Why does classical art suck?

Why does classical art suck?

it was the beginning of Hallmark-esque sentimentality, cheap aesthetic just for the sake of being enjoyed and being popular. Like cheap homogenous radio pop songs, it takes lots of skill and brilliance to create, and the end product doesn't further the art at all and is ultimately forgettable. It's superficial.

How is modern art better?

Well, at least it's challenging.

I'm just curious because I hear a lot of people say modern art is better, but I don't really see it. I agree with your analysis of classical art tho

It's a more vital expression of the emotion that Picasso sought to portray. Rather than an eye pleasing and distant portrayal of suffering this one is immediate, with the fragmented reality better speaking to our own experience of suffering. It's just as intrusive and off-putting as our own misery.

>muh feelings

Yes, that is what art is about. Good observation.

You mean neo-classical?

Don't you go hating on my boy Lysippos

>Why does [neo-]classical art suck?

I dunno, you tell me. Do you think its sucks? Have people been telling you it sucks?

I think it serves a purpose.

It doesn't unless it's kitsch or fawning over the exotic or the ancient or the sexual

Medieval art is best art though

What kind of medieval art? Can you post an example?

not him, but have an example

>reee outta my way, peasant fucking shits

...

h

...

r

...

1

3

53

...

rt

How many of those paintings were composed would definitely feel somewhat artificial or not that relatable to modern sensibilities. The rendering is gunning for realism, but it gives the effect of actors on a theater stage where everything is posed just right, instead of feeling like something that could actually happen.

...

o

This is not classical art.

This a romantic painting of Julius Caesar and Vercingetorix.

You're not even smart enough to know what classical art is.

Idiot.

Because the middle class hates it.

it's not hallmark-esque sentimentality

no it isn't and your analysis of picasso was poor

neo-classical is a specific style of art to which OP's painting doesn't belong

it's classical in the sense that academic art built upon classical precedence in rendering human form, expression, and narrative

it's not really romantic though

Because people that haven't seen a YouTube video explaining some pieces of modern art that you now claim to be your favorite pieces enjoy "classical art" (a term I assume you chose based on your ignorance of "classical" music) and as you feel superior to these people you cannot like what they like.

You clearly don't understand the difference between kitsch and something whose superficial beauty doesn't hinder its value as art. It's a lot easier to at least claim to enjoy "challenging" art, as few people enjoy it and if you can see one remedying trait in it you can be "the one" who enjoys it. Finding a deeper appreciation of pieces that have mass appeal is much more difficult, and likening pre-20th century art to modern pop music is laughable.

Lionel Noel Royer
1899

This painting is very romantic in its interpretation of an historical event.

it doesn't belong to Classical either

being romantic and being Romantic aren't the same thing. romanticism is a style (in contrast to classicism/classical art)

no point correcting a falsity with another falsity

...

To anybody that attempts to lump in cubism with today's """"modern art""""": fuck you.

So he was not an artist but a philosopher

he created garbage and convinced the gullible like you that it's a masterpiece

>Picasso was not an artist

Enough Veeky Forums for today

Say what you will but guys like Picasso and Dali could easily paint realits paintings as they received classical training. They just didn't bother. So they weren't talentless hacks.

>10 minutes into Vespers and Chill and he gives you this look

Ernst Fuchs is the apex of Western visual art. Everything done before him converges to him and everything done after him diverges from him.

I never claimed the OP picture was Neo-Classical

I assumed that's what he meant howver

shut the fuck up

Did art in the middle ages accurately portray the mentality of the people

Like here, Romanos Diogenes has just lost the bulk of the Byzantine armed forces and basically opened Anatolia for rape season, been captured and is being stepped on by Alp Arslan and he just looks disinterested

Alp Arslan has just had a major victory over the romans and is humiliating their emperor and he looks like he'd rather be home

no

no

That's a really good comparison