Why Ancient Art Was Better Than Renaissance Art? Acording to who? this is the most ridiculous statement.
@susanlawens3776Күн бұрын
The Renaissance was a time in history when people shifted their gaze to a time when the arts, culture, politics, and economics, were so much better than what they were currently experiencing in their time, and they looked back as far as they could go. So, yeah, they would agree with you, that the much older art was much better. That was kind of the whole point of the Renaissance.
@mydlo3Күн бұрын
Can someone explain how having multiple vanishing points on an axis is more 'realistic' in a way or compensates the movement of the eye? I can't wrap my head around that
@throbert8244Күн бұрын
They hated him because he spoke the truth
@goliathsteinbeisser3547Күн бұрын
4:15 That's one ugly museum. A hate letter to the human condition. Anyhow, do not let the negativity in these comments discourage you. We live, we learn.
@johnperic6860Күн бұрын
The reason one point perspective isn't convincing is because we don't see one point perspective. One point perspective only occurscwhen you zoom in, e.g. wity a telephoto lens. In real life we see five point perspective (or something very close to it). I've been trying to jesrn to draft in three point perspective in order to account for both horizontal and vertical distortion away from the viewer - it frankly makes the subject in question look much more real.
@filipjovanovic1912Күн бұрын
Good fucking job, the way we see this world is an illusion of a third dimension and art in its core is a convincing representation of this illusion which is not easy to do, especially when depicting something out of imagination.
@marcustulliuscicero3987Күн бұрын
Do you have a bibliography for this, apart from the blog? I would be interested in learning more.
@ultimatebonus8072Күн бұрын
I guess they used perspective theory to build the Parthenon of Athens. It was made to look a certain way from a certain perspective point from afar.
@lucymiau57002 күн бұрын
The titel of this video is very cick baity and in some way missleading as the topic is only arround the variants of perspective drawing and not about the quality of art itself. Regarding the topic itself, the renaissence was a time of re-discovery of the antike based on viewing of antike art and reading of antike books again. And it is correct that the one point perspective has some weakness because if a painting is relative big, the eye is wandering over the painting and then this one point perpective doesn't fit anymore. Artists notes it and begun to find ways to improve it very quickly if needed for their art piece.
@1marcelo2 күн бұрын
I don't think perfectly symmetrical images are more "sophisticated" than the complex images produced during the Renaissance, even if they have multiple vanishing points. Probably, those ancient images have multiple vanishing points because they wanted to preserve the perfect symmetry, not because they knew how human vision and cognition work.
@ricardonunes86252 күн бұрын
As someone who knows a bit of art history, this is one of the dumbest videos I've ever seen
@zega1552 күн бұрын
Wouldn't a more sophisticated form of vanishing point being a 2 point perspective view?
@paulwoodford19842 күн бұрын
Who cares. It’s all great art at the end of the day
@ankou62 күн бұрын
I don't think you explained why it was better. The ancient didn't have a detailed, theoretical understanding of prospective, as far as we know. Tangentially, Brunelleschi is also responsible for the first architectural project that surpassed the technical capabilities of the ancient world: the dome of the cathedral of Florence
@jaydonmanton54632 күн бұрын
there are multiple more reasons you could have gave. i want to know about the texture and different use of techniques. linear and one point perspective is schoolboy stuff man.
@zmzmzn20004 күн бұрын
She works hard for her money, so hard for it honey.
@sourcherry234 күн бұрын
This was mind-blowing.
@ELLAS12344 күн бұрын
great job , bravo , many secrets there , this is the start
@Totallyking5 күн бұрын
Great video
@bret64845 күн бұрын
tldr christians
@GeorgMartinBamberg6 күн бұрын
Near the end of the fifth century BC perspective-painting with vanishing-points was developed by Agatharchos of Samos as Plinius the elder tells. (Et non habemus quin id dubitemus.) The phenomenon of the vanishing-point is discribed by Lucretius in "de rerum natura". Renaiccance artists always referred to perspective-drawing as a skill developed in antiquity. The surviving acient wall-decorations show many slight or obvious variations of the actual exact construction as modern-time- works also do. The misunderstanding started in the late 18th Century with Gotthold Ephraim Lessing who had even less knowledge of ancient painting than we have today. He found mistakes in the perspectives of roman wallpaintings and therefore claimed modern paintings to be better.
@dziosdzynes76638 күн бұрын
Medieval mosaic enjoyers: 🗿
@luisangulo53328 күн бұрын
based alert, you are right btw
@smugram59379 күн бұрын
Both are still unlimited times better than “Modern Art”
@tarantulasareterfs5 күн бұрын
I doubt you know anything about modern art. Bro saw one meme about modern art and decided its all like this
@RetardEd0019 күн бұрын
Disliked because CE, good video tho.
@16warithankiatkla779 күн бұрын
I'm thrilled to learn more from you!
@billgauthier97659 күн бұрын
Fantastic ! Being an artist this is mind altering , no one told us about this , and the result looks more natural as you pointed out
@themysteriousdomainmoviepalace9 күн бұрын
Ummm....Art 101?
@RM-xr8lq10 күн бұрын
total obsession over the characters in the abrahamic pyramid schemes, think it increases their social credit faith-for-afterlife score 😂
@bahshas9 күн бұрын
yet everyone of those people where better than you. you're like a monkey laughing at a man
@haywardgaude858910 күн бұрын
Great condensation of what is often an extremely dense topic - thanks!
@teslaoliveira219510 күн бұрын
Super!
@dashinvaine10 күн бұрын
The triumphal arches on the sides of the painting of Christ handing the keys to St Peter also look wrong because the tops are straight in line, across the picture. That line should curve down towards the edges in order to be convincing. If you look, square on, at a straight, level wall that is higher than you, and follow the top of it will seem to dip down more the further you look to left or right. Parallel lines, horizontally and vertically across an image should seem to form around a bit of a bulge, rather than forming a straight up and down grid. This is also a problem you get with 3d art, as it doen't do curving/fish-eye perspective either. (Cameras, by contrast, can sometimes exaggerate the effect, making it difficult, say, to take a photo of an oblong picture without the frame distorting and curving in too much at the corners.) I don't particularly agree that the ancient artists were using a 'sophisticated' form of perspective. I think it's more likely those frescos were painted intuitively. If it's a symmetrical composition then all the vanishing points will form a central line anyway, even if no particular plan is in place.
@Stevie-J11 күн бұрын
Rome fell in 476 (not really though) Everyone was ignorant and life was horrible for a thousand years! (not really) Then there was an explosion of innovation in the renaissance! (not really) All the demarcations and eras in western history are basically nonsense
@burner5553 күн бұрын
People believed in flat earth(not really)
@kornelszecsi651211 күн бұрын
You said in the video that in the later Rennesiance they actually adopted the multiple point perspectuve style. So the whole video is just bullshit.
@user-hy9nh4yk3p19 сағат бұрын
shh Fare thee well - on life's journey
@Magicpoppy11 күн бұрын
This was interesting😊
@douglasphillips587011 күн бұрын
One point perspective is fine, but you're treating paintings as three dimensional representations which they aren't, so your perspective is what is off. Learn draftsmanship before you critique it.
@AndrewFrancisIlyrian11 күн бұрын
Are you gay?
@BeatleJuice10811 күн бұрын
Well, i think there is NOT such a thing as good or bad art, therefore there isn't an art better than the other. Also, cubism is not "prospective free" because every one sees the world differently or because the eyes moves in different directions...
@deborahberger581610 күн бұрын
You said it!
@aidanjohnwalsh212911 күн бұрын
Wow!
@CuongN2411 күн бұрын
This videos is so rеtаrdеd my goodness, Shallow in detail and information with an amateur understanding of art history
@gilzineto7 күн бұрын
hmm I have the same feeling about this comment.
@jaydonmanton54632 күн бұрын
i thought it was only me. you would think the target audience for this video wouldnt be someone who doesn’t know what linear perspective is.
@dai-nippon_digger11 күн бұрын
Excellent story. It's a travesty that history isn't remembered like this more often, emphasis on the personality of people.
@PinoSancris_11 күн бұрын
Imagine making a ranking of artistic periods, you are worth nothing as an art historian.
@PinoSancris_11 күн бұрын
These are not things that are done for "fun". Go to university and study (sorry for bad english)
@claudiamanta194312 күн бұрын
All I can say to you is that when you ended your video I groaned in frustration. I don’t recall me having had this reaction to any other material I had seen on KZread. 😃👏👏👏👏 I can’t draw, paint, or do maths, but if I could, I would paint something from different perspectives, whilst the whole retained unity recognisable from each perspective. I would imagine it from as many angles as possible- as if I was looking at it from right, left, behind the canvas, at different angles floating around it etc. Maybe I am wrong because I am literally ignorant in such matters, but even when I look at the cubist painting that you have shown, it makes sense (kind of) only from my viewpoint. The Mediaeval sets of perspectives still follow an axis, and I feel that it should be used to convey a sense of verticality as purpose, movement and direction and meaning (that, for me, is spiritual- the human world and the upper, Divine ones). The Renaissance perspective purposefully collapsed all others into one; if feels like monopolising attention as it monopolised The Divine (‘I am The Way’, ‘nobody comes to the Father, but through me’). Like reality, I think that a painting should reflect and harmonise (ideally) all points of view, all perspectives, revealing Beauty (not Escher’s quirky whimsicality, masterful as it is) that can be experienced by everybody, each person with their own perspective. Art should not entice and monopolise the viewer’s mind, imposing the artist’s views in the chosen viewpoint. The artist has a duty of revealing Beauty to all the viewers. And I believe that Beauty fosters empathy and mental flexibility in that the viewers are invited (nay, urged) to see things differently and from other(‘s) perspectives. Thank you very much for sharing.
@Raphael303212 күн бұрын
Ok but why this specific way of rendering linear perspective makes a whole period of art "better" than other? Perspective is just a tool thar responds to the expectations of art in a particular age, a more dynamic perspective don't fit in peak renaissance world view. That's literally the most uninformed thing I've ever seen.
@labeilleautiste631810 күн бұрын
Because its a progress, a technical advancemant
@Raphael303210 күн бұрын
@@labeilleautiste6318 Art isn't a craft. There's no advancement, people just do what correspond to their historical-economical needs
@labeilleautiste631810 күн бұрын
@@Raphael3032 there is an évolution of technic throught the accumulation of knowledges so yes a progression...
@Raphael303210 күн бұрын
@@labeilleautiste6318 art is not about technique lol we are not talking about design or engineering. If there is a progression how you explain the romans knowing about modern perspective hundreds of years before the renaissance lol also roman perspective is just an optical illusion, it does not reference how the eye sees because it's impossible to replicate it precisely in a 2D medium.
@noahaha_8 күн бұрын
@@Raphael3032 You're talking out your ass
@patoliterato12 күн бұрын
Nice video!!
@user-vt6td9hp3g12 күн бұрын
talk about being a contrarian
@dickrichard62612 күн бұрын
He said perspective, and the way a person perceives space is an optical illusion... 😅 Something already tells me that he doesn't know what he is talking about. Things look smaller when they are further away because they are further away, and that's not an illusion... an illusion would be if the object was made to look far away when in reality it is actually really close or something along those lines... he doesn't understand that a trick is different from truth and things don't increase or decrease in size due to distance. Small things up close have more detail then large things far away. He is acting like a person can't tell the difference when that is not true.
@redquoter12 күн бұрын
JONATHAN PAGEAU, GET IN HERE
@jimmydesouza437512 күн бұрын
4:20 Forgive me but I can't figure out what flaw you are trying to illustrate here. It seems like you're suggesting that the top of the table not being a flat horizontal in your vertical field is a perspective flaw, but if you were looking at an actual real physical table from that same angle it would not be either.
@ShowMeMoviesInc.8 күн бұрын
Thanks I literally was coming to see if anyone else noticed this
@kgoblin50848 күн бұрын
It took me a while, but I think they are trying to say that if you view the painting from the side, looking down the length of the table, then you will not get the perceptual illusion of depth for looking down the length of the table, because the lines of the table don't converge, as they run tangential to the intended line of perspective in the painting. The solution would be for the top & bottom edges of the table to become UN-parallel when viewed from the side, tapering together on the edge of the painting away from the viewer. Presumably the left & right table edges would also straighten out & become parallel... as they would then be tangential to the plane of perspective. This would of courses A) require magic & B) is still a rather stupid take, as nobody expects that from a flat painting.
@MrAaaaazzzzz000099993 күн бұрын
bro couldve just stopped at "perspective was employed by classical artists long before the renaissance" but he goes to make nonsensical takes
@someguy5261Күн бұрын
@@MrAaaaazzzzz00009999 Yes but the clickbait though.
Пікірлер
I almost fell asleep
It just didn't
Why Ancient Art Was Better Than Renaissance Art? Acording to who? this is the most ridiculous statement.
The Renaissance was a time in history when people shifted their gaze to a time when the arts, culture, politics, and economics, were so much better than what they were currently experiencing in their time, and they looked back as far as they could go. So, yeah, they would agree with you, that the much older art was much better. That was kind of the whole point of the Renaissance.
Can someone explain how having multiple vanishing points on an axis is more 'realistic' in a way or compensates the movement of the eye? I can't wrap my head around that
They hated him because he spoke the truth
4:15 That's one ugly museum. A hate letter to the human condition. Anyhow, do not let the negativity in these comments discourage you. We live, we learn.
The reason one point perspective isn't convincing is because we don't see one point perspective. One point perspective only occurscwhen you zoom in, e.g. wity a telephoto lens. In real life we see five point perspective (or something very close to it). I've been trying to jesrn to draft in three point perspective in order to account for both horizontal and vertical distortion away from the viewer - it frankly makes the subject in question look much more real.
Good fucking job, the way we see this world is an illusion of a third dimension and art in its core is a convincing representation of this illusion which is not easy to do, especially when depicting something out of imagination.
Do you have a bibliography for this, apart from the blog? I would be interested in learning more.
I guess they used perspective theory to build the Parthenon of Athens. It was made to look a certain way from a certain perspective point from afar.
The titel of this video is very cick baity and in some way missleading as the topic is only arround the variants of perspective drawing and not about the quality of art itself. Regarding the topic itself, the renaissence was a time of re-discovery of the antike based on viewing of antike art and reading of antike books again. And it is correct that the one point perspective has some weakness because if a painting is relative big, the eye is wandering over the painting and then this one point perpective doesn't fit anymore. Artists notes it and begun to find ways to improve it very quickly if needed for their art piece.
I don't think perfectly symmetrical images are more "sophisticated" than the complex images produced during the Renaissance, even if they have multiple vanishing points. Probably, those ancient images have multiple vanishing points because they wanted to preserve the perfect symmetry, not because they knew how human vision and cognition work.
As someone who knows a bit of art history, this is one of the dumbest videos I've ever seen
Wouldn't a more sophisticated form of vanishing point being a 2 point perspective view?
Who cares. It’s all great art at the end of the day
I don't think you explained why it was better. The ancient didn't have a detailed, theoretical understanding of prospective, as far as we know. Tangentially, Brunelleschi is also responsible for the first architectural project that surpassed the technical capabilities of the ancient world: the dome of the cathedral of Florence
there are multiple more reasons you could have gave. i want to know about the texture and different use of techniques. linear and one point perspective is schoolboy stuff man.
She works hard for her money, so hard for it honey.
This was mind-blowing.
great job , bravo , many secrets there , this is the start
Great video
tldr christians
Near the end of the fifth century BC perspective-painting with vanishing-points was developed by Agatharchos of Samos as Plinius the elder tells. (Et non habemus quin id dubitemus.) The phenomenon of the vanishing-point is discribed by Lucretius in "de rerum natura". Renaiccance artists always referred to perspective-drawing as a skill developed in antiquity. The surviving acient wall-decorations show many slight or obvious variations of the actual exact construction as modern-time- works also do. The misunderstanding started in the late 18th Century with Gotthold Ephraim Lessing who had even less knowledge of ancient painting than we have today. He found mistakes in the perspectives of roman wallpaintings and therefore claimed modern paintings to be better.
Medieval mosaic enjoyers: 🗿
based alert, you are right btw
Both are still unlimited times better than “Modern Art”
I doubt you know anything about modern art. Bro saw one meme about modern art and decided its all like this
Disliked because CE, good video tho.
I'm thrilled to learn more from you!
Fantastic ! Being an artist this is mind altering , no one told us about this , and the result looks more natural as you pointed out
Ummm....Art 101?
total obsession over the characters in the abrahamic pyramid schemes, think it increases their social credit faith-for-afterlife score 😂
yet everyone of those people where better than you. you're like a monkey laughing at a man
Great condensation of what is often an extremely dense topic - thanks!
Super!
The triumphal arches on the sides of the painting of Christ handing the keys to St Peter also look wrong because the tops are straight in line, across the picture. That line should curve down towards the edges in order to be convincing. If you look, square on, at a straight, level wall that is higher than you, and follow the top of it will seem to dip down more the further you look to left or right. Parallel lines, horizontally and vertically across an image should seem to form around a bit of a bulge, rather than forming a straight up and down grid. This is also a problem you get with 3d art, as it doen't do curving/fish-eye perspective either. (Cameras, by contrast, can sometimes exaggerate the effect, making it difficult, say, to take a photo of an oblong picture without the frame distorting and curving in too much at the corners.) I don't particularly agree that the ancient artists were using a 'sophisticated' form of perspective. I think it's more likely those frescos were painted intuitively. If it's a symmetrical composition then all the vanishing points will form a central line anyway, even if no particular plan is in place.
Rome fell in 476 (not really though) Everyone was ignorant and life was horrible for a thousand years! (not really) Then there was an explosion of innovation in the renaissance! (not really) All the demarcations and eras in western history are basically nonsense
People believed in flat earth(not really)
You said in the video that in the later Rennesiance they actually adopted the multiple point perspectuve style. So the whole video is just bullshit.
shh Fare thee well - on life's journey
This was interesting😊
One point perspective is fine, but you're treating paintings as three dimensional representations which they aren't, so your perspective is what is off. Learn draftsmanship before you critique it.
Are you gay?
Well, i think there is NOT such a thing as good or bad art, therefore there isn't an art better than the other. Also, cubism is not "prospective free" because every one sees the world differently or because the eyes moves in different directions...
You said it!
Wow!
This videos is so rеtаrdеd my goodness, Shallow in detail and information with an amateur understanding of art history
hmm I have the same feeling about this comment.
i thought it was only me. you would think the target audience for this video wouldnt be someone who doesn’t know what linear perspective is.
Excellent story. It's a travesty that history isn't remembered like this more often, emphasis on the personality of people.
Imagine making a ranking of artistic periods, you are worth nothing as an art historian.
These are not things that are done for "fun". Go to university and study (sorry for bad english)
All I can say to you is that when you ended your video I groaned in frustration. I don’t recall me having had this reaction to any other material I had seen on KZread. 😃👏👏👏👏 I can’t draw, paint, or do maths, but if I could, I would paint something from different perspectives, whilst the whole retained unity recognisable from each perspective. I would imagine it from as many angles as possible- as if I was looking at it from right, left, behind the canvas, at different angles floating around it etc. Maybe I am wrong because I am literally ignorant in such matters, but even when I look at the cubist painting that you have shown, it makes sense (kind of) only from my viewpoint. The Mediaeval sets of perspectives still follow an axis, and I feel that it should be used to convey a sense of verticality as purpose, movement and direction and meaning (that, for me, is spiritual- the human world and the upper, Divine ones). The Renaissance perspective purposefully collapsed all others into one; if feels like monopolising attention as it monopolised The Divine (‘I am The Way’, ‘nobody comes to the Father, but through me’). Like reality, I think that a painting should reflect and harmonise (ideally) all points of view, all perspectives, revealing Beauty (not Escher’s quirky whimsicality, masterful as it is) that can be experienced by everybody, each person with their own perspective. Art should not entice and monopolise the viewer’s mind, imposing the artist’s views in the chosen viewpoint. The artist has a duty of revealing Beauty to all the viewers. And I believe that Beauty fosters empathy and mental flexibility in that the viewers are invited (nay, urged) to see things differently and from other(‘s) perspectives. Thank you very much for sharing.
Ok but why this specific way of rendering linear perspective makes a whole period of art "better" than other? Perspective is just a tool thar responds to the expectations of art in a particular age, a more dynamic perspective don't fit in peak renaissance world view. That's literally the most uninformed thing I've ever seen.
Because its a progress, a technical advancemant
@@labeilleautiste6318 Art isn't a craft. There's no advancement, people just do what correspond to their historical-economical needs
@@Raphael3032 there is an évolution of technic throught the accumulation of knowledges so yes a progression...
@@labeilleautiste6318 art is not about technique lol we are not talking about design or engineering. If there is a progression how you explain the romans knowing about modern perspective hundreds of years before the renaissance lol also roman perspective is just an optical illusion, it does not reference how the eye sees because it's impossible to replicate it precisely in a 2D medium.
@@Raphael3032 You're talking out your ass
Nice video!!
talk about being a contrarian
He said perspective, and the way a person perceives space is an optical illusion... 😅 Something already tells me that he doesn't know what he is talking about. Things look smaller when they are further away because they are further away, and that's not an illusion... an illusion would be if the object was made to look far away when in reality it is actually really close or something along those lines... he doesn't understand that a trick is different from truth and things don't increase or decrease in size due to distance. Small things up close have more detail then large things far away. He is acting like a person can't tell the difference when that is not true.
JONATHAN PAGEAU, GET IN HERE
4:20 Forgive me but I can't figure out what flaw you are trying to illustrate here. It seems like you're suggesting that the top of the table not being a flat horizontal in your vertical field is a perspective flaw, but if you were looking at an actual real physical table from that same angle it would not be either.
Thanks I literally was coming to see if anyone else noticed this
It took me a while, but I think they are trying to say that if you view the painting from the side, looking down the length of the table, then you will not get the perceptual illusion of depth for looking down the length of the table, because the lines of the table don't converge, as they run tangential to the intended line of perspective in the painting. The solution would be for the top & bottom edges of the table to become UN-parallel when viewed from the side, tapering together on the edge of the painting away from the viewer. Presumably the left & right table edges would also straighten out & become parallel... as they would then be tangential to the plane of perspective. This would of courses A) require magic & B) is still a rather stupid take, as nobody expects that from a flat painting.
bro couldve just stopped at "perspective was employed by classical artists long before the renaissance" but he goes to make nonsensical takes
@@MrAaaaazzzzz00009999 Yes but the clickbait though.