I mean, you take one look at Greek statues and Roman busts and you realize that people figured how to aim for realism, at least when it came to the human body and faces, over 2000 years ago.

Yet, unlike sculpture, paintings and drawings remained, uh, “immature” for centuries afterwards (to my limited knowledge, it was the Italian Renaissance that started making realistic paintings). Why?

  • HamsterRage
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    59
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Take a look at this:

    This is in the Museum of the Palazzo Massimo alle Terme in Rome, and it comes from an ancient Roman Villa in Rome. Probably painted in the first or second century CE. There’s walls of this stuff in the museum.

    It’s not realism, but minimalistic sketches that, in many ways, outdo realism in artistic quality. To me, this looks more like something that you might find in Leonardo’s sketchbook than on the wall of on ancient Roman Villa from 1200 years earlier.

    • scarabic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 months ago

      I agree that minimalism can outdo realism. Art can show what the mind sees, not what the eye views.