/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>4600383
Aah yes, moral relativism, my old friend.
You know it's right to want people who deserve it to be happy, healthy and to lead fulfilling lives.
The lefties want the same thing, the two just argue about which method of achieving this common goal is more efficient, no?

As for the other statement, you're right, but only because you're talking from a literal standpoint. There's also a metaphorical one.
Of course society doesn't have its own brain, but it acts as if it had.
Canadians all share a lot of things, not just a living space. Japanese all share a lot of things too.
It's in the way children of a culture are brought up, it's in the architecture surrounding them that subtly influences their sense of value and beauty. It's in the climate, the lifestyle, the way their government leads the state. The society is soaked with it like a sponge. And "IT" is different for each distinct group of people.

>>4600438
>the only acceptable way to paint
>that worked in different aesthetics and philosophies
Your post talks about WHAT they painted - natural motifs, landscapes, muted, low key color palettes et cetera.
My post talked about HOW they painted - soft, sfumato-like blending, great emphasis on depth and perspective and a very realistic approach to figure painting.
Just compare the similarities between these two paintings of Delacroix & Raphael, almost 400 years apart. The subject is different. The philosophy is different. But the painting is almost identical.

Then compare it to Impressionists or even Pre-raphaelites, who even stated their intention in their name.