Well if you haven't read it or haven't even heard of Woefflin, then how can you profess the kind of knowledge on the subject that you do? Its pretty obvious simply by your vocabulary that you don't know the subject very well, to say nothing of your erroneous conclusions about the superiority of Renaissance art or your criteria for those conclusions.
Even if this guy really is the auhtority on the matter, I'm sure there are others?
I disagree with Cheezy on this. I have nothing but faith in JELEEN's ability to overturn the consensus of Art Historians, Critics and Philosophers and produce an objectively incontrovertable method for judging art.
Well, Renaissance artists did discover a number of new techniques. Most notably how to convey perspective. This is something easily quantifyable. That skill simply did not exist before. 1:0 for Renaissance vs Dark Ages. Of course, it only effects some forms of art.
Still, Jeelen's claim is pretty much like saying that today's cinematography is objectively superior to that of 1900s, simply because we now have sound, color, computer effects and 3d. Would you dispute this claim as well?
Well, Renaissance artists did discover a number of new techniques. Most notably how to convey perspective. This is something easily quantifyable. That skill simply did not exist before. 1:0 for Renaissance vs Dark Ages.
This is true, but I hardly see how you can use this to say that later artists were therefore superior. By this logic you would have to say that modern boy bands are superior musicians than classical composers by virtue of the fact that they have more tools in which to edit and make their works.
Well, you can't. You can only say that presuming two generations of artists were on average equally talented, the latter ones probably produced superior works.
That's not what I meant. Woefflin, in the book I linked to, discusses the very issue we are, about how and why people have long considered Renaissance art to be "better" and "superior" to Medieval art.
Well, Renaissance artists did discover a number of new techniques. Most notably how to convey perspective.
But its presence does not make a work objectively "better." Do you think Wedding of the Virgin is better than Nocturne in Black and Gold simply because it has illusionistic qualities?
Is illusionistic art always better than abstract art? Abstract art doesn't have to mean just people like Kandinsky and Pollock, it means any painting that does not practice Albertian illusionism, which thus includes Medieval art.
Relevant images in the spoiler:
Spoiler:
Wedding of the Virgin
Nocturne in Black and Gold
Mary Magdalene Announcing the Resurrection
That skill simply did not exist before. 1:0 for Renaissance vs Dark Ages. Of course, it only effects some forms of art.
But none of you have yet said what Renaissance art is supposedly "better" at! That's what I'm waiting for.
Still, Jeelen's claim is pretty much like saying that today's cinematography is objectively superior to that of 1900s, simply because we now have sound, color, computer effects and 3d. Would you dispute this claim as well?
If the claim were that it were objectively so, then yes, I would dispute it, because its an opinionated statement. Now, if he said that they were better than others at doing something, then we would have a discussion.
It does, all other things considered equal.
Note that I am not saying that every last piece of Renaissance art is always better than every last piece of Dark Ages art - or even that there is always a superior Renaissance art piece per every Dark Ages art piece.
It does, all other things considered equal.
Note that I am not saying that every last piece of Renaissance art is always better than every last piece of Dark Ages art - or even that there is always a superior Renaissance art piece per every Dark Ages art piece.
EDIT: I should clarify that when I said Classical, I meant Antiquity in general, not the Classical Age of Greece. The relevant period would be the Hellenistic Age in Greece.
This is true, but I hardly see how you can use this to say that later artists were therefore superior. By this logic you would have to say that modern boy bands are superior musicians than classical composers by virtue of the fact that they have more tools in which to edit and make their works.
Yes, that's right. Classical composers were not better musicians by virtue of their technological potencies. Bach was a genius because of Bach's genius, not because of whatever items he had off-hand.
Yes, that's right. Classical composers were not better musicians by virtue of their technological potencies. Bach was a genius because of Bach's genius, not because of whatever items he had off-hand.
There could be no Bach without the instruments and musical education which had been developed by Bach's time. The same baby, born, say, three hundred years before, would have found other things to do - or, if he was a musician, would write different music.
And because we classify Bach as a genius by virtue of the works he composed, our view of that alternate Bach would necessarily be different. How, no one can say. But we do know that 15th century music doesn't seem to be very appreciated now, compared to classical music!
But that doesn't refute my point, does it? If a time traveler introduced the magic of digital editing to Bach, he might make better music, but even if he does, that's still Bach making music, not the technology.
Yes, but then the question isn't really whether individuals in one period were more talented than those in another. Common sense would suggest that intrinsic talent is evenly distributed among historical periods. The question is whether the art actually produced in one period is better than that produced in another. Even if the musicians of the Paleolithic were, considered as individuals, just as talented as those of the eighteenth century, I think we can agree that the music actually produced in the eighteenth century was, on the whole, better than that of the Paleolithic.
Similarly, we can agree that the artists of the Renaissance were probably no more talented than those of the early Middle Ages, but that doesn't resolve the question whether the art they produced was better or not. The real issue concerns the techniques and styles that were used, not the talent of the individuals. We can, perhaps, agree that Renaissance art featured techniques (such as perspective) and styles (such as realism) which were either unknown to, or simply not used by, early Medieval artists. The question is: does that make Renaissance art better, or just different? Those who think that realism in a picture makes it better (other things being equal) will say it does; those who deny this will say it doesn't. It may, then, come down in the end to taste.
"The Dark Ages as a term has undergone many evolutions; its definition depends on who is defining it. Indeed, modern historians no longer use the term because of its negative connotation. Generally, the Dark Ages referred to the period of time ushered in by the fall of the Western Roman Empire. This took place when the last Western emperor, Romulus Augustulus, was deposed by Odoacer, a barbarian. AD 476 was the time of this event.
Initially, this era took on the term “dark” by later onlookers; this was due to the backward ways and practices that seemed to prevail during this time. Future historians used the term “dark” simply to denote the fact that little was known about this period; there was a paucity of written history. Recent discoveries have apparently altered this perception as many new facts about this time have been uncovered.
The Italian Scholar, Francesco Petrarca called Petrarch, was the first to coin the phrase. He used it to denounce Latin literature of that time; others expanded on this idea to express frustration with the lack of Latin literature during this time or other cultural achievements. While the term dark ages is no longer widely used, it may best be described as Early Middle Ages -- the period following the decline of Rome in the Western World. The Middle Ages is loosely considered to extend from 400 to 1000 AD."
It seems to me that "Dark Ages" has become as complex a term as "Renaissance" (although the first is no longer used by historians, for rather obvious reasons).
It seems to me that "Dark Ages" has become as complex a term as "Renaissance" (although the first is no longer used by historians, for rather obvious reasons.
Well, even "Renaissance" is becoming somewhat controversial these days, we just haven't found a particularly useful replacement yet. "Early Medieval", although not identical in meaning to "Dark Ages", can be pretty neatly swapped out for it, but neither "Late Medieval" or "Early Modern" do the trick for "Renaissance".
Well, even "Renaissance" is becoming somewhat controversial these days, we just haven't found a particularly useful replacement yet. "Early Medieval", although not identical in meaning to "Dark Ages", can be pretty neatly swapped out for it, but neither "Late Medieval" or "Early Modern" do the trick for "Renaissance".
I don't really see what is wrong with using Early, High and Late Middle Ages, (Basically, "Renaissance" refers to a phenomenon occurring in the High -and Late - Middle Ages. By contrast "Dark Ages" has become a rather confused term, which is why it has been dropped by historians.)
The question is: does that make Renaissance art better, or just different? Those who think that realism in a picture makes it better (other things being equal) will say it does; those who deny this will say it doesn't. It may, then, come down in the end to taste.
Well, it has to remembered that during these times realism in art was much more important than it is now, because there were no other ways to accurately reproduce subjects from real life. I suppose the best way to compare these two periods would be to compare two works with the same purpose - an early Miedeval portrait and a Rennaissance portrait, for example.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
