Why were literal cavemen better than medieval people at drawing?

why were literal cavemen better than medieval people at drawing?

The Christian church feared the literate man.

And rightfully they did, as soon as people actually started to read the bible the whole thing fell apart like the house of cards it was.

>why aren't tiny manuscript illustrations photorealistic depictions of medieval life????

>it's a 'fuckwitted american confused about his heritage attacks european history and culture' episode

both are from europe

t. Voltaire

Fucking this. These are monks trained to copy exactly the text and decorations. They weren't trained artists as we know them now.

Now if you look at aspects of medieval art which were done by trained artisans you would be blown away. I went to the Cluny museum in Paris the other day and saw an incredible rose made from gold leaf. You look at the building itself and help but be impressed by the skill and craftsmanship of the masons.

what does literacy have to do with drawing skills?

Drawing things well was seen as show-offy like taking pictures of yourself breastfeeding
these are holy depictions of biblical events, not some earthly wankery!

women who take pictures of themselves breastfeeding should be shot
just kidding - they're obviously looking for some sense of agency and purpose, being confused about their sexual and maternal obligations by mainstream media and tumblrina culture, and simply need re-education.

but fuck, that's a human being, you know? you wouldn't take a picture of a little girl sucking your dick and call it beautiful, cunt.

Because most of them were drawn by Monks whose job was monkery, not drawing well.

They had to reteach themselves to draw from scratch.

>Monks whose job was monkery
keked

Why were literal Spaniards who shit in pots better at drawing than modern people?

drawing with coal on rocks is easier than using ink on sheep skin

It's a style, it's what the artist is trying to convey
It would be looking at a renaissance painting and then at The Simpsons and saying "lol it's been like 500 years, didnt people learn to draw?"

>one picture vs 6

Yeah, that's not his problem

no one is born with skill or knowledge about art or any other subject also you posted soke sjw looking art

>hurr why no one make good art anymore hurrrr

*blocks your path*
*laughs in reikspiel*

>lol let me make the lines all messy so it will cover my lack of skill

>user has posted a very one sided comparison between the worst Webcomicker and one of the greatest Spanish painters of all time
>Did he mean to critique OP's equally one sided comparison, or was he posting unironically
>...

t. literal retard

Yes, you obviously are.
You also clearly lack any artistic knowledge.

They couldn't read wikihow

post your work

Because of both skill and desire for abstract art. You have to think of Medieval art in a dialectic between the Mediterranean (naturalistic) vs the Germanic (abstract). When the Irish monks were making manuscripts, theirs were more abstract because it was more effective in converting the Picts. During the Carolingian Empire it was more naturalistic because of the Renevatio. It's true some skill was lost after the Fall of Rome, but the best way to show the otherworldly is through the abstract. You can find realism in the everyday which isn't otherworldly.

Chr*stianity

...

fuck off retard, right is so much better and more colorful and better lines too

Huh, I always assumed that the paintings in medieval books were made by artists rather than the monks who wrote the text.

It depends. Towards the end of the middle ages there was a large secular book making industry, with regular artists doing the work. Stuff like the various books of hours owned by the Duc de Berry for instance.

The painting on the left was done by cro mags (look it up) they don’t exist anymore. The one in the right was done by the inferior present day Europeans.

Because art is seldom about realistic accuracy. You think the Egyptians made those retarded flat people because that was the best they could do?

>frogsmouth in anything except a joust

impressive art, but little knowledge of the subject matter

>the state of /&humanities/

Humanity always knew how to draw and pain realistically, Christianity put emphasis on context and meaning, not on outside beauty, its the soul not the body that was important, and art went that way, Egyptian statues were rigid and motionless to emphasize the eternity and stability of the Pharaoh and Egypt, Classical Greek statues were idealized and unnatural because most were representation of the Gods, art was a medium for centuries, art for arts same is a modern phenomenon.

paint*

Varg always says that without our Pagan roots we are nothing at all and just like a tree without roots falls, so do our minds.

Varg also thinks eating placenta is good so yeah knock yourself out my superhuman viking friend

>Medieval art was ba-

Who the fuck would know if it was good or bad for you anyway.
The you know who wouldn't want us to be fit and healthy.

Pic related.

Sort of depends on what the conventions are the define "good" art, what medium is used, how much space you have to work with, etc.

Getting in some detail on a huge wall is about the same as doing the same thing on a postage stamp.

The two are not comparable in scale, in materials or in intent, much less in stylistic conventions.

>not literate warrior

Get the fuck out, newfag.

>its ok when Japan does it
I fucking hate weebs

Because monks had better things to do than drawing shit, like actually working on those translations.

Yeah buddy I don't think the Aurignacian hunter gatherer who painted that did it for a career either.

He probably spent most of his time hunting and fighting.

But that would be the cutest thing.

>Those copy paste angel heads.

Lol