On the painter:
en.wikipedia.org
>legit incredible painter of beautiful women forced into depression and suicide by plebs who want jigsaw shit painted by a madman instead (Picaso).
>family, disowns him despite his talent
Godamn that really makes me mad.
My second favorite after Bouguereau. Plebs gonna go after fashion and novelty.
Kawaii :3
19th century painting is literally designed for pleb bourgeoisie. The fashion and novelty of its time.
I like these paintings. Post more.
You have a poor understanding of Romanticism. Now back to /prolefeed/.
You have a poor understanding of Romanticism if you think it continued into the late 19th century.
How did he estrange himself from his family?
In what way was he forced into suicide?
Plebs in general prefer realism and photorealism in artwork. I don't mean this in the "nuh-uh, ur a pleb!" sense but instead in that realistic artwork has a broader appeal than abstractionism, and that abstractionism of all forms has been classically derided by the working class and in working class media.
The art community simply grew tired of a form of expression that had largely been completely experimented with and tapped out, while simultaneously being put up in competition against photography.
It's like how rock music is dying because it's a genre that's been completely fucking explored and stagnated because too many rock groups are obsessed with sticking the Led Zeppelin formula.
>Led Zeppelin formula
Who exactly in the rock world does nothing but arena shows and refuses to release singles?
Kys.
kek
I meant the setup of instruments and vocalists.
Honestly it's the illusionist plebs who should kill themselves. Literally no insight into art.
Follow your own advice then. Go on.
I'm not an illusionist pleb. It's 19th century capeshit.
Yes you are. Also make sure you don't leave any offspring (implying).
Since I fucked you're mom you'll have to kill yourself then son.
K-Kiss?
How much cringe can you induce?
I thought that was the goal of your little sperg out.
>I thought
Clearly thinking is not your strong point.
>How did he estrange himself from his family?
His parents were mean cunts to begin with and then they disowned him just because he wanted to be an artist. That would have been the birth of his depression.
Good one Reddit.
Apparently he fucked many of his young models.
With this delicious degree of thickness, why wouldn't you.
>be OP
>Make thread asking about old thread
>People get distracted by the OP image and derail the thread
>OP's question never gets answered
Kek
literally grandma-core paintings, this shit is so boring and uninspired it's no wonder he ended up an hero.
Back to re_ddit with you pleb
back to the nursing home Maggie.
Such is the life on Veeky Forums.
>demonstrating the human form with that level of skill
>boring and uninspired
You are ignorant af.
>he thinks photorealism is somehow synonym with quality art
how's middle school?
Future an heroes
Anyone can draw jigsaws, splatter paint all over the canvas. Not everyone can draw, paint like the academic masters. If, once you have mastered the academic style, you wish to break the rules - like Picasso and Dali, who could do photorealism or very close to it if they wanted -, that's one thing. The majority however are just mediocre artists hiding behind the facade of deconstruction/[insert buzzword], if not downright con artists (no pun intended).
Here's the thing though. Photorealism is literally ALWAYS synonym with quality art, because you need to achieve technical perfection in order to do it. Contemporary so-called art (for lack of a better word, you know what I'm talking about) may or may not be, depending on each particular case.
>Photorealism is literally ALWAYS synonym with quality art
>being this much of an embryo
Except it is. Any art or craft that takes years to perfect is synonymous with quality.
>all realistic art is photorealism
Art is enjoyed in the eye of the beholder.
They lack no ability to judge, thus they aren't ignorant.
>Not everyone can draw, paint like the academic masters.
Those who could opted to move away from Academicism since it was boring and uninspired.
Also mechanical skill is not artistry, or still lives would have been the greatest form of painting.
It has nothing with 'photorealism'. There was no such thing as a camera, when classical art was being rendered. It was pure intellectual power and tireless study of the mystifying forms of nature and challenging yourself to represent them as closely as you could; forever chasing what nature (or god rather) already had done so perfectly. This is the purpose of art, to bring out the beauty inherent in life.
The creativity aspect or abstraction in and artwork is inherent only in the sense that you may have had a novel angle on a subject. Ultimately, the 'subject' is something that has been copied and transferred since the earliest cave paintings. Its selection is arbitrary and ultimately unimportant to the assessment. Enjoyment is even more irrelevant, subjective and has no bearing on the degree of artisanship. Unless it IS the GOOD artisanship you are enjoying, in which case you are beginning to actually understand what art is. It is the details of the craft that must be understood; that is, shape, colour, light, composition, brushwork, ect,ect.
Illustration and draftsmanship are the core disciplines of art. They can be taught, learned, built upon and evaluated objectively for levels of quality. If you do not have these things, you can't call yourself a true artist because there is nothing to base the assessment on. Having 'creativity simply isn't enough. You NEED the fundamentals. From there, you can build style, uniqueness and then explore your 'creativity' but not before.
Arguing about whether a piece of art is good or not is retarded. No one if going to like or dislike a piece of art because you tell them what you think.
The paintings being posted in this thread were painted after the invention of the camera. They are 'photorealistic' in the sense they do not attempt the careful balance of composition as actual classicism did. These late 19th-century paintings are essentially anti-art. Definitely a low point in pre-modern art.
Nothing wrong with realism, mate. This painting really made people think back in the day.
You have no idea what you are talking about. The whole reason abstractionism didn't become popular until the 19th century is because before then the only people who had any disposable income, and thus could afford to commission artist, were the rich and that is all they wanted. It's simple market fores at work. Once the plebs started living past 35 and were able to start saving money they started buying abstract shit because it was dirt cheap and it was all they could afford to purchase since everyone else considered it to be worthless. Then the rich started buying it ironically, until it became trendy to start liking it non-ironically. Hipsterism is hardly a new phenomenon you know.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
You're really missing my point - intentionally or not - and you have a different set of presuppositions than me with regards to art, so there's no point in arguing. I made my point. Now I'll make my leave. Enjoy what you will enjoy, and to each his own.
And it's still making people think to this day.
that's not real thick