Results 1 to 13 of 133
Thread: Leonardo Da vinci vs modern art
May 23rd, 2005 #1
Leonardo Da vinci vs modern art
I just got into a debate with my mom.
u see the problem is that she thinks that leonardo da vinci is better then anything modern.
i find this to be totally not true.
pretty good right? well ya sure they are, i agree. but how long did it take for him to make these? 2-3 hours? ( ediot: put up last supper )
my mom says there are emotions in his work, u can see what his characters are like, what they are thinking. ok great, but she implies that in modern art such doesnt happen.
now lets look at today's art. i will use examples from forums.
this picture is SENSATIONAL. it is insane, and right there i feel that leonardo just got owned. this has all the emotion, details, anatomy, realism, and even colors.
amazing coloring, great idea. everything is there.
this beats a lot of leonardoes sketches by far.
and lastly this. this is breathtaking. nothing iv seen by leonardo is.
therefore i believe that modern art like this is far more sofisticated then old school museum type of stuff.
my mom calls forum art "fast food" while all the classics are "haut cuisine"
i will never understand, anyone agree with me?
Last edited by Pavel Sokov; May 23rd, 2005 at 08:58 PM.
Hide this ad by registering as a memberMay 23rd, 2005 #2
i don't think you should pick on any style, i mean yeah, there are lots of thought that goes into every piece, well, sometimes...
What i mean is tis, you cant compare the two, i know, i like modern art over Da Vinci, but it's preference, and you can still learn from Da Vinci...
May 23rd, 2005 #3
i cant understand why da vinci is labeled "genius" for his 5 minute sketches but those guys i showed arent.
i just dont think its fair.
that asian pic with the bridge and the red floating girl is sensational! i would give the "genius" title to that guy over da vinci any day
May 23rd, 2005 #4
Well, you have to look at his works in context. Today's artists have hundreds of years of additional learning to draw from, and a totally different toolset. And comparing his sketches to finished pieces of work isn't exactly a fair comparison, either.
Pop music may be catchier than Beethoven, but it's never going to have the same importance.
May 23rd, 2005 #5
ya but i mean how many times in ur life have u seen people post their lifeart, and be honest.. how many times did it look as good as da vinci? even though he existed a long time ago, why is he still better then all ur conceptart pros? u guys got the details, the colors, the realism, everything.
leonardo is pretty awesome, but he just never takes ur breathe like some forum stuff can.
May 23rd, 2005 #6
spoken like a true 15 year old ;P. as flattering as it is to think that you put the artists you mentioned in such high regard, it makes you seem as close minded as you think your mother is being on the subject. leonardo was kind of the first concept artist. his ideas were 100s of years ahead of his time. while i might not think of leonardos characatures as untouchable, he was one hell of an idea guy, and one of the greatest thinkers who's ever lived. lemme put it to you this way, when i was young i hated monet. i thought simon beasley kicked the shit out of his bright ass shitty paintings. then i started painting, and realized i hadnt seen the genius in his shit. regardless of whether its your cup of tea or not, dont discredit the old masters. they spent a lifetime figuring shit out so you dont have to.-c36
May 23rd, 2005 #7
simon bisley DOES own.
i dont think it makes u a better artist if u existed a long time ago and were ahead of the avergae talent.
its like taking a kid who scipped 2 grades and gets an 87% mark and taking a kid from the same grade who didnt scip who gets 95% and saying the first kid is better.
right NOW, the better intellegence belongs to the second kid.
the better talent right now belongs to all these dudes
i wont EVER understand u adults.
May 23rd, 2005 #8Registered User
Originally Posted by 0kelvin
- Join Date
- May 2005
- Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Manslauter, you have to understand that not only was DaVinci a revolutionary artist (again, for HIS TIME), he was also a great scientist, writer, and all around renaissance man (I know...that was lame).
The point here is this, while the artwork here may be immensely better, (not to discount it) it isn't by any means revolutionary.
Thanks for the great topic!
May 23rd, 2005 #9Originally Posted by manslauter
May 23rd, 2005 #10Registered User
- Join Date
- Jul 2002
- Anti-Christchurch, New Zealand
- Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
i think most are missing what manslaughter's talking about. disregard everything you know about da vinci and just look at the art. is it better (more skillfully made, more accurate, more whatever) than anything done today by modern artists? if you didn't know that a particlular picture was done by da vinci, and you compared it to something done by a modern master, would you still think the da vinci was better?
i agree that he was "a revolutionary artist (again, for HIS TIME), he was also a great scientist, writer, and all around renaissance man" etc. etc., but i don't think that's the point manslaughter's trying to make.
...so what if i'm bored, and ordinary?...
currently playing: Super Mario 64 DS, ICO (grrrr....)
May 23rd, 2005 #11
well yes nothing i have seen today is revolutinory.
but is it breathtangly talented? ya it is.
better art: modern
heres what it comes down to.
its like taking a 15 year old kid and looking at his art. pretty good. then take a 80 year old dude and his art is better. the second is the better artist, his is the genius. and the kid still is irelevent.
( NIL KNOWS EXACTLY WHAT I MEAN )
May 23rd, 2005 #12Registered User
- Join Date
- Nov 2002
- Thanked 307 Times in 132 Posts
ca seriously needs a 'comedy goldmine' section a la SA and stick this puppy right in there.
May 23rd, 2005 #13
youre comparing leo sketches to concept art finished paintings...that doesnt help consistency.
also look at the last supper that took months of observing people and prep before he even began...
look at picasso it looked as if he mastered art at the age of 20 and then decided hmm iill just f*ck up everyones notion of art for about 20 years...context has a lot to do with achievements
Last edited by rodrigo!; May 23rd, 2005 at 09:09 PM.