/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

[Anonymous No.1605156]

Soup /ic/.

I've been mulling over something, how did people back in the day into art? Like if you were living in the 18th century and you wanted to into art how did you start?

Did the masters have shitty first few drawings?

I assume that even the masters back then started off crappy, but how did one improve without all the resources available today? When they presented it to be critiqued there was no "needs more loomis" or no one to redline your work so how did people manage?

picture unrelated

[Anonymous No.1605164]

>>1605156
Step one: want to be an artist
Step two: find a guy you like
Step three: become his apprentice
Step four: copy all his shit
Step five: ??????????????
Step six: repeat
Step seven: profit

[Anonymous No.1605165]

[Anonymous No.1605166]

>>1605164
Nope.

Step five: after becoming a xerox machine for a few years develop muh style
step six: release own work with added style
step seven: ???????????????????
step eight: PROFIT!!!

[Anonymous No.1605167]

>>1605156
My great-great-great-grandfather was known in the arting world as "azure line man" and he would paint over amateur artists' pieces to correct them.

[Anonymous No.1605169]

>>1605167
Any pics?

capatcha: selfish ghbotr

[Anonymous No.1605175]

Back then you walk into the bar, show everyone your shitty work and ask how can i improve. Everybody yeal "Loomis! Read the sticky! Draw cubes!".

[Anonymous No.1605188]

>>1605156
>but how did one improve without all the resources available today?

There were less resources, but art techniques were already solid and advanced at that time. The main resource to learn were workshops managed by great artists that were selecting the most talented kids. These kids used to leave their home family to move to the workshop and to work there the whole time.

[Anonymous No.1605311]

>>1605156
lot of drawing from life and measurement

[Anonymous No.1605362]

Either being part of a family of artists, or becoming an apprentice at a young age. A lot of apprentices were illegitmate children who wouldn't be allowed to work in the family business, Leonardo da Vinci being a famous example of this.

[Anonymous No.1605869]

Actually I think it'd be easier to learn back then since you would be forced to draw from life a shitton and learn relatively quicker.

[Anonymous No.1605876]

>>1605869
Actually art turned to shit for several centuries after the fall of the roman empire.
The quality of art is very much connected to the intellectual tradition of fellow artists of the time.
Internet generation can study anything anywhere, we've got a endless library of images and techniques
and we have hundreds if not thousands of artists who are objectively better than any of the grand renaissance masters.
They're just not revered because they aren't ancient and learning isn't as privileged anymore.

Behold this revered religious clusterfuck, mary looks like fucking beavis from 'beavis and butthead' and baby jesus looks
like a grown man in miniature, this is how horrid depicting art was for several hundred years in europe.

[Anonymous No.1605877]

>>1605876
>this is how horrid depicting art was for several hundred years in europe.
damn, what happened?

[Anonymous No.1605879]

>>1605877
The romans embraced christianity, banned everything that was inspirational and cool such as tities and the insane gods of olympus (which are like beyond anime level retarded in the original storries).
and pretty much forced everybody to draw angels, saints and christ until they could hear the tunes of the gospel comming out of their ass whenever they shat.

[Anonymous No.1605885]

>>1605876
LINEAR PERSPECTIVE

[Anonymous No.1605894]

>>1605879
>pretty much forced everybody to draw angels, saints and christ

holy fuck I never thought about this. It must have been some kind of hell

[Anonymous No.1605896]

>>1605876

They're not revered because technological skill doesn't cut it for people who examine culture. Progress and originality trump technicality. Internet culture, like modernism and postmodernism before it has bred a new stream of artists who will inevitably deride cliche and redundancy.

[Anonymous No.1605897]

>>1605896
i don't know art hasn't changed much since the 70s, i think the 'art as self-expression' thing might be terminal

[Anonymous No.1605921]

>>1605876

During hellenic period in Greece they stopped depicting children as miniaturized adults. But most of their art was lost when the iconoclasts destroyed the pagan art. So years later again children were painted as dwarfs until the Renaissance when artists realized that children were not simply miniaturized adults: they
have big heads, long trunks and short limbs. This influenced the educating process, because it was understood that a child must be treated differently by an adult.

[Anonymous No.1605926]

>>1605921
shut up you fucking no nothing idiot. i've never heard a more spastic patched together recounting of history. go back to fucking school.

baby jesus is depicted as a sort of tiny man on purpose, to show his divine wisdom or whatever.

[shy No.1605927]

>>1605897
According to Jean Baudrillard, it is terminal.
At least in the United States of America.

[Anonymous No.1605928]

>>1605926
>a baby crying

[Anonymous No.1605938]

>>1605926
>baby jesus is depicted as a sort of tiny man on purpose, to show his divine wisdom or whatever.

Just check another Giotto's painting like the Massacre of Innocents. They all look like tiny men.

[Anonymous No.1605947]

>>1605897
It will pass. For better or worse, things always change. As for how long that might be, that's a different question.