Wow Da Vinci's arguing skills were not even on par with the average Veeky Forums shitposter

>music is more accomodating than painting
top zozzle, Da Vinci himself was a failed composer!

precisely my point. why struggle with something hard when you can masquarade as an "artist" in photography, film, writing, or music.

talking about the present time kiddo. anybody can pick up a guitar shit out 3 random chords while pretending to be hip.

>talking about the present time kiddo. anybody can pick up a guitar shit out 3 random chords while pretending to be hip.
That's like likening the """"art"""" of Poopy Kaur to the art of Dante you dishonest pseud

What's your beef with Da Vinci? Did Peterson tweet something?

huh? you gonna pretend now like modern music isn't basically contaminated with muscially deaf idiots who are selling the image of themselves?

i seriously hope you're not going to argue painting has the same % of charlatans as music or writing. it doesn't because it's not economically viable.

>>i seriously hope you're not going to argue painting has the same % of charlatans as music or writing
i seriously hope you have some data to back this up, because if I go on etsy or down the road outside, i'll see plenty of "painters" selling shitty still life paintings

I don't know, I believe music is still the least de-skilled art form (serious music)

I don't think music is harder than writing. I'm biased though because I took guitar lessons at a young age, and I don't remember the grind to git gud.

you have no idea, or even ideas, probably

I've read before that all prose writers are failed bitter poets and that resonated with me, you on the other hand are just rambling

he didnt have stefan molyneux's The Art of the Argument (tm) to guide him, so it's to be exepected

>you would have to describe the air obscured and darkened by fumes from frightful and deadly engines mixed with thick clouds of dust polluting the atmosphere, and the panicky flight of wretches fearful of horrible death
mfw that's more evocative and involving than any poultry battle painting I've seen before

>poultry battle painting

I must admit I have never really taken any notice of this genre of painting before, but it's surprisingly quite evocative.

top zozzle user.

You're just not used to people talking sincerely and without buzzwords, OP.

>you can literally tell whether someone has a potential to be a painter on their first try
That isn't true. Drawing, and by extension painting, are skills that can be learned. Van Gogh didn't start learning to draw until he was 27, you know? There's the issue of innate talent, if you believe in that sort of thing, but most people should be able to learn it to a decent enough level if they apply themselves sufficiently.

What kind of painting do you mean? Do you mean like fine art stuff? Many people still do it at an extremely high level but it just isn't in the public eye anymore due to all the newer forms of media. Commercial art has also grown to a crazy extent with the advent of digital painting. Da Vinci would get paid to paint walls or get commissioned to do portraits, these days many artists get commissioned by companies to design and paint environments or characters. Painting is still very much alive in many aspects of society, it's just that it doesn't generate that much interest from the public anymore imo.

I agree with your overall point however I think you're wrong about the Van Gogh bit. I'm pretty sure that he already knew how to draw at 28, it was painting that he didn't know. If you look at his work you can see that he is a very excellent draftsman and his sketches quite often eclipse his paintings in terms of skill level because he learned to paint later in life while he was already fairly skilled at drawing.

My source is Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain, 4th Edition by Betty Edwards, page 178. I checked the book before making the post so I'll quote it
>Van Gogh worked as an artist only during the last ten years of his life, from the age of 27 until he died at 37. During the first two years of that decade, van Gogh did drawings only, teaching himself to draw.
I checked some of this on Google when I first read it and apparently it is true. He started to paint when he was almost 29, so your assertion about that is correct. The context of the Edwards quote is two Van Gogh sketches, from 1880 and 1882, which show how he initially had difficulty with human proportion, which he had overcome by the time of the latter sketch.

Also the book which Van Gogh used to teach himself to draw, the Drawing Course by Charles Bargue, was translated into English and put back into print not too long ago.