Results 27 to 39 of 133
Thread: Leonardo Da vinci vs modern art
May 23rd, 2005 #27
Maybe your mom means abstract and impressionism when she said modern art.
As for comparing da Vinci with the other artists you listed, well, the artists you listed are really good, they are awesome, I totally agree. But to me, they are still a bit away from da Vinci's level. They may not be too far away, but they are not up to his level. There's something that's captured in da Vinci's works that always fasinates me. It just looks a lot more "mature" in a way. And his works are more detailed in a way that he doesn't need to use excessive accessories and fancy gadgets to show that. And he shows excellent understanding in anatomy. On top of that, he's able to paint realism without distortion and yet still has his touch to it. I mean how often do you see realism work with styles but without distortion in the body parts?
Of course, everyone has different taste too.
Hide this ad by registering as a memberMay 23rd, 2005 #28
Yeah, I agree. Sorry if I got overzealous. But I get frustrated when people start making unfair comparisons. In my mind the point of this is invalid since it is purely not possible to compare the two artists fairly. Throwing up an blow up thumbnail (the old man), minimizing a full size drawing (self portrait, which people are not sure he even drew) and the deteriorated "Last supper" before it was restored and comparing it with four fully realized images from four different artists is not fair. As people say, Context matters. Even if you dont aknowledge it or not. If you dont then you are missing a pretty big piece of the big picture.
May 23rd, 2005 #29
May 23rd, 2005 #30
May 23rd, 2005 #31Registered User
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
- Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
For his time he was amazing yes, but the original poster said
"u see the problem is that she thinks that leonardo da vinci is better then anything modern."
Which is utter fucking bullshit. I am guessing he may have been exaggerating, but if he wasnt, its bullshit. In the time of da vinci there were artists as good as him that are no longer remembered because we like to raise a few people up as gods and ignore the rest. Today there are people who are just as ground breaking as da vinci was, even if they didnt have modern technology and knownledge. But they wont be worshipped as gods until they are dead of course. Its not like there are no more geniuses. its not like artistic genoiuses stopped being born whenever. And its utter bullshit to say modern art isnt as good as classic art.
May 23rd, 2005 #32
May 23rd, 2005 #33
Why dont we just agree that his art compared to modern standards is very good, but maybe not the best. we can also agree that much of modern art we owe to him. And we can also agree that he is great in the terms of art history. Leonardo is Leonardo, more can not be said.
May 23rd, 2005 #34
May 23rd, 2005 #35
Well my friend, it seems you haven't taken any painting or drawing classes from a traditional art school. I have to disagree with every one of those pictures you chose to contrast with Leo's sketches. Mind you I love crazy robots with octopii on their heads, but the emotional depth garnered from that is rather shallow. Imp and Fiduciose's work is incredible, don't get me wrong, but they are no where near as good as Leo. Of course, everything is subjective, I just hope I can open up your views a bit.
I will do my best to explain why Leo's sketches are better than any one of those you chose to compare with. First off, it isn't fair to compare completed renderings with sketches. You did include the Last Supper, albeit a very bad picture, if you were to see it in person, your life would be changed - the reason it would be changed is why Leo's been around for ages.
Photoreal does not always equal good. Sure it may please the eye for a day or so and work very well in an ad or movie, but point out a photorealistic artist other than Chuck Close or Philip Perlstein that hasn't made a tremendous impact upon people's lives. When something resembles a photo, such as JasonChan's piece, the technique becomes more important than the medium or message. The first thing you say it, "Wow! it looks so real, I'm impressed!" Then you move onto what the subject is and wherever the composition leads your eye. So the heart's initial reaction is skin deep. When you look at the Last Supper, it is quite evident that Leo chose to manipulate the color and paint in such a way that it grasps the heart in exclamation. No, it may not look at "real" as some other work out there, and it may not contain crazy perspective elements that dance all over the place. What it does contain is unity with variety, through repetition, continuation, and proximity. Its about the spirituality of paint, the phenomena it produces when applied to a canvas and mixed with whatever other medium. It's about the layering, so that the eye zings with excitement because there are conflicting color contrasts happening in extremely subtle ways. There is no way to see those elements from a photo. Remember, Image vs. Content.
It's like comparing a quick session of self pleasure to spending a lavish and personal evening with a woman you love. Excuse the lascivious nature of the analogy, but its true. The former has very little depth. It is easy to obtain. Anyone can do it. It does not put you into a higher place. Whereas being with a woman you love takes time to understand someone. It takes personal development to achieve a relationship with another. It involves continuos effort. It makes you vulnerable. It makes you feel sensual, personal, and strengthens your own integrity and confidence. It runs you through a slew of emotion rather than a quick fit of pleasure. That is the difference your mother is trying to explain to you. Love vs. selfishness. Or rather, something with lasting integrity and something that excites for the moment.
Leo knew there was more out there than just himself. He was a constant creative force attempting to better mankind and himself through art and invention. Sure he had his share of problems and his share of beliefs that may not coincide with other peoples' opinions. But he did his best and he gave it all that he could until the very end.
This applies to his art in a number of way. Those sketches contain a visceral force and magnitude of emotion very few people can achieve. There are some who exist here on CA, but most cannot create line, light, dark, and an overall unity or gestalt that Leo produces. For one he uses silverpoint, which is a tremendously difficult medium to use, not that the difficulty behind the work makes it any better. There is a degree of life to the paper with its texture and grooves from the silver. Life is exactly what Leo created. His paintings contain a vivid yet subtle energy that is achieved through true harmonization of color and composition. It breathes on its own. It interacts with the viewer as it were alive. That is why he has lasted throughout the ages, and so many other have not.
My challenge to you would be to save up some money and take a trip to New York. Go to the Met, and experience all those paintings you see in books in person. Get real with them. Look at them with a blatant passion for understanding. I promise you my friend that they will speak. They will speak volumes upon volumes to you and place you into a state you may never knew existed. El Greco, Cezanne, Monet, Manet, Rembrandt, Goya, Leonardo and many many other traditional masters have so much to say. Even today, their message is not dead. There is a reason they are still around. One day you will understand why, sooner or later, if you continue with the passion for art that you have. You have a lot of potential. I saw your drawings on DevArt. You understand light and dark well. And I imagine as you grow as a person, you will begin to understand why Leo's work is so strong and continually inspiring. His paintings set off alarms in the brain that enrich and enlighten. It just takes a little know how, and a little bit of seeing to recognize them. I would take a traditional painting class in oil and an art history class before going however.
As for contemporary artists. I guarantee you if you ask Rick Berry, Jon Foster, Phil Hale (who mind you is incredible), Ron Lemen, any of the massive black cats, Ryan Church, Syd Mead, or God knows how many other great concept artists that are out there, they would reply with great respect for Leo. Its not about "cute" or "pretty" or "realistic" mate, because a lot of concept art is exactly that. It's about the content and depth. I guarantee you if Leo lived today he would blow the art world's head off, in every category.
Of course, you need a little of both. Many would disagree but I'm as much in love with concept art as I am with traditional art. It's all exciting, just in various degrees. Learn how to see so that not only concept art excites you, but traditional and just life itself. That is the ultimate goal of art anyhow, to see the beauty in all existence.
Anyways, very long winded, I do apologize. I hope it helps.
Last edited by aum; May 23rd, 2005 at 10:35 PM.Bling Bling
May 23rd, 2005 #36
Da Vinci not a genius?
I think you are going a little too far as saying that da vinci was not a genius. Besides the fact that he was far ahead of his time and pioneered what you are taking for granted today, and the fact that many of his works are among (if not THE MOST) famous in the world, he was more than just an artist. He was an inventor, an architect, a politician, a scientist, and a visionary. Da Vinci was a true renaissance man and what you have said about him is pretty degrading. Perhaps you should learn a little more about what he did in his lifetime before you debate these things. Yes, their ARE great artists right now... perhaps some who have acheived greater heights than da vinci did with his works, but this is how it should be. Artists should constantly learn from one another (including the masters) in order to help art progress. Like el coro said... da vinvi had to figure out many things so that you don't have to.
May 23rd, 2005 #37
May 23rd, 2005 #38
lets be fair here, leonardo davinci's drawings arent meant to be shown reduced down to a computer screen and look at on a monitor like this, and certainly not The Last Supper
May 23rd, 2005 #39Registered User
Originally Posted by aum
- Join Date
- Jul 2002
- Anti-Christchurch, New Zealand
- Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
im sure to an extent that sort of thing is done consciously, but do we attribute too much to preconceived, planned outcomes? i thought painting was supposed to be filled with happy accidents?
</end brain fart>
...so what if i'm bored, and ordinary?...
currently playing: Super Mario 64 DS, ICO (grrrr....)