/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>2154736
He was considered the greatest of the three for a few hundred years, and it was only in the last century or so that tastes have shifted.

I have to say, I've seen some of his art in real life, and it was literally a million times better than online. I saw this painting: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a5/Raphael_-_Bindo_Altoviti_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg

And even though that is a high res reproduction done by google...it looks like a piece of shit compared to the original. Like the colours and subtleties are totally lost. If you see it in life then it is another piece entirely and you will understand why people like Bouguereau admired him so highly. It honestly felt way ahead of its time. And I know it can feel like a cop-out when people say "hurr you haven't seen it in real life you haven't actually seen it you can't understand", but in this case I found it to be true. I've seen tons of examples of paintings where people said that, like a huge show on Van Gogh, and I found in real life I didn't enjoy it any more. But Raphael was like night and day when looking in real life.

If I remember correctly he was especially known for his drawings too. I've seen those as well and they are very impressive, though personally I prefer Michelango's drawings.

Also I think Raphael died super young whereas the other two had a few extra decades to accomplish things. Raphael was the young prodigy basically.

>>2154736

He was an absolute genius when it came to composition, see pic related.

In fact, when tastes -had- shifted as mentioned in >>2154742, it was in some parts in direct reaction to him (see pre-raphaelites) and the "overly" composed paintings that were inspired from him.

>>2155269

Could be my favourite piece. I was blown away when I stood in front of it... Perhaps more than the Sistine Chapel.

>>2155269
The geometry is simply astounding. I think I caught a perspective fuck up though. Look closely at the base of the pillar on the left in the foreground. I wish I never saw it. It's like the beer can in this scene

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wckZcVFLU24

>>2155389

>>2155392

That's the magic of Raphael. His art has an easy air, while still being technically good. We have painters who painted and still paint much more accurately and that becomes their main appeal; and many times their art is all the poorer for it. Enter a gallery of still lives and hear the other visitors exclaim at the toil it must have taken to paint those panels. So what? His art doesn't "show off" like in many other artists, all the while doesn't make show of this ease either. His art is good by the simple principles it operates under.

>>2155269
Does the place in that picture actually exists?

>>2154736
he was considered great in part for his versatility. while michelangelo was drawing muscle dudes raphael was drawing figures and landscapes an architecture all in the same scene.

>>2154742
I'll check out his drawings. Never seen his paintings in real life yet.

>>2154736
Vasari absolutely praised him (Vasari being one of the first important art-critic). his book "Lives of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors, and Architects" titled raphael as the apex of art, nothing could beat him.

if you read the book (wich is one of the oldest well-known art-history catalogues) you should find a pattern of vasari praising artists from florence, as well as other biased subjectivities.

doesnt make him a bad artists, his work is excellent, but this explains his fame better then "he's great thats why".

>>2154736
>why neck
beauty ideals.

>>2156604
Raphael isn't even Florentine though. If I recall correctly, only spend about 4 years in Florence, and not even completely.

Raphael is just a very complete no-gimmick painter. That's what made him universally renowned for centuries.

Maybe the cunt was a hunch back.

>>2155389
I think it's more a trick of the lighting. The near corner is actually projecting toward you, if that's what is bothering you. It is weird. Also, the writing guy in the red tunic, right of center arch, is missing his chair.

Also--multiple flowing swastikas in the arch....

There could be a million mistakes in this painting, and it's still a billion times better than anything I'll ever create.

what about Donatello? :^)

>>2157511
tough to compare painting with sculpture

>>2157532
and what about Splinter? :^)

>>2157539
Giovanni di Ser Giovanni, also known as Lo Scheggia, or "the Splinter?"

He's pretty good, but his brother Masaccio was better. Plus it's difficult to compare an artist from the Early Renaissance to an artist from the High Renaissance.

>>2154736
See, I feel like this about Leonardo.

>>2157880
I don't think Leo's stuff holds up as much as Michelangelo's does tbh. But even so, you seriously don't understand why he's a genius? He is more known for his brain and diversity and notebooks than for his art. And the art he did was pretty inventive and pushed new boundaries that hadn't been explored. Sure nowadays his paintings aren't as cool because there have been people since that have done things better, but he was on the forefront and came up with those things, making the other art possible.

Anyways, if you can get a hand on some of his notebooks, then reading through his notes and his sketches, you will quickly see how brilliant a man he was. Definite genius. He was so thorough and logical in approach (in a time where those things weren't as emphasized like today) and his breadth of interests and discoveries are unparalleled.

>>2157883

Those things were extremely emphasized in his day. The inspiration for many of his famed inventions come from his conversations with mathematicians and engineers (who were more knowledgable than he was) who worked for the same patrons he did. Look up "mystery files leonardo da vinci" by the smithsonian. It's on netflix. He was very creative and also smart but not near the genius western society likes to think.

>>2158426
I don't doubt that he had some peers that were able to fill him in on the newest discoveries and thoughts of the time. But still, he was a brilliant and incredibly observant and curious and logical man. There's a reason he's often cited as the epitome of genius and the best example of a renaissance man.

I'll check out that smithsonian thing you mentioned though.

>>2157223
I think it's Raphael's way of compensating for and reconciling two different sets of horizons. One for the horizon of the painting, and the other, an approximation of the viewer standing below. This painted architectural element is meant to be an extension of actual architecture of the building, but if it was painted to be how it would actually be, it would have even more contrast against the perspective of the painting. If it was painted to be a pillar that conforms strictly to the perspective horizon of the painting, which is above the horizon of the viewer, we would see a little bit of the top of this anta-like architecture, and it would break the illusion of it being part of the actual physical architectural space. There is no way it could be perfect in any case because of the two different horizons and vanishing point.

>>2158463
>>2157223
>>2155394
>>2155389

I'm not sure what mistake we were meant to see, but the problem I'm seeing here is simply that there's no perspective applied to the 'inside' surface, it looks flat. Especially compared to the beginning of the arch above it, and the opposing pillar.

I don't think the red tunic guy lacking a chair is a mistake, I just tried it out, and you can actually lean against a wall quite naturally in that position. Maybe he just didn't get the pose quite right.