Why did European art go through a period of degeneration?

in the OP

What of it? Have one thing to say?

Just asking why you made this thread again

Old thread btw:
archived.moe/his/thread/3503191/#3503191

What makes you come into a thread and talk about a subject that has nothing to do with the thread they just entered?

Indeed a great one that one

What makes you make the same thread multiple times?
I'm not even trying to be hostile or anything, I'm genuinely curious. It's not like this is a really politically charged thread like the "why do all leftists want to destroy the white race threads", so I can't figure out your motives

It's obvious that rather than a change of taste away from realism, people simply forgot what looks good while still maintaining aspects of the craft from roughly the 3rd to 8th centuries when they suddenly remembered objective good taste. Could it perhaps have been, with all deference to one of this board's preeminent thinkers, "psykhic sabotage? What dark forces could have been behind this?

Can I not be curious as to why European art lost the brutality and beauty it once had?

"Degenerate Roman art" is the new Africa shitpost

But why make a new thread, with the same image and essentially the same OP, when you have the old one? Why not do further research?

I am at a loss OP

hes autistic most likely

Take a look at this instance. Powerful, brutal, clear and beautiful. So clearly human in an undeniable kind of way. One example of many

And then there is this. Something that makes you feel only disgust. It is alien, inhuman, weak, and lacks beauty. They wear masks resembling the faces of dead people

*for* instance.

That he's trying to force the meme is obvious, but I don't know why he's pursuing it so weakly

Simple and intricate

Brutal and beautiful

>being this much of an art pleb

Care to explain how you enjoy inhuman monstrosities?

Because we had this thread before and OP got BTFO and told he was a retard

Actually he came out on top if I remember correctly.

>if I remember correctly
>31 posts, 11 posters and there's only five image replies connected to OP

That's nice OP. Why are people like you so fucking autistic and obsessed with having your meme way? Veeky Forums isn't Burger King you shit.

Wait a minute.... I've seen this post before

posts, 11 posters and there's only five image replies connected to OP
What's your point?

Why won't you answer my question?

Post your suburb.

What was your question again?

Christianity and Germans

if you don't think late roman art is the tightest shit then get out of my face

Here's a great explanation as to why Late Roman art got more stylized

reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/67ue93/in_late_roman_sculpture_emperors_are_depicted/dgtkx3q/

It was a conscious decision. Note that realistic art was still maufactured in the Late Roman period, but it was aimed at the lower classes, while the aristocracy preferred stylised art.

Catholic art > orthodox toddler scribble scrabbles

The figure on the left is from the 1st century

The figure on the right is from the 6th century

Which one do you think looks better

This one is interesting because the bottom is still very classical while the portraits above are almost in that early Byzantine style.
c. 250

left is unironically better

>simply forgot what looks good
This is what change of taste means once you get rid of the childish notion of objective beauty.

They really never could forget Roman of Greek art. Stuff was literally all over the place for centuries. You guys need to read some Panofsky or Droysen instead of looking at wiki articles.

>are almost in that early Byzantine style.
No. Top is just a different style that existed throughout the Roman era, You obviously don't know what you are talking about.
Questions like this are stupid desu senpai. Left could be a toy and right something made for a king. But threads like these always go into apples and oranges territory.

typical metro

>it's a dark ages meme thread thinly disguised as a muh heritage whining about modern degeneration

You've never heard of Roman mosaics, did you?

>this has nothing to do with realism and everything to do with the degeneration of their artistic sensibilities. Not to mention craftsmanship.
All of these show an inferior skill level compared to their predecessors. You say change in taste when it is so clearly a change in ability. They are awful.

This is a sarcophagus. Bottom are idealized scenes from some myth. Top depict the people burried which are not in the same style. There is nothing unusal about it.

>posts shitty reproduction
>"You obviously don't know what you're talking about."

>posts a disgusting mess
You realize this isn't helping right?

Again, looks cheap. Weak.

>In any case, the debate is purely modern: it is clear that most Byzantine viewers did not consider their art to be abstract or unnaturalistic. As Cyril Mango has observed, "our own appreciation of Byzantine art stems largely from the fact that this art is not naturalistic; yet the Byzantines themselves, judging by their extant statements, regarded it as being highly naturalistic and as being directly in the tradition of Phidias, Apelles, and Zeuxis."[9]
Stop pretending Byzantines were doing abstraction on purpose you morons.

insular art was a mistake

get off of my board you plebs

Ok, now I know you are memeing. Boyana is literally proto-renaissance art and the faces look better (more realistic) than literally anything produced in Europe for like 600 years. Also had no predecessors that looked "better"

>le epic Donald Trump Twitter style response
Show me a better looking older frontispiece. But it is just memes.

I prefer Roman art over Christian stuff any day but you just want to whine about degeneracy and post memes instead of having a somewhat fact based discussion. Read Panofsky, he's cool then I might wanna talk to you again.
PhD student with knowledge about actual are history out.

And the truth emerges.

Which means that it really was all a matter of skill. They weren't masters of a different craft. They were simply unable to recreate the beauty and the power of the older art. What a sad sad thing.

It has nothing to do with realism and everything to do with beauty and brutality. Their art for the most part completely lacked these things. It is weak and inhuman. Cheap and sad.

Looks islamic

>clear they lost knowledge in terms of craftsmanship but also beauty in general.
ERE didnt lost anything, what you see today is what survived, remember that constatinople got sacked a couple of times

You somehow managed to be the dumbest person in this thread

British arrogance truly reeks

>Beautiful. Skillful. It truly shows what the Ancient Masters were capable of. Early Roman art exudes sheer strength. So clear. So powerful. So brilliant. It touches on the very essence of what it means to be human.

>YUCK! Disgusting! Vile! Inhuman! Weak! Look at how alien, how grotesque it is! It evokes only the worst emotions in my stomach, it makes me want to retch. Why couldn't they have looked to the old masters?

cherry picking

And that is an example of some of their worst. Which is hilarious considering how similar it is to the late romans best.

Once again in trying to prove me wrong you have only shown how right I really am. But not only that, you have also shown you will go so low as to pretend you are more stupid than you really.

>the late romans best is comparable to some random scribble you found
Thanks for doing all the work for me champ

its because christian art is not based on nature.

Greek and roman art in comparison was, thats why everything had to look natural or else it was shitty

>Tips fedora

I always thought it was a shift of what was considered important. The reason we had the renaissance was to get back to the focus on the individual being important rather than your spirituality.

The reason for art going "backwards" so to speak was people were less concerned with depicting the human form because that wasn't as important as spiritual symbolism. After doing art like this for years and years people just forgot how to properly do the human form.

Also since the majority of the population couldn't read it was a good way to get across spiritual messages through pictures than through words.

Pic related is the chi rho page from the Book of Kells. Packed full of religious symbolism.

It has nothing to do with what they are depicting an everything to do with the degeneration of artistic ability. The problem isn't that it's different, it's that it is objectively worse in every way that matters.

Your pic for axample, looks islamic. Weak and disgusting.

Why do you keep making comparisons to Islamic art when you clearly don't even know what Islamic art looks like

You are mad

>while the aristocracy preferred stylised art
>tfw this is what's happening nowadays with garbage being lauded by the upper class snobs

No dude it was different back then I swear modern artists are talented!

looks very islamic

have a question about the Byzantine empire's true size and power

in 956-59 AD, under Costantine Porphyrogenitus, in his work "De Ceremoniis" Sardinians sing a laud to him

Did they still have an empire stretching all the way there?

They were not as shit as we thought Veeky Forums

Not in the slightest
Pic related is actual Islamic calligraphy

you know I'm not talking about the lettering

This Is literally lettering

It's the designs around the lettering. Looks downright islamic. If I were to walk into a mosque I would not be surprised to see something like that on the wall

>Sardinians
How the?...
Sardinia was completely uninhabited until at least the 21st century.

>spiritual symbolism
Aka we've lost the ability to make actual art.

Looks honestly more gothic than Islamic

It's just patterns taken out of nature. You'd be able to see the same type of design in any art around 800 AD.

Can we add the
>Celtic art is Islamic
guy to the Veeky Forums hall of infamy alongside the "it would've taken decades to get to Sardinia from Sicily" guy and "the Mongols could ride at full gallop for weeks" guy?

Never said Celtic art is islamic. You are so butthurt

>"it would've taken decades to get to Sardinia from Sicily
Everyone who believes he was serious should be added to "hall of infamy"

Can you explain to me what you don't like about that? I would love to have that in marble for a table top