/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

[Anonymous No.4980019]

Why were the Romans and Greeks so good at sculpting but meh when it came to painting? Like when people talk about their favorite art, no one ever says Greco-Roman paintings.

[Anonymous No.4980094]

>>4980019
good question

[Anonymous No.4980095]

>>4980019
sculpting is easier, no faking perspective in a 2d space

[Anonymous No.4980100]

you’re stupid and comparing different mediums
here’s a frescoe by a literallywho found in the domus of two freed slaves that was buried by lava

[Anonymous No.4980103]

>>4980100
and here is literally the most celebrated frescoe known to mankind, painted by the most celebrated artist of all time in the house of the pope that was never buried by lava after centuries of development

[Anonymous No.4980105]

This is a common misconception.
Almost no painting survived, that's why most you see are mosaics, frescoes, sculptures and vases. Most people have no perspective how fucking long ago the Ancient Greek times were and that most surviving things are either by luck or through Roman copies.

Some rare painted pictures that survive show a very modern, realistic style. Vases and sculptures show perfect understanding of anatomy and perspective.
Most painting was probably wax based, no wonder it vanished.

[Anonymous No.4980108]

>>4980019
I’m so glad we invented chins eventually, we look much better with them

[Anonymous No.4980120]

you can’t expect oil paintings from people who were gone centuries who were practically one a milennium before its invention in europe, especially since even renaissance paintings are falling apart

[Anonymous No.4980125]

>romans were bad at pa-

[Anonymous No.4980134]

>>4980108
omg so right lol
#uglyart

[Anonymous No.4980145]

>>4980134
lmao that finger, bet he’s popular with the ladies

[Anonymous No.4980147]

>>4980145
by the art probably with the kids

[Anonymous No.4980148]

Yikes! Someone needs to redline these artists!

[Anonymous No.4980214]

>>4980103
this was painted 15 centuries after the Romans and Greeks

[Anonymous No.4980224]

>>4980214
you want to read those two posts again?

[Anonymous No.4980278]

>>4980214
I BEG your pardon???!

[Anonymous No.4980286]

>>4980278
jesus killed all the gr*kes and r*mans
read a book

[Anonymous No.4980462]

>>4980019
They didn’t have loomis

[Anonymous No.4981101]

>>4980103
Just noticed that Adam and God have no cranium. The cherubs have more brains than either of them.

[Anonymous No.4981106]

>>4981101
God is immaterial, he doesn’t actually have organs, and Adam got cucked out of heaven by a w*man that he asked for, so...

[Anonymous No.4981143]

>>4980100
>>4980103
I like the lava-buried more.

[Anonymous No.4981200]

I'm pretty sure it's at least partly because sculptures survive better. Also, consider the classical antiquity art on pottery etc (the black thin figures on clay red), that's 2D and still easily a "favorite" kind of art with its stylization

[Anonymous No.4981265]

>>4980103
what is wrong with the other hand of god?

[Anonymous No.4981274]

>>4980103
Does God being the only clothed figure symbolise something? I know the red cape is thought to be a brain or a uterus by some analysts, but what about the robe and the green scarf?
Why would God be wearing clothes? It doesn’t even make sense, since seeing adam and eve clothed is what tipped God off about them eating the fruit in the bible, they could have just went “shit, we should get some sweet duds too” if he was doing it

[Anonymous No.4981283]

>>4980100
>>4980103
Why did you post both of these? Can you not see that Michaelangelo's work is far, far better than the other fresco you posted?

[Anonymous No.4981284]

>>4981143
Then you are blind, retatded, or both.

[Anonymous No.4981290]

>>4981143
Then you are blind, retarded, or both.

[Anonymous No.4981300]

>>4981283
Better yes, but considering one is the work of a mediocre artist in the house of an inconsequential semi-citizen and the other the product of highest mastery in the house of the most important figure on the planet after centuries of technological advancement, you cannot say romans were meh at painting, can you?
It’s like seeing Botticelli’s birth of venus painted in a cave and going “ugh cavemen couldn’t paint, the school of athens is a much better painting”
the only reason we even have what remains of that shitty fresco is that it happened to be buried by a volcano, we wouldn’t even have michelangelo’s frescos if they weren’t being restored systematically, their works are just gone

[Anonymous No.4981303]

>>4981290
No, you.

[Anonymous No.4981317]

>>4981300
>you cannot say romans were meh at painting, can you?
Well gee anon, I don't know, what is the best painting we have from the Romans? Showing a shitting painting and then saying 'look, this is shitty because it was made by a shitty artist' does nothing to convince me that Romans weren't shitty painters in general.

You posted a bad painting by a bad painter and a good painting by a good painter. What was the fucking point?

[Anonymous No.4981329]

>>4981303
What is it you prefer about the shitty one? The poor sense of form, anatomy, value, and composition? The stiff poses and dead expressions? Or didn't you see see of those flaws?

No, no, let me guess, it's more 'soulful' because it's bad?

[Anonymous No.4981335]

>>4980019
Same reason /beg/s struggle. Translating 3D perspective into 2D representations on a flat surface. It's pretty hard when you think about it

[Anonymous No.4981336]

>>4981303 #
What is it you prefer about the shitty one? The poor sense of form, anatomy, value, and composition? The stiff poses and dead expressions? Or didn't you see those flaws?

No, no, let me guess, it's more 'soulful' because it's bad?

[Anonymous No.4981343]

>>4981274
They started wearing clothes after eating he apple to symbolise them learning the knowledge of god and the angels and feeling shame without them. So I'd assume god would be wearing clothes because he understands that shame in some capacity. Be it his own or not wanting to make the others uncomfortable??
They were probably meant to be too oblivious to wanna wear clothes before hand, like animal oblivious.

[Anonymous No.4981351]

>>4981317
That isn’t a bad painting, it only seems shitty in the context of the best works in history, you deluded faggot.
Post your fresco

[Anonymous No.4981359]

>>4981351

[Anonymous No.4981361]

>>4981351
Yes it is, retard.

[Anonymous No.4981365]

>>4981359
kek

[Anonymous No.4981422]

>>4980286
I'm just wondering who on earth thinks the ancient greeks and romans were around AT THE SAME TIME???

[Anonymous No.4981527]

>>4981422
The Romans conquered the Greeks, before they conquered the Celts and, the old Agyptians (and many more)

[Anonymous No.4981560]

>>4980019

painting is harder because you have to simulate light and perspective and paint back then was a lot more primitive.

[Anonymous No.4981959]

>>4980019
clearly you've never seen the works for Lumisius the Elder

[Anonymous No.4981963]

>>4980019
Clearly you've never seen the works of Loomisius the Elder

[Anonymous No.4981970]

>>4981422
>>4981527
ancient greeks and romans WERE around at the same time
ancient greeks and ancient romans were NOT around at the same time
greeks and romans were around at the same time depending on your definition of roman

[Anonymous No.4981989]

>>4981527
The conquered the classical greeks, not the ancient greeks. The ancient greeks were a much older civilisation than classical greeks, they litterally come from the bronze age. To put it into perspective, we are closer to the medieval dark ages than classical greeks and romans were to ancient greeks.

Pic related was painted some 700 years before Rome ever existed.

[Anonymous No.4981998]

>>4981970
Factually wrong. Ancient Rome dates from 800BC to the fall of the Roman Empire (500AD). Ancient Greece dates from 3200BC to 1500BC. You're thinking classical greeks and romans

[Anonymous No.4982002]

>>4981970
Ancient Rome dates from 800BC to the fall of the Roman Empire (500AD). Ancient Greece dates from 1200BC to 600AD. Classical greeks infliuenced romans but their culture is almost twice as old.

[Anonymous No.4982515]

[Anonymous No.4982518]

[Anonymous No.4982519]

[Anonymous No.4982522]

>>4982518
Sounds very much like Mycenaean Greece actually... the Iliad.

[Anonymous No.4982523]

>>4980103
i could paint better than this lmao

[Anonymous No.4982525]

>>4980095
fact, I've never gotten very good at drawing or painting even though I've casually done it my whole life. Then I got into sculpting and turns out I'm michelangelo.

[Anonymous No.4982778]

>>4980103
What is up with that background around Adam? It seems unfinished.

[Anonymous No.4982842]

>>4980103
this desu
paintings didn't really start to get good until the Renaissance -- and you really notice this when comparing medieval paintings with renaissance paintings; there's no competition.

>>4980095
and what this guy said. it's easier to make something look 3d when it's actually 3d.

[Anonymous No.4982869]

>>4980019
frescos were more of a decoration for a home. there were panel paintings at that time with which medium i don,t remember, if it is not encaustic, and they were supposedly highly valued. there are some encaustic paintings that survive, but they are of roman egypt.
>>4981200
some of these vases show a very sophisticated use of line work too that show a lot of taste and knowledge

[Anonymous No.4982874]

>>4982515
>>4982518
>>4982519
Which of these ancient artists are you most like! Find out with this quiz!

[Anonymous No.4983043]

>be called loomis
>cant even teach art in the time period your name originates from
no fucking wonder he's such a meme

[Anonymous No.4983128]

>>4982869
There are some stunning encaustics on panels from late antiquity.

I suspect part of the answer to OP is that paintings just don't survive like marble or bronze sculpture and ceramics. Random chance would dictate we'd be left with mostly mediocre samples.

Are there any ancient sources discussing great paintings?

[Anonymous No.4983139]

>>4980019
they were better than the medieval ones

[Anonymous No.4983177]

>>4983139

[Anonymous No.4983180]

>>4983177

[Anonymous No.4983182]

>>4983180

[Anonymous No.4983197]

Can't find the source, but I read a quote from ancient Athenian iirc, praising the painter of a statue.

When they try to do modern recreations of painted statuary, they usually just find the trace pigment and then slop on acrylic paint at full brilliance and opacity. In reality the paintjob might have been very subtle and lifelike.

I wonder if the best painters in the ancient world were painting statuary instead of 2D panels.

[Anonymous No.4983270]

>>4983177
Reminds me of this.

[Anonymous No.4983278]

>>4983197
on the other hand, they could have really just been gaudy as fuck
like their paintings, we will never know
maybe in a couple of thousands of years, people will look at corrupted sakimichan jpgs and argue what our art must have looked like

[Anonymous No.4983291]

>>4983278
No way to know for certain. Probably tastes changed over centuries, just like in the sculptures themselves. But it would be strange if a people who treasured carefully observed, individually recognizable sculpture then painted those sculptures with no regard for individual skin tones, textiles, etc.

They also probably did not have abundant, highly saturated pigments. Certainly not like we've created with synthetic pigments and dyes. They may have been very gaudy, while still being very naturalized. Imagine a 15 foot statue of Athena, painted with lifelike flesh, and sumptuously decorated robes and the like. Especially in a darkened temple, the effect would be awe inspiring.

[Anonymous No.4983296]

>>4982002
Thank you. Someone gets the timeline.
Ancient Greece is a world away, their level of arts and writing is incredible.

[Anonymous No.4983459]

>>4981336
It's mostly just because I love Greek & Roman antiquities. I like the colours and values too, and the fact that Ixion is almost completely out of the painting.

[Anonymous No.4983461]

>>4980019
Roman/greek sculptures used to be painted, full in color, over the white marbles. To create realistic skin tones and colors.

[Anonymous No.4983471]

>>4983461
>To create realistic skin tones and colors.
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.4983525]

>>4983471

[Anonymous No.4983526]

>>4983471
It's as likely as the opposite assumption that they were painted like four color cartoon characters

[Anonymous No.4983588]

>>4983526

>>4983197
imagine the difference in skill/taste between an ancient artisan in a competitive field and a modern scientist. the material of the sculpture isnt even the same. modern "recreations" use cast plaster it seems.

[Anonymous No.4983628]

>>4983588
I think it would be natural for scientists to assume that a trace of paint = the whole statue painted with that color in full, opaque saturation.

However, if they used encaustic, it would have been possible to do several translucent layers and get lifelike effects. The more I think about it, the more I think it probable that statue painting was its own discipline. Whereas scientists reconstructing this stuff just lay on paint like it's a paint by number, it seems reasonable that the Greek artisans would put as much effort into the paint as they did into the sculpture underneath

[Anonymous No.4983696]

>>4983525
very realistic

[Anonymous No.4983715]

>>4983628
this ought to interest you https://www.theoi.com/Text/Callistratus.html
descriptions of sculptures (possibly witnessed)though the sculptures were probably some hundreds years old in some cases at the time of the writing. there are some mentions of suble blushing, but most seem to be of the material's own color

[Anonymous No.4984432]

>>4980134
>missing eyes
>missing depth
I fucking hate restorations so much