/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>2637177
I'm actually a different anon than the one who mentioned amateurs, but even then, there isn't anything fundamentally wrong with using the term although it might upset some. Being insensitive doesn't make a statement wrong.

No one is really arguing for technical skills alone, especially when I have mentioned spirit. The problem arises with the definitions of such things as "spark" themselves. It's true that there are certain qualities that add value to works and set them apart which are normally outside the scope of technical mastery or even of explaining it in technical terms. But from that people confound that they must artificially rely on striking effects or try to be as different from the rest (some even will think themselves to possess genius and completely disregard technique).

Spectacles and strangeness are not synonymous with genuine spark. It's what artists of lower merits rely on in place of it. Again, it's why we hear so much about artists "trying to find their style," and why, ironically, these end up making their technique and style even more noticeable, which is to say, the primary effect or point of remark of their works is the way they were done or other such show. These are very often works that have low re-view value. I suppose in that sense you could say they have spark; which like the spark, it shows brilliancy for a brief moment and is gone.

>>1926499
I suspect it's mostly yellowed varnish. There is a certain painting which is a variation on Madonna and Saint Anne by a student of a Leonardo which shows a better glimpse of what the colors of Leonardo might have really been like since it's in better condition and is restored. Or maybe there's a lot of art styles/circles that aren't really exposed now that have a lot of colors, really. Especially around the time of baroque onwards, textbooks and courses and what not are trying to portray then into stylistic niches that's easier to explain but isn't always true.