Join 500,000+ Artists
Its' free and it takes less than 10 seconds!
I'm kinda with you manslaughter, i'm 14 and I thinks leonardo's work is incredible so i'm not puttin him down but the artists that you mentioned in the begining are also incredible so i would'nt pick sides because i like modern art almost as much as classical. Especially considering what he had to work with. well thats my 2 cents.
I think it fully depends on the interpretation. Like Coro and Jetpack, my personal POV is that Leo was revolutionary because he broke tradition...going into morgues in a religiously sensitive age to satisfy his curiosity regarding the human body. It was his quest to become a better artist and you can see the difference between his artwork and the progression from early to late medieval artwork that was "trying" to move into realism.
He may not be the genius we think he is. He may not "own" other artists if he was born in 1971. He may not even be recognized amongst the hordes of other artists today. But his drive and passion to improve on his art, to explore all aspects of life and to satisfy his curiosity...that itself is an excellent human quality. If you ask me, Leo wasn't about art...Leo was about ideas....he was the original concept artist and he didn't even had industries that took advantage of his talents.
In today's context, its moot point trying to discuss who owns who. Modern artists owe it to the fact they have more access to past knowledge...that people like Leo and Mike had to discover for themselves. Those knowledge was built upon from generation to generation giving us that advantage today. Then there's better communication technology allowing us to cross cultural barriers that were once present due to natural geological barriers. The internet basically eliminated all that, CA an many other art forums are proof of that. The sharing of methods, ideas and crits have never been faster.
So given all that advantage, if modern artists aren't better....we have a lot of questions to ask ourselves.
Simply put. We shouldn't be comparing present artists with the past masters. Different era, different exposure.... We may find modern artists surpass past masters, and given the amount of material we have over past artists...we should. But you can't deny the lessons we can still learn from them to better ourselves as artists.
My take on this.... ignore your mom's insistence that Leo owns modern artists....just read in between the lines....if your mom feels that Leo owns, then there's a reason for it....if you don't think so, just ignore her. But my bet is you'll discover for yourself the lessons within Leo's work when you get a little older...
There are 3 sides to every story. Yours, mine and THE TRUTH.
Wow, what an incendiary subject!
While I absolutely agree that you cannot make valid art comparisons (or many other endeavors) without regarding the context of the work, I'm surprised we haven't heard (in this thread) much about the common use of apprentices in some of the masterpieces (not necessarily LD's).
agreed.Originally Posted by talmir
kitten - i was just being a fool in a otherwise very interesting thread..
im happily married and talk dirty art talk everyday to my woman so dont worry...
Originally Posted by Ancient Kitten
Gezstar - You are right sad and just plain wrong comment by meyou should have more faith in your sensibilities.
nil - re: ochre and charcoal on cave walls v oil and other "modern" paint materials lastingcan you quantify that?
I think the binder used in modern pigments, even high quality mediums do have a tendency to oxidize and go brown over time.
Charcoal and other completely raw substances will last for all practical purpose forever if in a cave (constant environmental conditions). The original work will not deteriote to the same extent. I could be wrong but it makes sense to me.
Actually Im wrong, I was refering to this picture, but when I checked back it actually said pigment. I guess that spit and charcoal are pretty well permanent if put in the right place. I do not know of even the oldest oil painting having deteriorated in quality but these still look pretty sharp. Although some early artists used powder WTFK. LOL I am certainly no expert.
I have never really used acrylics so I cannot speak about them.
If that isn't the heart of it right there. Most worthwhile thing I've read in this thread.Originally Posted by aum
 DRAW EVERYDAY >
this is an interesting conversation here.
actually, people might not like me saying this here, but the concept artists here arent even getting a level of technical skill that todays realist artists are, let alone Leonardo.
Those examples you've posted are really nice and pretty.. but I'm sorry, these guys aren't drawing or painting to the level of Nelson Shanks or Tony Ryder.
but if you sat Tony or Mr Shanks in front of a computer with a Wacom, they couldnt do anything these artists are doing.
My point is that, not only are you comparing artists from a 500 year gap in two totally different societies' stage of development, you're also comparing different kinds of artists. I've studied a little bit in ateliers, and a lot of concept artists works are off on 'classical art' technical levels... but they still achieve what theyre trying to achieve and do what they're trying to do. . . they use a different set of skills. I look at the images you posted and see a lot of things wrong, but I know to the concept artists they're right.
So, if youre going to compare Leonardo to today's modern artists, I'd say its better to compare Leonardo to todays fine artists. That's a good debate, because there's a couple of artists out there (Collins, Ryder, Shanks, Jacobs, Watwood, Weistling...) who have amazing technical skill, greater than that of Leonardo, but are they better than Leonardo? Who knows. I'd say no.
Though, you COULD compare Leonardo's concepts of helicopters and tanks and all that to todays concept artists... but there's still the 500 year difference, and I'm sure all concept artists here will admit that Leonardo was more ground breaking with his tanks and helicopters in 1500.
Here's the REAL test. Everyone says to put Leonardo in todays era, and think of how well (or not well) he'd be. How about, put Andrew Jones, Jason Manley, and all the other concept artists of today, have them born in the 1500's, and see what theyre producing. I doubt many of them would be cutting open dead women to study their uterus in order to gain a little more technical skill.
Manslaughter, believe me man, if you saw some of these paintings as they were meant to be seen and not on a computer screen at 700 pixels or in a book, you'd feel the emotion. Last year I stood in the Sistine chapel, and the experience was incredible. It blows you away... go to art galleries if you can and look at paintings and sculpture as they should be seen, and there is nothing like it.Originally Posted by manslauter
This thread is asking an interesting question about how to compare Renaissance art to modern art , BUT it is sad that, at the same time, it put under fire some artists that didn't ask for it, because they didn't post their work here.(somebody did for them... )
When an artist post his work in the finished section, he is ready for constructive crits&comments, because it's the place for that. As far as I know, lounge is a place for discussing, not for stabbing other artists in the back.
Patton, your comparisons are pointless : it's a nonsense to compare Imphead robots to Snyder's portraits or charcoal studies, of course...
= W A N D E R E R =
C O M I C B O O K A R T I S T
++ FLESH AND FOAM ++
Arctis : I am not seeing any flamewar here. I do not see anyone bashing other artists. It is merely the comparison of art styles. And as far as I know this is a conversation about it, which, as you say, the lounge is for. No backstabbing going on. Whatever is said here is personal opinions.
So why not join in instead of pointing out how pointless this is?
Talmir, I believe he i did a fair amount of backstabbing when i pointed out that in my opinion Jason Chans work was a kitsch painting of flying japanese dolls in comparison to Da Vinci's work. I wrote that when i was in a hurry to get to work, but it's a very bad remark none the less. Especially considering i wrote it with the sole intention of putting work in a bad light that is far superiour to mine in every way. Just because it would not, in my opinion, hold up in a comparison that is, as you are right to point out, pointless.
Originally Posted by Arctis
that's exactly what i was saying, duuuude. you cant compare flying robots to a figure painting by Ingres. That's the comparison he was making, and I was saying if he wants to compare Leonardo to any modern artists, compare him to artists of the same type.
Originally Posted by emily g
My math prof said that there are only 5 people in the entire world today who can fully understand einstein's ideas and work out all their implication.
But since art is subjective, not really quantifiable, I don't think we can construct any fair and accurate heirarchy in leo's time, ours or for that matter one straddleling the two. Comparisons aside, I think leo is a genius, not only as an artist, engineer and scientist, but also in the way he approached life. I was reading a copy of leo's notebook at Barnes and Nobles this morning. The original italian script ran along the left column of a page while the english translation ran down the right side. I have to conclude that this guy is a freaky but admirable nut. He thought about and observed everything, the science of vision, music philosophy, pressure gradiants along arteries of nasal sinuses, the way exoskeletons of bugs trapped in book bindings collapse when he closed his sketchbooks, as well as the ideal texture of toilet paper(or sponges) for the aspiring artist.
Last edited by Oliver23; May 26th, 2005 at 02:15 PM.
Well, I've been listening to a lot of info about Einstein lately (NPR's doing a series commemorating the 100th anniversary of the publication of Einstein's first papers), so I tried to find out where I heard what I posted earlier.Originally Posted by Oliver23
It's from here.
Steven Weinberg, a physicist at the University of Texas and a Nobel Laureate, says, "Any reasonably competent physicist--I would almost say any reasonably good graduate student--understands general relativity better than Einstein did."
I suppose it depends on how deep into his theory you want to dive. But wasnt this thread about leonardo?
I do agree with Gezter. Art is totally subjective to the viewer. We are all assuming that Manslaughter's mom's statement came from enlighten, artistically thoughtful place where everyone in the world considers medium and line weight and composition and everything else that goes into art. You can look a abstract picture of a pansy for example and you remember back to the first girlfriend you had and how she used to like to pick pansy in the field by your house. All of a sudden, the art becomes personal and wonderful because how it made you feel. THe emotion gets involved.
Leonardo himself may walk up to the piece and think, that's a f*&kup looking flower. Is that a orchid?
All I am trying to say here is that beyond the merits of the choice of medium, the technique, color choice and all the technical jargon, everything else is totally subjective and no one in this thread will make any statements that everyone else will agree with totally.
And for the record, I like Leo. His stuff makes me feel good...
Originally Posted by hylandr2
yeah, but people here are talking about technical facility, not post-modern touchy feely schlock.
mans the only way you can ever appreciate truly what it means to be an artist is to go to the Met in NYC (and I do not mean the opera). I have never seen a museum so astounding in my life. If I were only to go to the MET as a nyc day trip i would consider it a blissful trip. The power of the peices in that museum will shake you like an earthquake.
Some peices are huge!! And the layout is insane.
My fav has to be Theodore Rousseau's "Le forest en hiver...." Every time I look at this painting which is like 10' long I get shivers. Truly amazing.
Thats just one example. There are thousands more in the MET.
On a side note, those cave paintings? At least one site, possibly that one for all I know (that I can find the reference to if you want) was an art "school."
upward and onward
Oh, take me NOW!Originally Posted by Patton Art
uh, have you ever been to the Louvre? I was there first, then went to the Met. I wasnt (as) impressed about the Met. I don't think I got to see all of their European art collection though, cuz, if I did, there's a lot of artists I wish were there that weren't...Originally Posted by Tetsuo
I mean, the Louvre's collection is the largest in the world. They have Rembrandt's, Phillipe De Champaigne's, Ingres', Raphael's, then you have Leonardo's Mona Lisa and Virgin of the Rocks.....!!!!!!!!!
My point is that EVERYTHING is subjective, even facts...Originally Posted by Patton Art
You have to take into account that it would have been a lot harder for Da Vinci to paint to such a high standard than it is for artists today. It's already been said in this thread that he had to make his own paints/brushes and find all the models to study from, he couldn't just sit down at his Wacom and find a ref almost instantly from the Internet.
I get the feeling its all about age, Manslaughter can look at modern art and feel a connection with that picture as it is created in his time and relates to his world. Whereas the older generations were exposed to classical art when they were developing, so it speaks more to them as they learnt from it. It just happens that the great masters works deal with such universal themes and emotions that they have survived the ages and people still connect with them.
And I have to say, paintings DO always look more impressive seeing them in person.
oh look, my lens flares are better than d'vinci's shiat w00t w00t..
...isn't that what we're debating about here?
this thread is worth
you're not serious, are you?Originally Posted by hylandr2
well, that right there shows the difference in ages between the Renaissance and now. Back then they were searching for Truth, now people just make up their own truth and 'everything is right'.
Ok, so Rembrandt painted about 100 self portraits, and Andrew Jones did about 1,000. I'm still going to say that Rembrandt made more images of himself than Andrew Jones did. And you can honestly say that my opinion is still right and is just as valid as a mathematician that says "1000 is more than 100"?
Oh, and if facts are subjective... theeeeen, I'm a better artist than both Bouguereau AND Da Vinci. In fact, they're my parents. Star Wars was also really about me, I'm really Luke Skywalker Patton, Bouguereau was really Anikin, and Da Vinci was Yoda. George Lucas was my surrogate mother, hence the virgin birth. Also, I've sold more artwork than Picasso.
I'm sorry, the universalist attitude really gets to me. Obviously what all I've said here is nonsense, and I hope you'll agree. If you do agree that it's not right, at which point do you draw the line between it being a subjective opinion and it being true or false?
Anyways, back to the topic... Deadpepper is right.
It has a lot to do with the time that you're in. Plato believed in these "forms" that existed on some other planet. . . if you haven't read about his theory of the forms, I can't explain it in a single post, but, from today's viewpoint it's nonsense. But Plato was still a genius and we're still going to be talking about him 500 years from now.
and i think alxcote is kidding.. so.. i won't comment hahaha
jump off a building and see if gravity is subjective Everything falls, just depends on direction.My point is that EVERYTHING is subjective, even facts...
If the building were in the center of a vacuum, like in space, you wouldn't fall...So the subjectiveness comes from your personal point of reference. You are also assuming that the law of gravity will continue to be universal constant at the time you jump. This gets into psycho babble, but its hard to argue. I've tried with some friends...Originally Posted by talmir
I'm not saying that there aren't universal truths. I'm simply saying that you can show anything with facts. And certain facts get more weight than others depending on that. Does anyone know what's going on in a persons mind when they create a piece, especial centuries later? People atrtribute "facts" based on their interpretation, point of view and subjectiveness.
I agree with what someone said earlier that grad school students know more about physics than Einstein, but Einstein was still a genius. I personally would add more weight to a piece knowing that the artist made his own brushed and manufactured the custom colors and pounded the papyrus flat on a rock or whatever. Someone else may not care. They are all facts, but to me they increase my appreciation of the piece. To another, they may not give a flying frogs ass. It doesn't make either wrong, but it does make the topic SUBJECTIVE.
By the way, I hit the floor when I rolled out of bed this morning. Gravity sucks...
Ah it was already mentioned, he was the first of the concept artist and is therefore one of the best, not because he was amazing (though I think he did amazing work for his time) but because he was creative in a time when many people scoffed at works like the ones shown above and took no time to try there own artwork (atleast not that advanced).
Oh and they didn't have the same materials as we do now. Those pictures you showed were done with the help of computers and advanced ways of doing artwork that has been done countless times. People like Da Vinci were the first to attempt works like that using basic tools and art materials with little or no guidance on how to do them.
Actually it's quantum theory, not Einstein's theories, that they say only 5 people in the entire world can fully comprehend.Originally Posted by Oliver23
Well, I wouldn't go that far. Leo had a teacher, and paint had been around for quite a while. But there was still a lot to be discovered as far as technique goes.Originally Posted by Chяis