Russian Realism is the greatest artistic movement of all time

Do 19th century Russian religious processions pass your window regularly?

You're wrong

Russia is so fascinating to me as an Asian.

Their traditional clothes, their cultural idiosyncracies and outlook...it's jarringly similar to us. Though I guess that shouldn't be too surprising.

Russians are eggs

wrong

in search of lost time

wrong

Same answer, basically.

impressionism is freshman's first favourite art movement. the whole 19th century is devoid of any "art"

it's not wrong -- it's what separates history painting from lesser genres in the hierarchy of genres. unless you think landscape, portrait and still life are right up with repin as the greatest

Tant de préjugés juvéniles...

k

>the whole 19th century is devoid of any "art"
>mfw

Nope

another meme movement

>the whole 19th century is devoid of any "art"

goya is also a meme, so is a general "romanticism", neo-classicism, and art nouveau

gotta go fast

there's a difference between art and journalism

>but straight mimesis of the natural world isn't art, it's a craft.

Depends.
There's a difference between Raphael's naturalism and the naturalism of the hyperrealists. Raphael imitates nature by painting natural forms or figures, whereas the hyperrealists (the photographic style of painting) focus not on the natural forms themselves, but on how the world appears in the senses. In other words, Raphael's naturalism is more abstract or intellectual whereas the hyperrealist's is more sensual.

So, it depends on what you mean by the natural world, whether you have a classical view or a modern view.

tell me the patrician movements

liking
>realism
>impressionism
>neo-classicism

Goya is not a meme you fuckstick

his engravings aren't but you posted literally the most meme goya painting

bitch Y E S

Though OP you misspelled Pre-Raphaelite movement

that wasn't me, silly.

though I agree that saturn devouring his son has ascended (descended?) to meme-status.

Also yeah romanticism, neo-classicism and art nouveau are all remarkably shallow movements.

In its wastelands it's similar, I guess.

Its major cities and cultural gifts to the world: Moscow, St. Petersburg, Dosto, Tolstoy, this culture is something like a fusion of Slavic E. Europe and Scandinavia.

...

ebin

forgot about this meme movement

you can critique romanticism but you can't call it shallow; it's one of the most significant artistic movements in European history, to the extent that people divided art into "classical" or "romantic"

>meme
They want back to art when it was good. One or two artists today could learn from it

Impressionism might be babby's first favorite movement but it's still good.

have you ever seen monet's work in real life?

it's unreal. it makes my soul happy.

>he thinks history painting is top tier

lmao fuck off Alberti

that's why it's a meme

post-impressionism is less of a gimmick

what exactly about Raphael's art did the pre-Raphaelite's object to?

Mannerism which stylised the art of Raphael and his contemporaries. They felt the earlier art was more natural and his art as more a collection of tropes.

then why is preraphaelite painting full of women striking elegant poses?

I don't disagree. Socialist realism was decent as well. Why are Russian elites so good at art while the plebs are fucking boorish savages without comparison? Is it because they maintained serfdom the longest? The highest highs must come with the lowest lows I suppose.

Shamelessly cribbing off the French in all aspects of high culture.

It worked better than they ever could have expected.

and why does Raphael's art seem so much more natural than the preraphaelite's vague romanticism?
desu preraphaelite art is the most mysterious art to me; I can at least get the idea of most art, but I can't see where preraphaelite's are coming from, except that they like femme fatales

preraphaelites are real as fuck son
>raphael
>natural
l-m-a-o have you ever seen anything?

>raphael
>natural
It's an anime site, people have a very skewed idea of natural here.

...

>preraphaelites are real as fuck son
how is ten thousand nymphs leering at you like a wet dream "real as fuck son"?

>l-m-a-o have you ever seen anything?
post an artist that better captures nature

Dore is goat.

You're literally completely ignorant.

I just posted a great preraphaelite, ford madox brown, and one of his most powerful works: Take Your Son, Sir. It depicts a woman handing a man their illegitimate son. Just look at her face, the feeling in it is beyond words. He worked on it until his death, which is why it remains sadly unfinished. But the work's naturalism easily surpasses raphael's. Raphael was idealized as fuck.

romanticism is a lot better imho. russian realism is pretty amazing, but pretty much all realism to me is just a display of skill more than anything else. its sort of like a glorified photo.
i dont think you know what "femme fatale" means. there's nothing vague about preraphaelite art. honestly i think you should read a bit about it if you're this confused

> Raphael was idealized as fuck.

His idealism is his naturalism. He captures the ideas, or forms, that are in nature.
Nature isn't a amorphous blob, it's made up of distinct natures/essences.

that painting that you posted isn't natural at all: the tortured expression, the strange complexion, the mirror around her head like an aureole, the hideous child like an alien. It's surreal.

>i dont think you know what "femme fatale" means.

well I just checked the definition and it's precisely what I was referring to

>His idealism is his naturalism.
stop posting

they're just a bunch of pseuds who can paint

and I didn't say that preraphaelite was vague in general, I said it had a vague romanticism, i.e. it is kind of romantic, but kind of not. To me it seems half way between romanticism and pornography.

I think the problem is that you have a too modern conception of nature, whereas I am taking a more classical view.

>summer
the post

>It's surreal.
and disturbing.

that painting isn't natural; to me it's the very essence of unnatural.
the subject of the painting itself - cuckoldry - is unnatural.

to be fair raphael's naturalism comes from a different time and a different consideration of what 'nature' was and the artist's role in its representation. far different to the realist idea of naturalism but not surpassed by it

>To me it seems half way between romanticism and pornography

I think you are confused, Bouguereau wasn't a pre-raph

>I think the problem is that you have a too modern conception of nature, whereas I am taking a more classical view.

please try to be more pretentious

You're stupid as fuck, they had an extramarital child, that's not cuckoldry. Do you know what words mean?

>please try to be more pretentious

You are literally dismissing what I am saying with snide remarks

you're just a pseud who can't even paint

well none of the preraphaelite women are portrayed as dangerous or connivingly seductive, so i dont really know what youre getting at.
their romanticism isn't vague either. its about beauty and history and nature coming together, there's definite emotion in them. i like raphael a lot, but his paintings are mostly contrived and unnatural looking

you deserve it

I have a BFA in painting and drawing.

cool i have a BA in art history

i have a BOFA

>well none of the preraphaelite women are portrayed as dangerous or connivingly seductive

They all are.

>. i like raphael a lot, but his paintings are mostly contrived and unnatural looking

This is what I don't understand.
preraphaelite painting looks extremely contrived to me; it all looks like what I would paint if I were 16 year old nymphomaniac with a idealistic/romantic view of women

...

i have a BAFTA

im sorry, what about this woman says weaponized sexuality to you? i think you have a problem.
most if not all of raphael's subjects look like they're posing for a photo. it's not a bad thing, it's just strange for you to cite raphael for his natural looking paintings when they're not. they also lack the realism and detail the preraphaelites had.

>im sorry, what about this woman says weaponized sexuality to you?

Flowing red locks, big blue eyes, rosy cheeks, scarlet lips, while laying down lazily and brushing a flower down her neck and towards her breast

can you tell why I think this one (pic related) is a classic femme fatale?

are you by any chance a homosexual? I don't mean that nastily, because I think that it would explain your view of these paintings

They are both contrived, neither is aiming for realism, either in subject matter or style. They were simply aiming to imitate a supposed simpler time of medieval art without the baggage and tropes of later renaissance styling.

weaponised sexuality isn't the same as being pliant, submissive and available for the viewer

You think she's a femme fatale because /r9k/ is your home board.

She looks like a strong woman, and the pomegranate, if anything is a symbol of the weakness of women, a la the rape of persephone

that isn't entirely true. this painting is the same kind of 'realism' of courbet for example in its commentary on contemporary social relations

Again, I want to know if you are homosexuals. It's their conscious and artful use of their own submissiveness and weakness that makes them seductresses. This is so obvious to me that I don't understand why it isn't to you.
this is a more subtle and powerful form of "weaponised sexuality" than a whore on high heels and her breasts falling out

what about this one?
can't you see why I'd call it a 13 year old boy's wet dream?

idk man I'm a sucker for a chick with her tits out I think you might just be paranoid

>It's their conscious and artful use of their own submissiveness and weakness that makes them seductresses.

no, it's the artist's use of their submission and weakness so she can be bought as an object by another man

>Painting

What is wrong with you all?

maybe just different sexual appetites

desu I think I fully sympathise with / understand with the preraphaelite artists' ideal of womanhood, and I instantly recognised it as an erotic ideal; it is definitely, obviously, stunningly erotic

the thing that jumps out at me always and immediately with these paintings is the eroticism; it's why I think it's a very refined kind of pornography

Realism is shit, prove me wrong.

also, maybe I could be related to the preraphaelite James Collinson

1. Goya
2. Raphael
3. Kirchner
Not sure who the best 20th century painter is, but Kirchner is my favorite.
Some people like Kandinsky, I don't.

this painting is actually so shit

>romanticism is a lot better imho. russian realism is pretty amazing, but pretty much all realism to me is just a display of skill more than anything else. its sort of like a glorified photo.
what makes your reach such a conclusion?
how can you say that about realism but not about romanticism? do you think that realism = mimicking reality, copying it as it is?

she's literally just a beautiful woman. there's nothing devious about her expression or anything. im attracted to women, i find the women in these paintings very attractive, i just dont see any thing "femme fatale" like about them. its not synonymous with sexuality in general.

I prefer this movement desu

I'd just like to say that I think pre-raphaelites are shit

>the whole 19th century is devoid of any "art"
Now that's EDJY :^)

i'm an ENFJ actually

sorry i should have been more clear with my post. i feel that way about realism as a style, though im aware that realist paintings can tell stories and can explore humanity and nature magnificently. it's just that it limits itself, whereas romanticism combines that with other elements that i find more interesting.

>He's not ESTŽ

>though im aware that realist paintings can tell stories and can explore humanity and nature magnificently. it's just that it limits itself
heh, I think you limit yourself in your conception of what realism is

overrated, only two good artists: malevich and lissitzky. (and malevich peasants stuff > his suprematist work imo)