/lit/ - Literature

>>17437927
Bump because why not

>>17438009
thx, anon
btw, could anyone identify this painting?
it looks to be a representation of the Babylonian exile, but the two crosses with miniature Jesuses suggests otherwise

>>17437927
More contemporary artists, harder to see in galleries, and not buying OGs or prints, main way to support. Commentary apparatus in art books taking more page space than the works if fucking aids

>>17438070
>harder to see in galleries
i think most medieval work is just illustrations in books, so you can't see them in person really

>>17438070
what if you're too poor for the books

>>17438697
thrift stores are cheap

>>17437927

Yes OP, I like art books very much. I like the Phaidon series "The [X] Book" series. I also highly recommend M.C. Escher: His Life and Complete Graphic Work. One may not care for Mark Rothko, but the study of him by David Anfam is a nice piece of academic writing.

>>17437927
I own the larger Taschen Expressionism book and it's top quality.

do you have to buy the illuminated manuscripts themselves to see the illustrations? or are there any books that contain just the illustrations themselves? a lot of those illuminated manuscripts contain wonderful images, but i don't want to buy the manuscripts themselves as i cannot read them

>>17439480
>No words only pictures
The state of /lit/

>>17439487
anon i cannot read latin
nor do i care about the pretty flowers that cover most of the page
but do you see that cool little image?
that's what i want to look at
look how epic it looks
i don't want to use a magnifying glass, though
i want it to cover the whole page
sorry if that makes me a reatard

>>17437927
Maybe try Gustav Dore

>>17439502
thanks, anon
i just looked him up
his illustrations from the inferno are wonderful

>>17438037
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Très_Riches_Heures_du_Duc_de_Berry
folio 90v

>>17437927
>>17439480
>>17440671
Also if you're mainly interested in viewing these pictures, I highly recommend Wikimedia Commons, there's tons of them.

>>17437927
Yes I recently ordered a book of Giorgio DeChirico’s paintings. Much better than looking at art on a PC.

>>17437927
>biblical illustrations
https://www.amazon.com/Dore-Bible-Illustrations-Gustave/dp/048623004X
This has all of Gustave Dore’s famous Bible illustrations, he also did Dante (the sticky is in fact from his version) and Don Quixote. There is also a KJV Bible in the b&n classics series that has these illustrations which you can get pretty cheap.

>>17439496
Based

>>17437927
paintings and pictures aren't art.

just read Blake

>>17441276
What?!?!?!?!??!

>>17437927
Dark ages my ass!
Looks pretty bright to me!

I've been passionately collecting artbooks for a while now. By now, my shelves house a collection that should be worth low five figures. AMA. And no, I don't collect picture books.

>>17442536
whos the best artist
whos the worst artist

>>17437927
Boy anon have I got a fucking book for you.
Its name is Alchemy and Mysticism by Roob. Its an annotated artbook about medieval and Renaissance era esoterica artwork

>>17442536
>should be worth low five figures
was the cost higher than what you can sell it for now?

>>17442656
holy shit this looks based as hell
thanks a bunch, anon

>>17442714
It's actually the amount the collection cost me. I don't know how much it's worth, poor phrasing on my end. But I know numerous books at least doubled in value, and many others are going to tripple or quadruple eventually. At least in theory, since I have no clue for how much they actually sell. Hard to gauge whether Amazon/Abebook/Ebay second-hand pricing is even remotely accurate. Not like I intend to tell them anyway.
>>17442647
I am a lawyer, not an art major. Sorry, can't help thee.

>>17442722
Enjoy it and no problem, anon. I reccommend getting a hardback copy, its very slick.

>>17442656
Very nice.

>>17441706
dali was a hack
people were doing more surreal shit 500 years before him

>>17437927
Get Taschen books like the Chronicle of Nurnberg, Sébastien Mamerot, A Chronicle of the Crusades
>>17439502
That's not medieval

>>17445315
Why the big strawberry?

>>17438645
>i think most medieval work is just illustrations in books, so you can't see them in person really
There’s plenty of medieval artwork still extant.
Admittedly there is less medieval artwork than there is artwork from the renaissance, or later periods,
But medieval artwork is probably just as easy to see as Egyptian artifacts,
And plenty of museums have some of those.

As far as the artwork goes,
Painting on wood panels are a major type,
Carved wood and stone objects are probably next.
Standard daily ise articles made from wood or metal, or leather, most of which were decorated, are also not uncommon.
Stained glass also exists.
Prints on paper Or parchment are also somewhat common, although these are usually only displayed for a limited time in revolving exhibits.

To see medieval art though, it really depends on were you live.
New York has The Cloisters Museum, which is part of the Met, as well as other pieces in The Met itself.
There’s also other Museum collections like The Frick Collection and the Morgan Library and Museum.
Most other major US cities will have decent collections as well.
Philadelphia doesn’t even appear on a bunch of lists, and they have a decent collection of medieval and renaissance art at the Philadelphia Museum of Art, although the collection gets far better and more extensive post-rennaissance.
If you're in Europe, there are plenty of old churches and buildings with medieval artwork still extant, and museums with great collections as well.

>>17438697
>what if you're too poor for the books
Art books tend to turn up in large quantities at decent used book stores, especially if you’re not overly picky about which books you want.
Books like the Jansen and the Gardner histories of art are used as textbooks for art classes, so used bookstores near art colleges tend to usually have a couple copies or more in stock.
Older editions are usually fine for most people, and those sell for a fraction of what the most up to date version would.

>>17446747
>Most other major US cities will have decent collections as well.
dang, i guess i completely missed the parts about castles and knights in america
i guess i'll have to reread a history textbook

>>17439480
>do you have to buy the illuminated manuscripts themselves to see the illustrations? or are there any books that contain just the illustrations themselves? a lot of those illuminated manuscripts contain wonderful images, but i don't want to buy the manuscripts themselves as i cannot read them
Libraries and art museums with Illuminated Manuscripts would prefer that those manuscripts are handles as little as possible, even by knowledgable academics.
As such, you can usually find high quality digital scans of the manuscripts on the Libraries/Museums websites.
The British Library is pretty good at this.
Otherwise,
The are high end publishers, who produce “facsimile” copies of illuminated manuscripts, which can be almost completely exact, to the point of reproducing worm holes thru the pages, and fingerprints, etc.
These tend to be expensive, but the publishers will usually print extra copies of the artwork pages, and sell those individually at somewhat reasonable prices.
High end facsimiles of pencil drawing for instance, sometimes reproduce the pencil indent marks in the paper, and the pages need to be marked on the back to be identifies as facsimiles because the printing is so good.

>>17445315
>dali was a hack
>people were doing more surreal shit 500 years before him
Yes,
Artists were doing “Surrealist” type artwork way before Dali.
That said,
Dali was a very skilled artist.
I don’t mean a good artist, I mean an excellent artist.
Dali’s painting technique, at least when he wasn’t trying to knock out extra painting when he was low on shekels, was Superb, and had as much if not more detail than many Masters paintings from the Late Medieval and Renaissance period.
His style was distinctive enough that it is highly recognizable.
In addition to painting, Dali did sculptures, and prints, and jewelry design.

>>17437927
yeah more like fart books faggot

>>17446874
do you have to practice art from a young age? is that typical of most painters and so on? do you also have to have a high iq as well?
>>17446879
:(

>>17445315
>dali was a hack
Bataille ripped on him hard in an early essay. Not sure what it'd be called in english but it's probably got "Lugubrious" still in the title.

>>17446767
>dang, i guess i completely missed the parts about castles and knights in america
>i guess i'll have to reread a history textbook
There are museums in the USA that have rooms from medieval castles, that were disassembled and shipped over, mostly during the “Gilded Age”.
William Randolph Hearst was one of the people known for buying them and shipping them over.
The Philadelphia museum of art literally has one,
https://philamuseum.org/collections/permanent/42060.html
As does the Met Cloisters in NYC,
As do some other museums from what I recall.
The Met and the Philadelphia museum of art also have rooms from medieval buildings that were reassembled in rooms in the museum.
Both museums also have armor collections from the period.
The Met has some of the nicest stained glass from the period I’ve ever seen, and you can actually get sort of close to it, unlike in Medieval churches.
Both museums have a crapload of paintings from the period, although the Met collection is way better.

Have you ever been to a decent museum?

>>17446890
>do you have to practice art from a young age? is that typical of most painters and so on? do you also have to have a high iq as well?
High IQ probably helps, but there were plenty of really good artists who weren’t geniuses.
IQ is mainly for certain technical aspects, which are somewhat negated now do to readily available, pre made art supplies, synthetic pigments,
And a wide variety of artistic mediums.

As far as practice from a young age,
It helps, but isn’t necessary.
Anatomical studies help with laying out and drawing paintings from scratch, without models to draw from.
I think there’s a theory that some artists like Rembrandt had a lazy eye, which helped, possibly with perspective, although that can be artificially achieved.
If you want to start drawing, Nicolaides ‘The Natural Way to Draw: A Working Plan for Art Study’ is considered a good book to start with.

>>17446874
You should have also mentioned that Dali and the surrealists where heavily influenced by this stuff, they were not really pretending to be some original new thing, they were updating/reviving older techniques. They did not really hide this, pseuds just never learned anything about the movement and love to show off their ignorance.

>>17446971
thank you, anon
you are very helpful
i <3 you
>>17446991
do you know what the difference is between metaphysical art and surreal art is?
i think the works of Remedios Varo and Dali are sort of similar, but idk if they ever met or anything

>>17447014
>do you know what the difference is between metaphysical art and surreal art is?
Surrealism sort of winds up being a catch all term used for artists from a particular period but whose work may be very different.
Dali, de Chirico, and Man Ray, all get lumped together as “Surrealist” Artists, but only some of their artworks could really be grouped together as being in the same style, with plenty of artworks that are in no way similar.

>>17447014
>do you know what the difference is between metaphysical art and surreal art is?
Yes, but I have no idea what you are implying.

>>17447104
You can larp as me all you want but that won't make it so. Also, Man Ray is generally lumped in with dada and that really makes more sense, almost all, if not all, of his work can be viewed as dada, only a small amount can be viewed as surrealist.

>>17447235
>Yes, but I have no idea what you are implying.
oh sorry
i should have asked "what is the difference"
to me they are similar but i feel like something distinguishes them
idk what tho

>>17447235
Man Ray was involved with the surrealists, a lot of that early influence on the surrealists was associated with the movement mainly through Breton
>>17445315
If you think this resembles Dali you should probably google paranoiac-critical method

>>17447239
Location. We can find other differences but to do so is essentially pedantry, it is just surrealism with a different cultural background.

>>17447271
Sure Man Ray was involved with the surrealist, that does not male him one. All of Europe was involved with Hitler before he got cocky, does that make all of Europe Nazis?