-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Mediaevals Can't Do Perspecti--
- Thread starter Rival
- Start date
Samael_Khan
Goosebender
As we all know, humans aren't good at perspective. It takes us a while to get it right.
That being said, we make fun of them in hindset, but before those someone understood the art concept of perspective and everybody sponged off that persons new perspective, we woukd have been drawing stick figures still.
That being said, we make fun of them in hindset, but before those someone understood the art concept of perspective and everybody sponged off that persons new perspective, we woukd have been drawing stick figures still.
Mediaevals Can't Do Perspecti--
And why do they all look like cartoo--I've heard a few reasons.
The techniques we understand for drawing in perspective were not fully realised back then.
They were not particularly concerned with realism. The emphasis was on decorative and symbolic imagry.
In an attempt to obey the biblical ban on graven images they shuned 3D as not godly
For goodness sake. Lol.
The images are Mediaeval and show good use of perspective.
That's my point
It wasn't that they couldn't do it, it is that they chose not to most of the time.
The first time I recall noticing the two-dimensialism was at an art museum in Venice. It all seemed ... well, flat.
I still don't understand the phrase: "before those someone understood the art concept of perspective ..." Why should the concept of realism be so elusive?
It's rather obvious?
But why? And where do we see examples of the early art done the remainder of the time?
Furthermore, correctly or incorrectly I associate "medieval" with Europe, but do we not see the same thing in early Chinese and Japanese art?
For goodness sake. Lol.
The images are Mediaeval and show good use of perspective.
That's my point
It wasn't that they couldn't do it, it is that they chose not to most of the time.
Most of the time.
It also depended on the time period, artist, and location
A reasonable person trying to pacify an adult-child who is an online troll.
This was meant to be a fun thread.
I gave an example of Mediaeval art that uses 'proper' perspective that moderns like and people just didn't get it?
Early examples I haven't found as drawings appear to be based on Roman mosaics, so we'd expect to see 2D faces and their theology forbade them from making images realistic (icon theology). Taking that to mean they couldn't use realism is not warranted, as we see realism in statuary.
A human-baguette hybrid?
That doesn't mean that I shouldn't (a) muse out loud, and/or (b) let the topic motivate me to learn something. So, for example, I've just come across The History of Perspective. Thanks.
I'll add a frubal to the OP ...
This seems to be talking about perfect realism. This isn't my point here. My point here is that Mediaevals could paint in 3D even if it's not 'perfect'.That doesn't mean that I shouldn't (a) muse out loud, and/or (b) let the topic motivate me to learn something. So, for example, I've just come across The History of Perspective. Thanks.
I just bristle at the idea that Mediaeval art is somehow inferior because it prefers 2D. It's missing a whole era of wonderful art and suggests art somehow 'progresses', which is... absurd.
rocala
Well-Known Member
It is obvious. Medieval babies were breast fed via there ear.
To be honest, I'm not a fan. But, then again, I'd rather look at Monet than Picasso.