Why is Eastern art so crude, minimalist,undeveloped and soulless compared to Western art?

>crude, minimalist,undeveloped
I agree with these

>and soulless
But not one. Outside of the fact that's subjective, your painting you posted, OP, is full of soul. And if you don't think so, but think western art in comparison somehow is, your picture looks exactly like a lot of Medieval icon paintings just with Asian themes.

West
>Colorful, spiritual, mystic, fun to look at
East
>ME CHINESE, ME PLAY JOKE. ME GO PEE PEE IN YOUR COKE.

>western culture
>spiritual, colorful and mystic
pick one

I'm specifically referring to 1100s art.

>But not this one
fixed the typo

>Baroque western art sucked
I can see why someone would think that. Those paintings can get pretty dense, there's no consideration of moderation with some baroque paintings I feel. Like the artists tried to cram so much shit in between the frame. I feel like the late High Renaissance paintings right before Baroque, such as the frescoes of Raphael or The Last Judgment by Michelangelo should be about as excessive as an artist should go.

Look I'm not trying to be controversial or anything BUT

For sacred art non-realistic style is more appropriate. Medieval and Byzantine art, despite odd, had an air of seriousness about them. The same goes for the music. Renaissance art on the other hand is too sensual. They were painting their whore girlfriend's face on the Virgin Mary for Christ's sake, Borgia was Jesus and Jupiter was God the Father!

>They were painting their whore girlfriend's face on the Virgin Mary for Christ's sake

Did this ever actually happen?

The closest I know is some artists painting their self-portrait and labeling it a biblical saint.

Based on what you said, do you think Mona Lisa is the best work of the Renaissance then?

Actually this was during the late T'ang & early Song art craze of minimalism.

Chink painters got bored of color that many thought the true skill was going monochromatic.

Meanwhile white boi devolved from Roman greatness to coloring book drawings & jesus.

i know this is bait, but others may not, so i feel I should point out that the Ancient Romans, as well as the Ancient Greeks, used a lot of colors in their sculptures and drawings. The Ancient Greeks actually considered their drawings their best type of art, not pottery or sculpture as many of us were led to believe -- we only think this is fact because none of the Greek drawings have survived.

Non-bait reply but I wasnt implying Greco-Romans didn't use color.

Just making fun of Medieval art relative to Clasicals.

Yes Renaissance artists would definitely paint their gf and crushes as saints.

Mona Lisa is arguably the best Renaissance painting but I prefer muh Venus because I'm a sucker for redheads.

no him but
>Subject: Lippi was chaplain to a convent in Prato, near Florence, where, says Vasari, he was painting an altarpiece for the nuns of St Margherita. There he saw the "beautiful and graceful" Lucrezia Buti, a novice. He persuaded the nuns to let him paint her as Our Lady, then persuaded Lucrezia to run away with him. The nuns were shamed, Lucrezia's father "never smiled again" - but she stayed with Filippo.

>There is documentary confirmation of the tale - Lippi was denounced to Florence's office of the monasteries and of the night for having Buti, her sister and five other nuns living with him between 1456 and 1458. The friar and nun had a son and, later, a daughter.

>The Virgin Mary in this most delicate and earthy of Florentine religious paintings has traditionally been identified as Lucrezia. Certainly, the same model poses as Mary in his circular, beautiful, Madonna and Child With the Birth of the Virgin and The Meeting of Joachim and Anna (c1452 or mid to late 1460s) in the Pitti Palace, Florence. These two paintings stand out among Lippi's works for the emotionally involved representation of a Madonna who seems unequivocally a real woman.

Throwing down some nice spooks, OP.

PS: The Birth of Venus is by Boticceli in case someone claims I implied Leonardo painted it.

allegory of spring is better desu

I once heard a lecture on this by a Catholic professor. He went at a great length to conclude that it was a gnostic-luciferian painting.

Because for societies where 2D art isn't treated as an end to itself it is treated like any other craft such as woodworking or carpentry, which means an artistic tradition dominated by "low" art, otherwise known as commercial art, meaning that they preferred printmaking and high-volume techniques which would allow them to churn out the art at a high rate rather than focus for months on end over a single piece painted on stretched canvas and mounted on some bishop or aristocrat's wall.

The societies where we see the heights of artistic achievement all have the same thing in common: a body of people who appreciates art enough for their tax-dollars to go towards the production of it, which liberates the artist from the need for high volume churn and instead allows him to invest a considerable amount of resources into fewer projects.

>implying

...

The viewer gives a heart to art.
White canvas is blank for those who have no imagination

The soul is an illusion you filthy gweilo

Anyone who looks at Picasso's art from Les Demoiselles d'Avignon to his late ceramics gets a sense of occult energy not actually so different from the enchantment of Botticelli. Picasso's transformations, of the world through Cubism, of himself and his art, make him a visual alchemist.

just because you are a philosophical zombie without a soul doesn't mean other people lack souls

Just because you can't accept that your consciousness is nothing but an illusory property of your own physical brain doesn't mean other people are stupid too.

>Put some whores face on Mary
No shit retard. The last time someone had seen Mary was over a millennia before the Renaissance. Since pictures weren't a thing in the year 1 no one actually knows what she looks like. And people needed a muse for their painting, so would you rather depict the most important woman in your religion as some ugly ass thot or your super hot gf who you think is comparable to Greek goddesses?

Ahhh yes
>I have definitive evidence of your retardation cuz no soul haha fuckin roasted
That's a very solid argument. No no let's not take into account the entire philosophical discussion behind the soul, and, assuming it's reality, the place of the soul in art. You say soul no real so clearly you, the enlightened ubermensch, are correct and everyone who disagrees with you is a driveling mongoloid who shouldn't be allowed outside without a helmet. Bravo my dude, bravo.

Why do crude, underdeveloped, soulless autistics constantly try to associate their personal tastes with some non-existant objective truth?

Looks better than Medieval European art

This looks pretty meh to me. Okay the Guy knows how to paint, but I don't really feel anything looking at it, it doesn't have that "soul" as OP said that you could find in a Caravaggio painting for instance.

...

...

>I don't feel anything

Fuck off you retared fuck, it's full of feels

The Gandharan art was directly shaped by the Greco-Bactrians who were decidedly Western. They were also the first to portray Buddha Sakyamuni.

Yeah Jesus feels like he would'nt have created a cult if it was to be painted by shit artists.

Yeah just like greek art was influenced by eastern art in the first place ?

Eastern sculpting was influenced by Indo-Greek art. As time passed after the fall of the Indo-Greek kingdoms and it traveled farther East its quality declined due to being disconnected from the original artistic schools.
Still, some things are pretty realistic like this statue of Chōgen.

They never invented oil paint. European paintings was also shit before it became widespread.

>Christianity
>A cult

Siiiiiigh...

the existence of anime alone single handedly invalidates the entire western """"""""""""art""""""""""""

Gr8 b8 m8 but I don't wanna believe any weeb is this autistic so I'm just gonna accept this as fucking with everyone

They probably sealed a mummy in there

You are looking at it from entirely the wrong viewpoint. It espouses views that are alien to people raised in the western tradition, and without the right education we can't understand it in the same way as the artist did. Even so, it is beautiful.

Oriental art from the Middle Ages >>> European art from the Middle Ages.

Seriously, Christcuck art is garbage.

>I don't feel anything

>>Colorful, spiritual, mystic, fun to look at

Yes, very fun to look at.

Nothing died to be reborn in the east tho.