4MB, 2744x1992px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 2744x1992px

>>3078054
i think michaelangelo probably beats him, not only are his most finished sculptures just about as good as bernini's but later in life he had a whole rembrandt type deal going on whilst bernini just started putting more and more floppy drapery in stuff, not that bernini isn't super awesome though

>>3078280
Can you elaborate on his rembrant type deal, I'm interested.

>>3078293
well you know how when rembrandt got older he started doing loosy goosey before-his-time almost modernist stuff, well same kinda deal, michelangelo's kinda looked like rodin's stuff

>bernini sculpted David when he was 26
>michelangelo sculpted pieta when he was 25

this is literally bullshit what the fuck how is that fair

>>3078314
talent or passion + resources = wondrous things
but yea.. not very fair

>>3078266
A great deal of time, effort, and a profound awareness of one's oncoming demise.

Michelangelo has a greater genius because his works have an ultimate grandeur in their restraint, whereas Berninifags confuse an outward and excessive show of passion for magnanimity.

>>3078280
That is not what makes Michelangelo great. Those sculptures are great IN SPITE of their crude technique, not because of them. Michelangelo's sculptures are great from the conception of forms alone.

>>3078314
Keep in mind that you have an enormous amount more skill and knowledge than they do. Lateral processes have value, don't forget it. You have more advantage than they did.

>>3079803
The were literally trained by high level masters from when they were like 5. Getting that training at that age develops your brain in ways that you can't easily replicate by watching a youtube video of some mediocre artist showing some formulaic approach. They clearly had the advantage over us. They also lived in a time when that type of art was being supported so they didn't have the same financial worries that you would have now if you tried to get into sculpting. If people today truly were at an advantage then there would be people exceeding their level, but that's not even close to happening.

>>3078266
he was 23 when he made that btw

>>3079964

Most of these renaissance guys started in their early teens in workshops, while nowadays artists wait until they're 17-20 to get formal training.

That makes a big difference.

>>3079979
Bernini's dad was actually a professional sculptor and was teaching him earlier than that. By time he was age 8 Bernini was skilled enough to be recognized as a prodigy/genius by the pope.

>>3078266
anybody else want to suck on her toes?

>>3080001
no, you fucking footfag

File: IMG_20170701_150432.jpg (48KB, 702x529px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 702x529px

>>3079810
>>3079979
>>3079985

Basically this. Artists back then were like the NBA/NFL players today. Lots of kids with innate talent/skill being taught by Masters ( Coaches ).

>>3078266
He's feeling the form.
Not even memeing here, I think that's the answer.

>>3078251
That's one sexy ass tibia.

>>3080044
>>3079810
A fair point if we're talking exclusively about technical greatness.
The lot of them were limited by the society and ideas they were exposed to, stuck in the beautiful ideas of the time.
It may be silly to think you could ever sculpt what they did, as well as they did, but they've already done it- so why would you want to?
What haven't they done?
What tools do you have that they didn't?
Again, consider lateral processes.
I still contend that your powers of conception vastly exceed theirs. You have more stories, subtlety to your world view, and hundreds of years of scientific and philosophical inquiry.

Look at what Scott Eaton or Ron Mueck is doing.
Definitely don't look outside of classical tradition though. You'll develop bad taste and lose your gains lol
Philip Jackson, Chen Wenling, Mario Dilitz, blah

>>3078054
An unknown man in ancient greek.

>>3080044
>Seeing artists as similar to athletes
This is what is wrong with ic, in a nutshell.

Just because you can speak well doesn't mean you have something to say.

File: IMG_20170712_133243.jpg (62KB, 877x493px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 877x493px

>>3080226
They are similar.

>>3080213
praxiteles you mean?

>>3080265
Catch up on your Schopenhauer.

>>3080211
Done of these are classical in the theoretical sense.

That entire view of art-making itself isn't classical at all in the slightest. It's not about creating new to serve the zeitgeist. The Renaissance artists intended to sculpt in the ancient manner, although the ancients have "already done it." That the beautiful ideas were in that time or other is irrelevant. What matters is the beautiful ideas. Classicism overwhelmingly cares about the Platonic good. It has no concern for modernity, whatever traditionalism that can be observed is only a byproduct, and originality is an accident.

>>3082099
None of these*

>>3078266
Simple, it's not humanity, but divinity

>>3080001
no