Post shitty medieval art in this thread

STOP CALLING MEDIEVAL ART SHITTY REEEEEEEEEEE DELETE THIS!

This one gets reposted on pol and is hilarious

Dat perspective

That poor African American male ...

The perspective was stylized to be off. This thread is GARBAGE.

...

...

>tfw the fence is too tall for you to shoot your cannons

...

They hated snails, I do know that.

My Lord tis not herb.

...

...

>"Hey bruv, can you light me a fag?"

...

>another rare snail for the collection

>when the river is so tiny that a single dude laying down can serve as bridge

>"Why do we need a Siege Tower? We can just jump across!"

...

Fuck scale, perspective and 3D is general

>tfw too intelligent for jousting

I think this wooden plank I took from my grandma's attic will be enough

So that's the "half-swording" thing I heard so much about?
Looks more like 1/10th swording to me but whatever

Love the two rabbits
Now that's world building!

This is my jam!

why are these so bad???

>but it's muh style

Christian Dark Ages
Thank God the Renaissance happened

I don't see no Muslims or even ancients making anything better at the time in terms of imagery.

Muslims went through the Islamic Somber Age
As for Ancient people, they made extraordinary paintings and stuff, but they were all destroyed during the Dark Ages

Medieval art is the best ever desu

ITT: one butthurt anti-white autist

>There's a dragon terrorising our village, please save us!
>I WILL SAVE YOUR VILLAGE MY LADY
Gets there
>There must be more to life than this...

The nigga with the pot on top of his head. Dafuq.

Why did they hate snails?

>bitch keep playing and I will cut you

that's actually pretty good, honestly

...

>it's supposed to look bad

This was preserved in Pompeii by the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 AD

lmao

ITT: people on a fucking anime/manga forum completely fail to realise that 99% of "medieval art" is book illustration panels specifically designed to convey events and ideas in a few square inches at best and it looks shitty because it's a heavily zoomed in, cropped picture that has no sense of scale.

that dragon looks so silly, but i understand that tht's because we've been desensitized by hundreds of years of popular images of dragon.s I guess back in the day that was scary as fuck

I don't understand why progressives hate Medieval art but love contemporary art.

Both are shit on a technical level, but at least Medieval art is fun.

He's about to throw it you dumb nigger

kys

I think this is the original freaky friday

>implying Medieval art isn't furfags, furfags everywhere.

I don't get it. Why would a society that went off on Crusades embrace furfaggotry? The Christians saw anthropomorphic depictions of God as heresy but were okee dokie with this shit?

Several art historians have characterized Medieval European art as a uniquely Christian style, as opposed to the pagan art of the Greeks and Romans.

Medieval art is typically more concerned with the concept behind the piece rather than its realism. Hence the strange perspectives and bizarre depictions of people, places, and things, as this is all for the purpose of conveying a message which is deeply spiritual in its nature and fundamentally not concrete. Picasso was known to have admired this style. The impressionists were particularly taken by Medieval art's ability to convey ideas without depicting them directly.

So if we want to understand why Medieval artists made use of so much anthropomorphic animals we would have to know the concept the artist was striving to evoke with these fantastic creatures.

Anyone have any idea what that concept might be?

Why don't you ever post pic related? It's like you have a reason for always posting that one image and claiming it to be the summation of the Roman Empire.

cont-

...

The romans really had some bizarre color schemes on their statues

>painted statue

...

hot

>The Christians saw anthropomorphic depictions of God as heresy
Wat?

...

What the fuck?

>anthropomorphic depictions of God as heresy
But Genesis literally says that men are made in God's image

>The Scriptures themselves amply warn us against the mistake of interpreting their figurative language in too literal a sense. They teach that God is spiritual, omniscient, invisible, omnipresent, ineffable. Insistence upon the literal interpretation of the metaphorical led to the error of the Anthropomorphites.

Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)

>The Scriptures themselves amply warn us against the mistake of interpreting their figurative language in too literal a sense.
But we're talking about fucking pictures, who says they have to be literal?

roca.org/OA/19/19e.htm

>But we're talking about fucking pictures, who says they have to be literal?

Images spread ideas. The most popular conception of god in western society is now a human.

How could you hurt that dragon? He' clearly a mong and enjoing himself just sitting on the grass.

Minoan art still looks amazing 3.5ky later.

Then why's it okay when scripture does it? Clearly that's also led to some popular misconceptions.

>its ok when japan does it
I hate weebs

Yeah, that's why there's no depictions of God in any medieval art anywhere.

OH WAIT!

It's a medical textbook illustrating different conditions, ailments and treatments.

Adding the picture might help...

God crea ting the Earth.

God with Adam and Eve

Souls being carried up to Heaven.

Etc etc.

...

>Medieval art is typically more concerned with the concept behind the piece rather than its realism.

This sounds like something someone would come up with afterwards to distract from the fact they can't draw a human any better than a pre-schooler can.

"I'm not retarded, I just made you think I was."

That dragon has Down syndrome and that knight has autism.

I grew up Southern Baptist (so take this with a giant chunk of salt, especially since I'm an atheist now) and how this was always interpreted in my church was that "in God's image" meant more that man also has free will (lol) and the ability to make judgments about things. Another slightly lesser component of that was also the belief that a central part of both God's and man's nature was a deep need for spiritual companionship. We were created in his image so that we could be in fellowship with him. This is often expressed as a sense of longing to be with God. Of course that's all bullshit, but the point is: I don't think any modern (and probably most pre-modern, I dunno) Christians actually think God (the father) literally looks like a human being.

>butthurt

...

...

...

This was supposedly drawn by a woman.
Damned wenches having no respect for her husbands. Why were the medieval lords so cucky?

>This sounds like something someone would come up with afterwards to distract from the fact they can't draw a human any better than a pre-schooler can

Problem with stuff like this is that it is just plain wrong. Show me one preschooler that could make a scene like the one in You might have not noticed the spotty fur texture on the left creature's hip. There is also detail on the robe being used to bind the human's hands and grassy textures on the grass. Its not at all realistic, but I don't think a child could easily produce something like this.

Or what about something like this one ?

The other problem is that while this style was predominate in Medieval Europe it is not unique to that time or place. Consider the Christ Pantocrator pic related.

Sometimes thoroughgoing realism and naturalism just might not get a point about holy or spiritual things across. So, in the case of this icon, asymmetry was employed to convey the nature of the hypostatic union.

*rope

Medieval artists clearly didn't give a fuck

>Attack on Titan final arc

...

*Unironic m'lady*

t. Edward Witherspoon the Painter of Agincourt

It's...It's a joke, m'lady. People back then told jokes too.

Everyone thought the Greeks and Romans were minimalist patricians.

Turns out they were gaudy faggots!

As far as we know, virtually every statue was painted at some point.