Why does eastern art look so primitive compared to western art?

The bayeux tapestry also looks like shit.

>hurr durr me like art, enlightenment naturalism is best, different = bad

Art style

I am often the one writting that, but for once this was completly uncalled for

That japanese picture is literally a caricature

>lol why is everyone so much worse than europeans xd
>not pol

The big change that renaissance art brought was actually drawing based on an actual model before you, studying anatomy and perspective in an almost scientific manner.
Different cultures simply had different worldviews and expectations from art. Ancient Egyptian art may seem silly, almost cubistic, but that's because it strived for clarity and objectivity. Drawing a pharaoh who was three times taller than a common man was normal and symbolically meaningful to them. Pic also related.
Similarly, medieval art wasn't supposed to recreate reality (after all, only God can create), it was supposed only to symbolize and retell. Why would an artist have to bother with the shape of our frail, mortal bodies, when we ought to worry about God and the eternal life? Renaissance was built on much more humanistic worldview, so you got different art.

I wonder how many people on this thread would defend early medieval art saying "it's just style, can't judge".

Especially when many atheists like to make a point about art going to shit after the fall of the Roman empire because "muh Christianity".

>lol why is everyone so much worse than europeans xd
>not pol

Asking a a genuine question should have a genuine answer. If we assume everyone who asks a biased question is doing so in bad faith, nothing would be taken seriously here.

They never got past bayeux tapestry level.

Most embroideries look like shit.

they didn't use oil based paints

>early medieval art
>clearly early 15th century

The west is already progressing to glorious 3D while asians are still with their flat 2D drawings

>more religious empire has more abstract art
Wow I guess Sumer is terrible and should not be worshipped because of how bad the art was

I didn't have the date on it, so I assume it was from that period. Either way it's pre-Renaissance.

Any pics?

Why arr western art rook same?

>why does eastern art look so primitive compared to western art

Primitive is a really problematic word here; it's not a question of advancement or skill but of culture and style. The japs were light years ahead of europe on other fronts, like metalworking, because there was a cultural focus on it. The west had a cultural focus on art that mostly derived from christianity, hence the disparity

>light years ahead of Europeans in metalworking
Nigger what the fuck are you talking about

GLORIOUS NIPPON STEEL

Oh shit nigga. You fell for the memes.

Can cut through european shields no problem

Then why do Portuguese Turcos beat matchlock samurai in shogun 2?

>art is subjective!!

Nossa Senhora da Graça incident

>west
>generic, they all look similar
>most people wouldn't even recognize them

>asian
>unique style
>instantly recognizable

there's a reason why the asian one is popular even in pop culture meanwhile the western one are obscure

>3000 samurai vs 40 Portuguese
>sams still take several hundred casualties

GAIJIN NEWS

They couldn't even do perspectives, so yeah it's technically more primitive than Western art. However, regardless of it being more primitive or not it's still an artwork.

What do you mean by this? Is there an asian artpiece anyone would recognize or that they would instantly recognize this sort of artstyle as asian? Cuz most people know about church mossaics too.

Or the last supper or the sistine chappel paintings

You're talking about are like it only applies to canvas paintings. Art includsing many things; ceramics, architecture, sculpting. The Japanese were very good at all of these. Europeans also were better about preserving their art

I’d say it doesn’t
It depends on the era, charcoal paintings are gorgeous

and yet they dominate the artistic world these days with everyone in the west trying to copy them

/pol/ is straight up weeb-land. OP's criticism of East Asian art is unique.

youtube.com/watch?v=5fl5bkiHYq8

You're assuming the goal of art is to represent life with technical perfection, rather than to express cultural, personal, or other values and ideas.

Charcoal painting isn't primitive. They actually use perspectives unlike OP pic

What about this Joseon dynasty Korean painting of a dog?

I'd say he is comparing them on a basis of assumed technical difficulty. Wood blocks are far easier to produce than photo-realistic oil paintings.

That's amazing. OP BTFO.

Korea beats Japan once again

>DUDE ART CANT LOOK BAD IF ITS TINY
you are one dumb fucker

Late Josean dynasty painting clearly influenced by western art

Because shitty Japanese art doesn't represent the entirety of """Eastern"""art.

>Meanwhile, in the 12th Century.
>1100s Song China
No perspective but figures are proportional and there's tremendous attempt at realism.

>1100s Europe
DA BIG PERSON IN DRAWING IS IMPORTANT!!

>like metalworking
subtle bait, well memed

yes, that painting is from a late Joseon artist who was influenced by Western styles.

As soon as you see 3D prespectives, you know it's late Joseon

Europe has colors,tho

>As soon as you see 3D prespectives, you know it's late Joseon
>what's

"Along the River" was painted during the period of Late Tang-Song Monochrome. Where Chink artists got tired of colour. Also coincided with the era of Chinese minimalism.

Otherwise they normally painted with colour.

fight fight fight

Why then did Eastern art, such as "woodblock paintings" (ukiyo-e), influence Western figures like Monet and much more? You're stupid.

While Eastern art might be technically less sophisticated, it gets a pass for having such a aesthetically pleasant style. Kind of like when you enjoy Bach's counterpoint and some koto playing only five notes.

...