/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

[Anonymous No.1913575]

Romanticism and anything like it

[Anonymous No.1913576]

>>1913575

[Anonymous No.1913579]

>>1913576

[Anonymous No.1913582]

>>1913579

[Anonymous No.1913590]

>>1913582
also Renaissance

[Anonymous No.1913599]

>>1913590

[Anonymous No.1913602]

and these are nothing like it

[Anonymous No.1913604]

>>1913602
how about you contribute and show me what your understanding of romanticism is then?

[Anonymous No.1913605]

>>1913590
casting a pretty broad net, what exactly are the features you're looking for?

[Anonymous No.1913606]

[Anonymous No.1913610]

>>1913605
>>1913604
>>1913599
>>1913582
These, and the one posted

[Anonymous No.1913612]

>>1913610

[Anonymous No.1913615]

>>1913612

[Anonymous No.1913617]

>>1913615

[Anonymous No.1913618]

>>1913604
Well not David...that's for sure.

Certainly important during the time...


but not a Romantic, apart from maybe his self portrait and some other oddities

Romanticism , despite being elusive of categorisation, I would say is more about internal strife, personal religious symbolism, anti-establishment, and a thick brooding painting style, unconventional....hysteric

breaking free of Classicism

Would you not agree?

[Anonymous No.1913622]

>>1913618
Yes! I'm new to art in general, ive taken a liking to paintings with strong reds blacks and gold, Mostly religious and battle depictions, i can obviously learn a few things

[Anonymous No.1913625]

>>1913622

[Anonymous No.1913631]

>>1913622
you'd love Delacroix then

Which is a good example, he is a modern painter, the style is becoming much more choppy, less refined , but better at portraying conflicts by appealing to your emotions than realistic portrayals, which are always doomed to fail at there job anyway.
like...when you read on here someone moaning about 'poor characterization' and 'the arm is wonky' ...they are the classical establishment , the enemy and the destroyers of personal vision and its description.

Who should be no nearer a brush than a plug socket.

A pox on them Sir.

:O|

[Anonymous No.1913656]

>>1913631
>Delacroix
I like Delacroix alot Hahah, have none of his work saved though!

[Anonymous No.1913672]

you'd probably like odd nerdrum. plus hes working to this day

...if hes not in jail, idk his situation

[Anonymous No.1913677]

ok Romanticism

from the Death of Chatterton up to the proclamation of Fontane

"Romanticism is finished on this earth!

off we go....

[Anonymous No.1913678]

>>1913672
'refugees at sea'

sorry for the shitty quality, this was taken from a book. most of my favorite images of his are super hard to find on the internet, but I would recommend investing in a book of his

[Anonymous No.1913684]

>>1913678
I will post some more odd nerdrum just because I think op has good taste and I like romanticism

and to to all those people saying 'romanticism is a historical movement in the later 1700s!!" its not, its more than that.

[Anonymous No.1913688]

>>1913684

nerdrum has gone through lots of different styles, this is one of his earlier paintings

[OP No.1913690]

Back, just ate

Saved Some Delacroix aswell
>>1913672
His paintings are sort of terrifying, and i really like it

[Anonymous No.1913691]

>>1913684
hmmmmmmmmmm

It definitely died, and this Odd is living proof...

up to you though, I'm no expert or tyrant...

merely my personal feeling.

[OP No.1913692]

>>1913690
Forgot image
>>1913684
Please do

[Anonymous No.1913697]

>>1913688
later work, with a more pastel palette

[Anonymous No.1913698]

[OP No.1913699]

>>1913692

[Anonymous No.1913705]

[Anonymous No.1913706]

>>1913697

>>1913690
yes, 'terrifying' is apt. All true beauty is terrifying, thats also the idea of the sublime that Romanticism cultivated.

[Anonymous No.1913709]

>>1913706
fuck, the photos I took were worse than I thought.

hes a better version. its titled 'look at my beauty'

[OP No.1913710]

>>1913699

[Anonymous No.1913711]

>>1913709
Some advice from Odd I found helpful.

So /ic/, which tiered artist are you?

[Anonymous No.1913712]

>>1913710
>gericault
ma nigga

have a rare goya exorcism

[OP No.1913715]

>>1913710
Gericault is one i like aswell, for the most part

[OP No.1913717]

>>1913715
>>1913710
i dont think i forgot the image wtf

[OP No.1913718]

>>1913715
>>1913709
I took a liking to this one :)

[Anonymous No.1913719]

>>1913712
wow!

when you say rare do you mean likely wrongly attributed?

:O)

[OP No.1913722]

>>1913712
I really like any paintings to do with religion in general, though im not myself.

[Anonymous No.1913728]

>>1913719
who's it by then? I just found it while looking for exorcism art, I thought it doesn't really look goya-ish. I was thinking Fuseli because of the demons?

[OP No.1913733]

>>1913728
>greasy pole.jpg

[Anonymous No.1913734]

>>1913722
to each his own. I find it difficult to be an artist and revel in the beauty and terror of life and NOT be religious.

this is ruben's fall of the rebel angels

[Anonymous No.1913735]

>>1913733
apparently its a spanish tradition in some region? idk, take it up with goya. Personally I think his pastoral paintings are actually more unsettling then his caprichos and later works

[OP No.1913736]

>>1913734
I love that painting,
I would love to be religious, For that reason largely, I cant seem to bring myself to believe is all.

[Anonymous No.1913739]

last one for now, I'll post more in a few hours

op is a cool dude, dont let the art snobs here who havent picked up a pencil in a decade tell you whats good and whats not, find what you like

[OP No.1913741]

>>1913739
thanks good looks, good night

[Anonymous No.1913743]

>>1913736
ok forreal last one, just becuase I was looking for that goya fresco and you have really good taste

for me, the turning point was seeing the 2004 Passion of the Christ and then reading the Gospels. Then I looked at all the Renaissance paintings of Christ and the Passion and I really felt like I was connecting to the soul of the artist and we shared this reverence for Jesus' sacrifice. Now I can't help but look at any religious art without being overwhelmed with emotion

honestly I would rather stay and chat and post art then see my gf...but you know...haha

[OP No.1913748]

>>1913743
Ive got you, and thanks for contributing, night my man ;)

[Anonymous No.1913767]

>>1913711
>Dat fucking Platonism
>It's everywhere I look

I've got one of Nerdrum's books on order, thanks for the sample of what's to come.

Here's something Romantic, for all the lack of Romantic paintings in this thread. A key aspect is the "sublime", which is one of those tricky words that's hard to define. I've heard it described as the feeling of standing before the presence of something overwhelmingly powerful (Nature, God, whatever) in full awareness of your comparative insignificance, yet you are not fearful.

I guess it can be something 'like' that, I prefer to think of it as a certain awe or wonderment you get from grasping the true depth and scale of a thing. Anyhow there's a ton of literature about the sublime if you care to read about it, and the Romantics were obsessed about it... so much so that any art that highlights the sublime can be called "romantic" regardless of its era.

[OP No.1913773]

>>1913767
You defined Sublime pretty well then! Because i completely understand the concept/feeling

[OP No.1913786]

>>1913773
continuing in hope of new contributers

[OP No.1913790]

>>1913786

[OP No.1913819]

>>1913790

[OP No.1913820]

>>1913819

[OoOOoOo No.1913822]

Please say something about this ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QguXlYoOkU&list=UUW02DPhvop-GfW7KU2gXjVQ

[OP No.1913823]

>>1913820

[OP No.1913825]

>>1913823

[Anonymous No.1913994]

[Anonymous No.1914005]

>>1913767
I disagree

you could call any number of artists in awe of the sublime

Romanticism is different

"they were obsessed by it"

All sorts of art can be called Sublime

The Romantics in their opposition and awe found something different, the times they lived in created it


Any number of other art passes the test of the sublime, but not quite like the Romantics

they were really shrugging off the shackles,

In a land of freedom to worship and mainstream atheism or a lapse from god, that we live in, and have done for a long time, the conditions are different, still the sublime is touched, but not with the same beliefs of finding god in the personal, the rebel.....as they did

who now would die for this? very few

[Anonymous No.1914018]

>>1914005
not that anon but now more than ever the only way to rebel against society is to live righteously, the form a personal relationship with god, and to resist temptations in a society infatuated with selfishness and instant gratification. I think now is actually the best time for the sublime, to truly shake us to our core and stand in awe at the power of nature and God, and realize our own insignificance.

Of course 'very few would die for this', but those who see past all the bullshit have a responsibility to create art, you cannot use our time as an excuse, because it is the perfect set of circumstances to give birth to truly great art.

[Anonymous No.1914116]

[Anonymous No.1914136]

>>1914018
Damn, this makes me want to stop making shit that I think just looks cool and actually do something meaningful with art

[Anonymous No.1914144]

>>1914136
whats stopping you?

[Anonymous No.1914153]

>>1914144
I don't know if it's like I have a backed up queue of creepy badass ideas that I want to explore and get good at and out into the world or what. That seems easier and more accessible than reaching for that lofty righteous endeavor of spreading good messages, but I'm just making excuses

[Anonymous No.1914194]

>>1914018
Although I agree, I dont necessarily take the religious stance on it. More than our true power as human beings lies in strength, clarity, and independence, while realizing our place in the world and not succumbing to indulgence.

[Anonymous No.1914251]

>>1914194
when....................did not succumbing to indulgence ever figure in Romanticism?


funny notions some people have, and

what's this Odd all on about? Kant's Critique of judgement? Going back a bit aren't we?

[Anonymous No.1914263]

>>1914251
I wasn't strictly talking about Romanticsm

[Anonymous No.1914271]

oH Good God!!!!!!!!!!!!

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[Anonymous No.1914509]

>>1914018
you're saying some good stuff but I dont know If I can get with the religious part of it. But I respect religion greatly

[Anonymous No.1914550]

>>1914251
well again, 'Romanticism' is not some ideaology set in stone. You're thinking of the Decadents like Baudelaire and Wilde who talk about indulgence of the senses, but thats one section of Romanticism. People like Caspar David Friedrich (the quintessential Romantic) were very much Christian

[Anonymous No.1914555]

>>1914550
Well, no . I'm not thinking of the decadants,


I was thinking of Confessions of an Opium Eater , the orgies at Strawberry Hill House , The Incredible deviancy at William Beckworth's FontHill Abbey

these people more or less invented Romanticism, and were probably Christian and liked a drink or too

[Anonymous No.1914559]

>>1914555
For the record, let me give you an idea of what I meant by indulgence.

Theres a big difference between liking a drink or two, and getting so fucked up you can't stand. It's all about staying in control of yourself and maintaining clarity.

[Anonymous No.1914565]

>>1914555
>>1914559
but the Romantic poets like de Quincy and Coleridge overindulged and then learned a lesson from it, often repenting and turning back to God."The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom" and all that.

I.e. taking opium and experiencing the extreme of human experience and then realizing the true path is through God and the sublime is different than satiating all your fleeting temptations and never learning anything from it

[Anonymous No.1914567]

>>1914565
to add on: no one today is doing drugs in pursuit of the ultimate artistic creation or searching for god, but instead just doing what feeeels goood mann. Thats where I was trying to distinguish between freedom from temptation and giving into base desires

[Anonymous No.1914568]

>>1914565
Sure, but luckily frying yourself on drugs and getting your asshole stretched is totally not a prerequisite to begin living a little more smartly.

[Anonymous No.1914570]

>>1914559
you can read every word they wrote, they were pretty lucid considering and were intoxicated on life and religion, war and sex
I not sure you personally need create a record of your ideas at the mo. Unless you're up to something interesting?

[Anonymous No.1914574]

>>1914570
It's so I wouldn't be misunderstood. I don't understand your insistence on "interesting" ideas, my angle is one of practicality.

[Anonymous No.1914575]

>>1914568
I agree it isn't necessary, but it is the wake up call some people need. Better to reach rock bottom and bring yourself up then stay a lifetime addict and never improving yourself imho

[Anonymous No.1914579]

>>1914575
I can dig it.

[Anonymous No.1914580]

you mean "just a couple"?

[Anonymous No.1914583]

>no don't listen to them, have another

[OP No.1914732]

My thread hasnt died, very nice

[Anonymous No.1915088]

[Anonymous No.1915102]

[Anonymous No.1915110]

[Anonymous No.1915114]

[Anonymous No.1915132]

[Anonymous No.1915136]

Dope Smoker!

aaAAAAAAahhhhhh where e e am I!

estis sunt

[Anonymous No.1915138]

who are these fowl creations that dwell here?

[Anonymous No.1915146]

[Anonymous No.1915150]

If it goes poorly then sing a sad song

I myself am off for adventure

[Anonymous No.1915311]

>>1913631
>when you read on here someone moaning about 'poor characterization' and 'the arm is wonky' ...they are the classical establishment ,the enemy and the destroyers of personal vision and its description

No they aren't. There's so much more to classical art than that. Besides, what is classical art anyway? It's difficult to define in the same way "traditional" is difficult to define since over time anti-classical art takes on that title. However, for sure, it isn't depiction of realism. That's almost making the same mistake as contemporary "classical realists" who lump everything from Poussin to Rembrandt together as long as it isn't modern.

True classicism (and I'm not only talking about Neo-Classicism) is inherently Idealistic, and descends from Plato. It may not be the expression of the passion, but it's of the human soul which strives towards perfection, (the qualities of the Divine). Rule, order, harmony, symmetry, balance. It looks at Nature not at its most accidental and particular like Romanticism and Realism, but as a grand scheme of all particulars unified. True classicism is about the Wholeness of the beautiful, the good, and the true. Thus Shakespeare, who was educated in some way as a Renaissance classical Humanist wrote, "Fair, kind and true have often lived alone/Which three till now never kept seat in one."

But it's not always so strict. Perhaps in some ways even the "anti-classical" art of Mannerism can be seen for all its peculiarities as fulfilling the classical thoughts in that it inserts disorder so that it could be ordered, and indeed, reading Vasari's short treatise on Painting and Dolci's dialogue Aretino, one can see how they thought very similarly to Renaissance humanists (in whom the true concerns of classicism never expressed themselves as brightly)of the previous generations, and you also get a glimpse of their intellectual endeavors and how they take form in Art.

[Anonymous No.1915347]

>>1915311
tl;dr

[Anonymous No.1915393]

>>1915347
also 2deep4u, back to /b/ you go

[Anonymous No.1915410]

>>1915311
So how did they justify things like Laocoon and his sons? to me this sculpture has more in common with romanticism than classical idealism

[Anonymous No.1915514]

>>1915311
>he human soul which strives towards perfection, (the qualities of the Divine). R


and there it is

Human Nature or the world upon which we turn cares little for the "divine perfect"

To do so is a perversity and a blasphemy against the god of our creation

[OP No.1915518]

OP here, any more recommendations?

[Anonymous No.1915708]

>>1915410
Although it displays such strong suffering, it's still made noble and tragic by art. The figures are heavily idealized and heroic, not only in the musculature but also in proportions and structure, and by this art, the imprisonment it displays is said to be tragic and noble. Tragic imprisonment of the soul seems to be an especially popular topos in Hellenistic art (and particularly in Pergamene art), but has always been present. Besides this, classical idealism isn't the only strain of thought running through history, especially by the time this sculpture was created, but it is a dominant one and mingles with other writings. As for the Renaissance specifically, although it garnered much attention at its unearthing in 1506, very few attempted suffering to that degree in their works, and the theorists of the time favored graceful ease (although later artists would break this) and a more restrained grandeur to this kind of suffering. Even Michelangelo who was the sole heir to this style upon seeing it unearth, would portray this type of anguish very rarely, and perhaps saw in it more the grandeur of its design. But because this suffering is of the most noble kind, they revered it anyway. Even in ancient antiquity, this type of art was most singular and only produced when the occasion made it necessary.

It's conceivable that a Romantic painter might do a figure with heavy musculature, but I don't think I can imagine them normally painting one quite like Laocoon.

PS: that red circle with the number for audio-guided tour on the base of the sculpture detracts so much.

>>1915518
You might like Magnesco if you're looking for something actually like Romanticism, although it's muted in color.

[Anonymous No.1915727]

>>1915514
Some definitely thought so, and maybe it is. Even in classical literature, we are warned of hubris, but both classical and Christian writings also tell us to imitate God and to even be one with. "But his delight is in the law of the Lord; and in his law doth he meditate day and night." If the thoughts are what necessitate action, then surely he who thinks of divine things will act godly. But anyone who's striven for perfect divinity whether in art or otherwise will know the limitations of humanity, having to communicate through symbols. Plato perhaps hints at this when he writes that an approximation of justice should suffice, knowing that truth cannot truly exist in the changing realm of material reality. Art can never be truly divine for that reason likewise, but it's thought of as a connection between heaven (the ideal), and earth (the material), and for this the ancients figure Mercury for art, who is a messenger of the gods to mankind, and because he is like the air that is intermediate between the sun and earth. What is definitely a blasphemy, if it is such a thing, will be to make a deity out of art.

Contributing.

[Anonymous No.1915744]

>>1915708
you seem very knowledgeable and I agree with a lot of your points. I think later Greek scultpure took this idealism to caricature-like heights, especially in the unreal proportions of things like the Farnese Hercules sculpture, making his body 8 or 9 heads tall. I think this detracts from the art, as well as the system of "copy and pasting" the Venus de Milo face as the quintessential Greek ideal onto countless sculptures and paintings. I think it is lazy copying of classic exterior forms without any attempt to understand the philosophy behind them, and I think this is why neo-classicism left such a bitter taste in the mouth of the Romantics.

Of course there is much to learn from ancient Greek art and aesthetics, but I feel it has to be learned and used in new ways, not merely copied, and merged with the Romantic sentiment of individual experience and the sublime.

>As for the Renaissance specifically, although it garnered much attention at its unearthing in 1506, very few attempted suffering to that degree in their works, and the theorists of the time favored graceful ease (although later artists would break this) and a more restrained grandeur to this kind of suffering.

Agree completely. The Early Renaissance paintings of the Suicide of Lucretia do nothing for me, its the equivalent imho of a fashion model posing with a knife. There is no emotion.

[Anonymous No.1915759]

>>1915727
do you like modernist/pomo movements like abstract expressionism, concept art, etc.?

because every so often I'll talk to somebody who is very knowledge and has the best insights into art like romanticism/classicism, and then they go on and write paragraphs about stuff like Rothko. I understand trying to delve into Platonic philosophy and apply it to stuff like the art in this thread, but I just cannot get behind these new movements as the logical successor to western art. I just cannot. It has no meaning for me, and I dont think I should have to force myself to intellectualize to 'get' whatever the artist says they are trying to say with the art. It should speak for itself, cliched, I know, but very very very relevant today. I have no immediate emotional response to abstract expressionism/action painting/etc and I know what I like and what is good, I'm just tired of people philosophizing contemporary art post dada just because they dont wanna say 'fuck it, lets scrap all this shit and begin again at romanticism', which I think would be the best option.

Sorry for the wall of text, I just get excited knowing someone is versed in art, even in art school its the rarest fucking thing

[Anonymous No.1915765]

do you like modernist/pomo movements like abstract expressionism, concept art, etc.?

because every so often I'll talk to somebody who is very knowledgeable and has the best insights into art like romanticism/classicism, and then they go on and write paragraphs about stuff like Rothko. I understand trying to delve into Platonic philosophy and apply it to stuff like the art in this thread, but I just cannot get behind these new movements as the logical successor to western art. I just cannot. It has no meaning for me, and I dont think I should have to force myself to intellectualize to 'get' whatever the artist says they are trying to say with the art. It should speak for itself, cliched, I know, but very very very relevant today. I have no immediate emotional response to abstract expressionism/action painting/etc and I know what I like and what is good, I'm just tired of people philosophizing contemporary art post dada just because they dont wanna say 'fuck it, lets scrap all this shit and begin again at romanticism', which I think would be the best option.

Sorry for the wall of text, I just get excited knowing someone is versed in art, even in art school its the rarest fucking thing

[Anonymous No.1915786]

>>1915765
the thing with contemporary art its "that maybe is not meant to be get". Maybe is just a wild plastic supposition or a strong concept struggling to be free trough action.

but I think that the essential subject with the more recent productions of art is to remember that everything is valid, but not all of it is valuable.

who knows?

[Anonymous No.1915789]

>>1913575
I'm an art genre illiterate.
Is romanticism a bit like concept art from ye olden days?
Focusing on feels and shit?

[Anonymous No.1915791]

>>1915786
>that maybe is not meant to be get
and thats bullshit to me. It has no purpose and it does absolutely nothing. it is poisoning the human soul with banality

>but I think that the essential subject with the more recent productions of art is to remember that everything is valid
why should I care what immoral people of the art world deem as valid? It honestly does not matter. In 600 years are they going to look back and say "and that ''''artist'''' was the first say his shit can be art, and put it in a can!". No. nobody is going to care that someone played a practical joke on art critics 600 years from now. It is so meaningless and banal and makes me feel hopeless, the exact opposite of what truly great art does to me

[Anonymous No.1915800]

>>1915791
the problem with your statements "against" this "new" forms of art is that, after all, have caused a reaction on you

the definition of art is already another huge problem, and the nature of these productions orbit around this matter

>hopeless
this word, this feeling, this is the most important part of your post that I consider. I know that same feeling seeing this people killing something that has been dead since the early 40's...

another great question surfaces ¿it is really important the popularity, or the impact of a single work? who knows what the critics would rescue from the XX and XXI centuries (im pretty sure nothing, just like you think) ¿but it really matters when you approach any work of art? well be dead by then

and, as I say before, i'm not even sure about this statements... I really hope you are right, and that people would comeback to something more meaningful at the end

[Anonymous No.1915802]

>>1915791
>and thats bullshit to me. It has no purpose and it does absolutely nothing. it is poisoning the human soul with banality

Different anon here, but sometimes that may be the message. That we ourselves are purposeless, banal, and utterly full of shit.

A big part of late 20th century art/pomo stuff is questioning the very foundations, questioning what ought to be art, if there ought to be art, what art should say about us, if it should say anything at all, et cetera.

>>1915765
>Something something Rothko, abstract expressionism stuff

Clive Bell's ideas on what art ought to be are particularly helpful with the abstract expressionists. The idea is that all great artworks have a "significant form" that is entirely separate from its subject matter, the abstract qualities of a piece such as composition and color and values and lines and how they're all arranged.

Abstract expressionists, by this theory, strove to paint the significant forms directly without the distraction of representative subject matter.

This may seem quite "intellectualizing", but the irony is that it isn't supposed to be. There's nothing to 'get' in a Rothko, there's no deeper meaning to obtain from a Pollock, there is nothing to these works but the work itself.

[Anonymous No.1915807]

>>1915802
>Different anon here, but sometimes that may be the message. That we ourselves are purposeless, banal, and utterly full of shit.

so why do they keep saying it? Isn't one person making work that comes to the conclusion enough? why is that all the artists of our time seem to be able to say?

I dont buy it. Thats like saying nihilism is the end of philosophy, when its really the beginning. Everyone who makes work that 'challenges the notion of art' isnt making anything new or interesting. Its something literally every artists who has made something meaningful has thought about, and moved past. so why do we as a society seem to be stuck there?

[Anonymous No.1915809]

>>1915802
also
>There's nothing to 'get' in a Rothko, there's no deeper meaning to obtain from a Pollock, there is nothing to these works but the work itself.

well good, if theres nothing new they can teach me, its just an aesthetic of "lines and colors and stuff that look nice", I'll just skip the art altogether and go outside. Nature is infinitely better for pure aesthetics than mankind can ever be.

[Anonymous No.1915817]

>>1915802
>The artist Mark Rothko was engaged to paint a series of works for the restaurant in 1958. Accepting the commission, he secretly resolved to create "something that will ruin the appetite of every son-of-a-bitch who ever eats in that room.

I wish Rothko was still alive so I could punch him in his smug jew face

[Anonymous No.1915818]

>>1915807
>why people keep doing the same things?
I'm not sure if I can answer that question satisfyingly, but...

Walter Benjamin has an excellent insight on this problem of how we are getting stuck, how tons of folks keep doing what Duchamp made clear 70 years ago.

It responds to the nature of art under the high reproducibility environment of modern times. How something the man considered sacred got trivialized because of the mass media distribution of that same work

in other hand, we as humans keep doing the same things, in my opinion of course: we are born, we live, we die. We preach the words of the past, we find them, we study them and say them again.

Anon, if we come back to romanticism, wouldn't that be doing something similar, something that has already happen too?

[Anonymous No.1915820]

>>1915807
>so why do they keep saying it?

Well, if you're asking me about contemporary artists like Hirst and his shark tank, I'd say it's because they are purposeless, banal, and utterly full of shit.

>>1915809
Eh, your loss.

It's not like nature's trying to be so aesthetic, or is so by any particular design. It's us humans who see that in nature, who project it into nature. Abstract expressionists, it could be argued, were trying to suss out what exactly that aesthetic was.

If nothing else, they're worth studying purely at a formal level for an artist.

[Anonymous No.1915839]

>>1915744
>I think later Greek scultpure took this idealism to caricature-like heights
I can't speak for them, but the same thing happened in some painters of the Renaissance, who, seeing that a great deal of the beauty of the ancients and previous masters derive from a trait like long neck, thought their art will be all the better if they did even more than those masters did, exceeding what is proper. It's happening to this very day, where we have painters saying they are influenced by certain master but exaggerate the most superficial qualities.

Mindlessly copying forms is almost always bad, but so is willful deviation for its own sake, because neither are propelled by actual understanding. I think the best way to really understand them is through their writings, and to surround one's self with excellent works.

Another error, and I think more laughable, is to copy a pose of an iconic image or even an entire composition and paint it in such a way that it would be (for example) relevant to our day, and for the painter to say it's classical, or renaissance, or "old master" style. If the main virtue of the art is that reference, and without it will crumble away, then it has very little else, and even if it does, that forceful reference only hurts the painting. If one should reference a work, the reference shouldn't be the point, and that it can stand on its own without the viewer noticing it. It would be an even truer mark of having understood a particular type of art if he could compose a picture (not only the figures, but also the architecture, the landscapes, the drape, narrative intent and structure, and the forms of beasts) and although not actually reference a particular work, but by virtue of having a like spirit will have in his own work a similar spirit.

Pic is Ary Scheffer, somehow considered Romanticist even though he has a refined technique.

[Anonymous No.1915842]

>>1915765
Firstly I'll say I don't consider most art here as Platonic.

Simple answer, no. I don't like them, but probably for different reasons than what most would assume. I don't actively hate them, but i just focus more on other things.

Seeing that there are so many different styles in the past centuries, I'm going to have to speak generally about some common thoughts. One is when the supporters and artists of a certain type of new work will claim all intellect in their art for themselves, and that other arts which are more "traditional" lack in concepts, meaning, depth, and is only about depicting reality. It may be true for a large portion of the more traditional art of their time, but if t were so, we'd only talk about the techniques of older art in lectures. Considering also that the artists of the past were connected with the intellectuals of the time, it's plain wrong.

Another is that they claim even abstraction for their own. Abstract expressionism, sure, they can claim as new, but architecture, ornaments, arms and armor, jewelries, etc. One can see great level of ingenious abstraction in ancient gold bracelets and cups, for example. However the abstraction itself isn't what made them great, but the design, and it was proper for these natural forms to be stylized and made more orderly.

My biggest concern however is probably the reliance on their manner so that it's what's often most primarily noticed.

Pic is Moreau

[Anonymous No.1915867]

[Anonymous No.1915888]

>>1915765
>, which I think would be the best option.


well I don't think you would need go back that far really

more tend the shoots that are often overlooked...

[Anonymous No.1915894]

[Anonymous No.1915898]

[Anonymous No.1915901]

Romantic philosophy is the best.

If anyone wants to give it a try, you can read Novalis' "Die Lehrlinge zu Sais" online for free and in german here:
http://gutenberg.spiegel.de/buch/die-lehrlinge-zu-sais-5233/1
Best part is the short story that starts in the middle of the third chapter.

If anyone wants to read Hesse's Siddhartha, this too can be read online for free thanks to the Project Gutenberg.

English Version:
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2500

German Version:
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2499

Siddhartha is one of those books that you should have read at least once before you die.

[Anonymous No.1915904]

[Anonymous No.1915909]

It's kind of the problem, as soon as you say "go back to Romanticism" you're doomed

you're alive now

remember?

[Anonymous No.1915921]

"how do you make this relevant?"

well it's not going to be impresionism is it?

I think this is true, you have to fight really hard to bring people back in line

"observe, some paint"

it's not easy but save as many as you can....

the devil takes the rest

I suppose

[Anonymous No.1916266]

>>1915839
>Another error, and I think more laughable, is to copy a pose of an iconic image or even an entire composition and paint it in such a way that it would be (for example) relevant to our day, and for the painter to say it's classical, or renaissance, or "old master" style.

agree wholeheartedly

stuff like pic related shit is ridiculous

[Anonymous No.1916273]

>>1915818
>Walter Benjamin has an excellent insight on this problem of how we are getting stuck

I am aware of Benjamin. I go to one of the most conceptual schools in the U.S. and he is all they ever talk about. Those philosophers are actively seeking the death of Western art, Benjamin spoke about how technological reproducibility can finally kill the 'aura' that surrounds a physical piece of art, which he views as bad. All these leftist philosophers are for killing the Romantic idea of genius, because that would mean people are unequal, if not everybody could be an artist.

Of course as humans we all do the same things, but the ones we should be modelling ourselves after are the great men, not repeating what the usurpers say.

Nobody seems to understand that 'going back' isn't the same as copying them. Did the Renaissance achieve nothing new by looking back at classical greece and rome? no, they examined their ideas in light of their own time, applied them and came to some of their own conclusions, like the invention of perspective, etc. I think if we did the same for Romanticism, examining the framework of ideas they had which arose as a response to the Industrial revolution, and applied them now to our own 'technological revolution', we would be all the better and branch out from there. Thats what I'm advocating for

[Anonymous No.1916411]

[Anonymous No.1916420]

>>1916266
I know you're not hatin on my nigga Kehinde

[Anonymous No.1916424]

>>1916266
How is it ridiculous? I've seen the piece in person, it's impressive in scale (though I think he has assistants). The style of painting is definitely more contemporary than the painting that inspired it, but I don't see a problem with him referencing Old Master paintings, especially since his mashup of heroic equestrian portraits and young black men is part of the message of the work.

[sir feelsalot No.1916460]

>>1916266
I can't stand this. Boring composition. Uninteresting color scheme. Prismacolor colors and lighting on the horse and figure. Overly ornate and soulless. No sense of character from the brushwork {hard to see on this scale yet still apparent}. Just the impression I get from it.
Most likely traced from a 'shopped photograph and painted by professional assistant artists while Kehinde Wiley sits back and craps out these boring concepts.

[Anonymous No.1916801]

[Anonymous No.1916826]

Come, what stories do you have? Please...share them...

(any good paintings?)

[Anonymous No.1916853]

[Anonymous No.1916929]

>>1915765
I certainly think Romanticism is due a revival. Art has become waaay too cerebral. A multitude of layers of irony and parody that it may as well not be ironic at all. It is 'flat', no engagement, no statements, nothing.

I know some people who think we should just consider postmodernism a misstep and carry on as if it never happened, but I think we should consider a valid part of the narrative of art history just like any other, and see as a cautionary tale. The cure to the scepticism and solipsism of postmodernism is, in my opinion, intuition and romance. Scepticism is the opposite of Romanticism. Postmodernism proved the inadequacy of the intellect, Romanticism is the next logical step to make. A religiousness without the doctrines.

[Anonymous No.1916933]

>>1916411

[Anonymous No.1917030]

[Anonymous No.1917091]

>>1913605

[Anonymous No.1917161]

[Anonymous No.1917494]

>no ones posted the craziest one yet

[Anonymous No.1917894]

>>1916273
>Did the Renaissance achieve nothing new by looking back at classical greece and rome?
I think a great deal of the reason for this is also because history is a great quarry of ideas, and many of these ideas bear repeating and can be still depicted with freshness of invention. Certain ideas always ring true and can be depicted in many ways still. Besides, there weren't actual paintings aside from a few frescoes that survived or was discovered by the time of the Renaissance. They had to rely on descriptions of ancient paintings, and modeled the entire mode of western painting after these at first and then trying their own hand at creating paintings based on the liberal arts, particularly poetry. Of course, there are many other factors.

Romanticism was a revival too of some sort of classical past. Not the classical ruins of Rome, but of French medieval poetry and even some more northern poetry in which the forces of Nature are the main themes. Neoclassical too was influenced by these.

>>1916929
>Art has become waaay too cerebral.
I actually think art isn't as cerebral as it could. At least it's a shallow sort of intellect that's in vogue now. I also think that there are certain subtle emotions that can only be reached by the intense intellect (such as the grandeur and sweetness reached by Renaissance poetry), just as there are some understanding that can only be reached through passion (I don't claim know what these are but it's a main theme in (the Romantic) Hawthorne's Marble Faun). Besides this there are many art today that seek first to impress the viewer's passions upon first being seen, such as imposing largeness of scale, confusing bigness with greatness. There's also quite a bit of art today that garner interest through sensationalism alone. Postmodernism may claim to be intellectual but often it turns out to be the bane of wisdom, and is also the opposite of Classicism (which values merit among other things, a concept detestable Postmodernism).

[Anonymous No.1918161]

>>1917894
do you make art? you should post a link to your stuff. you are very well versed

[Anonymous No.1919864]

[Lazy No.1919903]

>>1919864
the pic is awesome, but in the thumb the island looks like a stumpy dick

[Anonymous No.1920203]

Painting that has been in the family for at least 100 years.
I don't know much about paintings, is it any good?
Is painted by an amateur, and in what style is it painted?
Thinking about taking it to a local art dealer who might know who the painter was, it's probably local.