/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

[Anonymous No.6511308]

Did Bellotto end up surpassing his master Canaletto in artistic prowress?

[Anonymous No.6514081]

Yes, in my opinion he did due to his use of tonality and rendering of architectural detail.

[Anonymous No.6514088]

>>6511308
Art!=Skill

[Anonymous No.6514096]

>>6514088

Yeh, it was all camera obscura...

[Anonymous No.6514109]

>>6511308
I actually was thinking the same, saw a big exhibition in Dresden and his work hits harder than Canalettos. I wonder how he gets this high perspective, if he really got up high and drew from there or if he just plotted everything out and worked from his countless sketches. I would like to try recreating something like this for another place, but I can't really comprehend the work process, it's so much more than just painting on location

[Anonymous No.6514122]

>>6514109

Aren't his scenes not actually true to life but composed to give the best effect, almost like an early form of photobashing?

[Anonymous No.6514124]

>>6514096
I would be careful just repeating stuff mindlessly what art historians claim. Keep in mind they don't draw and get educated in an environment devoid of any classically trained artists. Note how there is no dialog between art historians and modern masters of painting and master draftsmen, it is to a huge part due to ego and disdain towards "craftsmen". The camera obscura theory claims that the main problem is a problem of accuracy or the drawing, which is not true. It is a big problem to most of us, but there is a compositional challenge, how to arrange stuff, choosing the perspective. I am baffled how educated people just sum the process up to "camera obscura" and just leave it there, like a mystery is solved in one word. Look at the figures, think about the actual challenge of painting in a camera obscura opposed to having drawing skills. Take a look at how masterfully he painted the horses in a few strokes and think again if a "drawing aid" would be helpful or an actual hinderance.

[Anonymous No.6514125]

>>6514124

That was sarcasm, sorry. The "..." and all. Good points.

[Anonymous No.6514128]

>>6514122
I think they are artificially constructed from careful sketches on location. I assume that after sketching for many weeks he would decide for a composition and then plot out a perspective grid on the final piece and place the buildings in this high up perspective. Like you would recreate a City in a 3D program, but in this case it's a fixed perspective. I am not sure of the accuracy of the paintings, even though I was in Dresden several times, but I would lean towards agreeing and say they are somewhat inaccurate but it makes the whole scene more grand and he fits more stuff in than would be able to see.

This is all my personal speculation though, it would need a more careful analysis for someone actually to really check it from the exact same viewpoints. The fact that all the viewpoints are high up makes it difficult to check if you were just walking around there like me.

[Anonymous No.6514931]

it's a shit genre which is really mostly souvenir to sell to the artless anglos as they toured italy

[Anonymous No.6514933]

>>6511308
Wouldn’t you like to know

[Anonymous No.6517067]

>>6514088
>>6514096
>>6514931
>painting realistic landscapes is le bad

[Anonymous No.6517068]

>>6517067
Skill!=Bad

[Anonymous No.6517103]

Could it be popular, or is it just crap? https://opensea.io/collection/shitwedition

[Anonymous No.6517930]

>>6511308
His vedutas have far more life to them (talking about the crowds, animals, atmospheric effects etc.) and he surpassed the older Canaletto when it comes to lighting effects. I'd say his paintings are considerably more striking.
What makes it all the more impressive is how many different cities he managed to portray with equal mastery, as opposed to older Canaletto 's more restricted repertoire.

[Anonymous No.6518137]

>>6517067
it's not a landscape, and realism has nothing to do with souvenir paintings being a disgrace.

[Anonymous No.6519056]

>>6511308
Bellotto has more interesting colors and superior lighting but canaletto humans look 10 times better. Just compare the two foreground women in Bellotto's painting, with their bizarrely elongated heads and radioactive pink skin, to picrel's perfectly proportioned figures. The clothes are also a lot better rendered

[Anonymous No.6521892]