/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17875085]

If our modern understanding of art theory is much better, we have more resources, better books, better teaching methods.

Why there's not today more geniuses?

Like modern day bach, beethoven, shakespeares?

[Anonymous No.17875094]

>>17875085
There are more geniuses which is why art is so devalued now.

[Anonymous No.17875113]

>>17875094
>There are more geniuses
Wrong.

[Anonymous No.17875117]

Because said geniuses had to pioneer they way into stardom.

Nowadays, people with amazing talent do exist, you can even find them painting commissions for $5 on Instagram. However, we as a society find art to be so normalized that it no longer amazes us as the old masters did.

This may be due to an oversaturation in talent and ways of appreciating art such as online musems, ebooks and youtube videos explaining everything to us. So we tend to not only appreciate the art, but the story behind the piece or artist, which no doubt the old masters would dominate.

[Anonymous No.17875128]

>>17875094
No.

>>17875117
>muh technical skills
No.

Technique is important, but more "modern day realism" is utterly boring as fuck and no more interesting than instagram photos.

[Anonymous No.17875135]

>>17875085
All explained there. Sadly it's not in English yet.

[Anonymous No.17875142]

>>17875113
>>17875128
There is no pleasing people like you. You like "geniuses" because it gives you a surefire position in discussions to dominate said discussion. You couldn't identify actual talent or genius if you didn't have 400 years of people telling you it's genius. Get the fuck off /lit/ faggots

[Anonymous No.17875163]

>>17875142
Sorry kid.

A genius is a master of his craft, technique wise and has a deep understanding of theory.
But his work also inspire us and move us emotionally and spiritually.

[Anonymous No.17875176]

>>17875163
Wow!

[Anonymous No.17875187]

>>17875128
>but more "modern day realism" is utterly boring as fuck and no more interesting than instagram photos

I find this take questionable, most ancient artists made their living by painting everyday realist scenes, such as human emotion and historical pieces. How is this different?

The fact that art was gatekeeped by lack of resources and not enough people having a guaranteed livelihood to pursue a non profitable path kept art as a unique area with a small pool of artists, which in turn allowed only a few to truly polish themselves.

Nowadays, pieces are as good as they have been at any age. The only issue is that we have so much to pick from that art has lost its "unique" value, oversaturation of offer has dwindled demand.

[Anonymous No.17875215]

>>17875187
I said we're not longer impressed by realistic because of photography.

Just copying reality is something that was solved by the camera.

I find honestly Dali more impressive than what you posted.

[Anonymous No.17875236]

>>17875215
"Just copying reality" has never been considered real art in all its history or still lives would have been greater than history paintings

[Anonymous No.17875249]

>>17875236
This is why anime artists are better than european hacks.

[Anonymous No.17875292]

>>17875187
Sir Percival did not exist to have his picture taken. The last thing we need is artists painting stories and legends in some sort of temporary style. There's room for both.

[Anonymous No.17875301]

>>17875292
Intended for >>17875215 but whatever