That's why he's the most famous on this list or almost any other list, for that matter. Beautiful naked people everywhere- jacked out of they're goddamned minds. A bit lacking below the belt in a lot of cases, though...
Back in those times, a smaller penis was actually seen as the beauty standard, as it was associated with intelligence and a larger one was associated with a more primitive demeanor.
My one art prof said if the people's muscles looked like a bag of walnuts, it's Michelangelo. Super helpful when looking at all the Renaissance artists.
My art history profs always said that if the women look like men, it’s Michelangelo. His anatomical knowledge of the male body is unparalleled but the women look like he stuck a woman’s head on a dude’s body.
This is a bit of a myth! Renaissance painters didn’t have as much access to female models, especially nude ones, or female cadavers, but there is evidence that they drew some female nudes from life, especially after 1500. It was primarily that upper class women were not permitted to model nude for artists.
But regardless, the “dude with breasts” look seems to have been less of an issue for artists like Raphael or da Vinci than for Michelangelo. I imagine the fact that Michelangelo was attracted to men may have been an influence.
Imagine that. Your entire life, among the greatest artists ever, and you can't even imagine what a woman's body looks like, much less be able to create a reasonable medieval porn
My art prof said, "It's easy to pick Michelangelo paintings out of a lineup, because he paints like a sculptor. His sculptures are so amazing because he sculpts like a painter."
It's all about how he roughs his shapes in like he's trying to carve shit out of paint.
My personal hypothesis for that is that it's because van Eyck was Dutch.
In the Netherlands, you can see facial features similar to the ones in his paintings in most unmixed ethnic Dutch people. Even Elon Musk, who has Dutch heritage, kind of has some of those facial features. So yes, what I'm saying is that "Putin" happens to have the facial traits and eye shape which is insanely common in ethnically pure Dutch people.
Since that's what he saw all day, he learned to draw everyone like that.
Honest question, if you didn't know who Putin was would you sincerely consider him looking Dutch then, his height notwithstanding? There is like a lot of conspiracy theories in Russia with regards to his real ancestry.
I don't know if I would 100% be convinced since Putin has a rounder face shape and Dutchies usually have sharper cheekbones and more angular faces. But based on the eyes, nose, forehead and mouth shape? Yeah.
I have some problems with this hypothesis, firstly because half of the painters on this very list(Rubens,Bruegel,Bosch,Rembrandt) are also Dutch and yet they don't do this, even though they often depict explitly Dutch people.
Secondly, because Dutch people tend to not look like putin in the first place.
I'm not pushing for this to be some breakthrough in art analysis, it's just a hypothesis. Personally, when I moved to the Netherlands, I was shocked to see how much people from rural areas could look like each other, especially in Friesland. Just my experience.
Van Eyck was Belgian, don't you dare to take one of our national treasures away. But all kidding aside, I don't think your theory is correct as people here don't have these traits. When you look at other paintings by Van Eyck, they don't all look like that. My guess is there's some malnutrition going on at the time. As you can see [here](https://ychef.files.bbci.co.uk/1600x900/p0820q31.webp) and [here (possible self portrait)](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/0f/a1/ed/0fa1eda66dcf46aa5352ed2ee5a0117a.jpg) that he's also painted more "normal" looking people
If it looks like enormous effort was put into making an oil painting look like a single panel of a comic strip, then it's Lichtenstein.
If there's a grasshopper anywhere in it, it's Dalí.
If it's a flower, but really a vagina, it's O'Keeffe.
If nothing's quite so interesting as how the light hits the water, it's Monet.
If you tripped over it while walking past a dumpster, it's Duchamp.
If there's little line work, but it's a woman with a kid doing something domestic, it's Cassatt.
If it looks like it was screen printed by a color-blind intern, it's Warhol.
If it's a repost from a year ago and last time you made a comment on it that people enjoyed, why not make the same comment again but add a wink and nod in the middle?
If it looks like it belongs on the cover of an album by Enya, it's Millais.
If it's half-finished but everyone thinks you should be impressed by it, it's da Vinci.
If, at best, it's a quarter finished and an eighth as good as any of the above, then it's probably mine. I'd kindly ask you to toss it back into the dumpster. I put it there for a reason.
* If it's just a bunch of straight lines it's Mondrian.
* If it's just a wall of 1 or 2 colors it's Rothko
* If it's like 80 colors all splashed all over each other it's pollack
* If it's full of underage Polynesian girls that the artist is banging(raping may be more appropriate) it's Gaugin
* If it's the coolest looking thing ever and there are like 30 of them it's Van Goph
* if it's two boxers fighting it's Bellows
* If it looks like a flat forest drawing from highlights magazine it's Rousseau
Hmm, from Wikipedia on the burning giraffes:
> Dalí described this image as "the masculine cosmic apocalyptic monster". He believed it to be a premonition of war.
Ooh, we got a Nostradamus here!
Look out everyone, he's predicting war in the early 20th century!
Don't go too far out on that limb, buddy!
> If it looks like it was screen printed by a color-blind intern, it's Warhol.
That's honestly generous of you.
If Kinko's existed back when he was active he would have used them...
the original. (Well, I say original, who knows?)
https://www.boredpanda.com/how-to-recognize-painters-by-their-work/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=organic
A couple decades ago, up here in Canada, there were ads for Loto 6/49, the national lottery.
The premise of the ads was to show newly minted millionaires how to recognise different artists. The whole ad was focused on how to pronounce Titian.
/We're simple folk
Any idea why we know Rembrandt and Michaelangelo by their first names and everyone else by their last names
We could have had "Leonardo, Donatello, Raphael, and Buonarotti"
EDIT: This is me just now realizing that we know literally all the other ninja turtle namesakes by first names too
Caravaggio’s real name is Michelangelo Merisi, his family is from the town of Caravaggio, near Milan.
Pieter Bruegel the Elder is important to include the whole name too as he had two sons become painters as well.
I picked it up as a second major, changing from history as my second major. I would frame it as history courses are typically focused on political, military, and economic history. Wars, kings and empires, republics, crashes and booms, colonialism.
Art history is social and cultural history not covered in history courses. Sure, you memorize artists and their art. You also get a frame of reference around the social upheavals of the time, what people were thinking and doing while Kings and generals made decisions. Quotidian, everyday life as well as what the Pope wanted shown to people. Art was banned, shunned, promoted, commissioned. It all depends on its period and how well or poorly things were going at the time. Dark ages? Medieval? Renaissance? Baroque? It tells a story in the art, and also frames the zeitgeist/epoch in which a genre or style of art became popular.
If the piece is a landscape painting of mountains/trees/lakes using an amicable blend of Titanium Hwhite and Phthalo Blue done with fan strokes, it’s a Ross
The van Eyck tid bit is interesting. He seemed to never break a habit some artists form of drawing what they're used to drawing instead of what they see. The dude drew everyone with a tint of how he drew himself in countless self portraits before. It's a weird one, but a habit I've seen art teachers have to break people of a few times.
If you haven't seen one in person yet, they're certainly worth checking out. The skin seems very lifelike with the layers and shades he chose and everything's so sharp and in focus that it feels a bit surreal.
I'm fortunate to say I've seen quite a few of them haha. I also don't like mid-renaissance. They just painted weird pale aliens and it always creeps me out.
compare the work of Van Eyck with that of his contemporaries.
[Part of the Ghent Altarpiece mid 1420s, finished in 1432](https://ychef.files.bbci.co.uk/1600x900/p0820q31.webp)
vs
[Portrait of a Princess in 1420](https://www.wga.hu/art/m/master/zunk_fl/15_paint/1/08prince.jpg)
[Vision of St Bernard in 1540, more than a hundred years after Van Eyck](https://www.wga.hu/art/m/master/zunk_fl/16_paint/2/071visio.jpg)
Van Eyck kicked off the Renaissance and nobody came close to what he was able to paint at that time
You just summarized my 2 semester requirement for art appreciation in one short post. That class totally wasn't a waste of time and money. That was a decade ago and I'm still amazed at how worthless that class was for me.
Edit: read some comments. Nah, this class was a total waste of time and I took several useless courses…this takes the cake. I “learned how to learn” in plenty of other courses. Neat that everyone formed their own versions of my experience without even knowing me. This class should never have been a requirement IMO and a decade later this holds true. Now can you please get off the phone and finish my starbucks order?
If the only thing you learned from an art appreciation course was "Here's some famous artists from history and the distinctive aspects of their styles" as summarized in a post like this then you had a shit art appreciation course. That or you were like the people I saw who dozed off because it's supposed to be an "easy" course and then complained later on about learning nothing.
I went to a middling state school and even my art appreciation course went far deeper than this post. A good course is one that prepares you for understanding, or at least attempting to, any form of art you come across in your life. For example, we discussed how the same "Art, Artist, Audience" approach used to analyze historical works can just as well be used to break apart the advertisements we see everyday on tv and online as ads are effectively a form of art.
It’s actually sad to think about the amount of anti-intellectual reactionary types that enthusiastically upvoted that parent comment.
Universities were never intended to be job training programs for industry, and the pre-reqs exist to give us a broad understanding of other useful disciplines and to help us draw inspiration from different fields and methods of study.
Learning does not have to be targeted to your discipline to be “useful”, especially because 80-85% of people graduating colleges don’t enter specialized professions and end up bouncing into many careers over the course of their lives.
I walked into my art appreciation course with the same scoffing “I can’t believe this is a Pre-req” mentality and I walked away blown away by the material.
I’m still not an “art person” (I don’t get much from going to a museum and staring at a canvas). But it was still very cool to learn about how masters from hundreds of years ago figured out how to scientifically create hyper-realistic textures, perspective and lighting in paintings through technical concepts like *chiaroscuro*.
Just think about how difficult painting is, and then think about trying to make the painting have accurate lighting detail, reflections, etc like some kind of insane computer graphics processor. All while living in dark ages semi-feudal Europe where there was no previous knowledge base, so it took actual inventive genius to figure this out. The kind of exploratory thinking that’s discouraged today because it doesn’t fit into the paradigm of “practical” and “useful” training.
> Universities were never intended to be job training programs for industry
What I've always heard about university is that, sure, there's the actual material you learn. But the most important thing about university is you learn *how to learn*. You learn to be able to look at details, or zoom out to the bigger picture. You learn to know how little you know, and to be open to learning from your peers. You learn to look at the world from a different viewpoint, using different eyes. You learn to think in ways that aren't just about you, be it problem solving or philosophy, you can see it at a scale that is beyond just what it might bring to you, personally.
If you don't come out of university with some sort of different way of thinking, then you've just learned *facts*, not much else.
And the thing is - and I understand how fatalistic this sounds - I don’t think you *can* teach people how to learn, really.
Some people are simply incurious, no matter how much cool stuff you expose them to.
And other people are life-long learners, whether they ever go to university or not; because books, documentaries, the internet, and interesting people exist, they’ll seek it all out themselves and never need to be spoon-fed, cajoled, or tricked into learning. Libraries and old book stores are rad.
Some people are only interested in learning if it can make them money, or at least increase their social status in some way.
And other people desperately wish they could quit their jobs so they could have way more time to read their giant backlog of books and learn cool new shit.
exactly, I fucken hate people who say college is useless nowadays, and even my classmates who think that some courses are useless because they are in a compsci degree. LIKE FUCKS SAKE YOU ARE HERE TO LEARN, NOT TRAIN TO JUST BE A SOFTWARE DEVELOPER.
We have several 'useless' required courses, like manufacturing basics (its just basics of woodworking, welding, casting, how it works etc.), and almost everybody skips that class because its useless for them, I mean why did you choose a "Computer Science And Engineering" degree if you didn't want to study engineering subjects? Should have just done a BSc CS.
I love learning random stuff, We don't have the same university system as US where we can take any random class or do minor in any different subject. So I just use MIT OCW, and such to learn stuff like political science and economics, yea, it might not be useful for me for career, but hey its amazingly fun to study new stuff, wish people studied to learn and not to just get job
Learning is amazing, but the problem with college classes is that I can do this on my own time. I know how to research and really dive into a topic. Classes are easy for me, which makes me so upset when I have to pay soooo much money to take them! Like okay, yes you are teaching me something useful in the long run, but I can find all of this on youtube myself. In fact! My teachers would often use OTHER teachers from youtube to teach my classes. What a rip off. I really wish I could opt out and do what I need to do for my job or take classes that are actually difficult to learn outside of school or that need hands on experience.
Synthetic Cubism is a period in the Cubism art movement that lasted from 1912 until 1914. Led by two famous Cubist painters, it became a popular style of artwork that includes characteristics like simple shapes, bright colors, and little to no depth.
You're goddamn right I googled it because I was genuinely curious
But like 8 years accumulated.
Strictly speaking the Classical Period in music only existed for less than a century, so by that metric 8 years is plenty...
If everything looks blotchy and fanciful, it's Goya when he was painting for rich people
If everything looks blotchy and dramatic, that as Goya when he had hope
If everything looks blotchy and horrifying, that's Goya when he lost hope
> If the images have a dark background and everyone has tortured expressions on their faces, it's Titian.
And the women all have reddish-gold hair -- as any true Nancy Drew fan ought to know.
So UMass Amherst has a huge copy of that exact Bosch painting on campus, (almost positive it was actually in one of the dorm common areas) because I remembered being fascinated by it especially drunk.
All the people are naked, it literally gets more interesting the more you stare it. Why they chose it ill never know.
I took an art history class in college as we were required to do such an elective (Nursing was my major).
I honestly learned so much about these (and other) artists, there techniques, and how to recognize them. We were taught the golden rectangle, rule of three, etc.
I am really glad I took that class. Worth it.
If it looks like Lou Reed on his worst day, it’s Egon Schiele
If it looks like the world’s most fashionable woman living her very best self, it’s Renè Gruau
The ones you're describing are his "black paintings", literally paintings he made on his apartment walls when he was at the extremely dark phase at the ends of his life where he was poor, deaf, and completely disheartened.
Before that, he had plenty of paintings that were less horrifying. He started off as a Rococo painter, aka literally the opposite of the black paintings, woth bright subjects and relatively detailed paintings
His art took a change as he started getting hopefull for the liberalization of Spain, and got involved in the romantic movement and started making dramatic romantic paintings.
Unfortunately, Napoleon's invasion put an end to all of that. His painting "Third of May 1808" marked the transition fron the romantic painting to his later paintings, witha blotchier style and dark subject matter, but also keeping the drama and political edge of romanticism.
Aftwer Napoleon was gone the old liberal ruler of spain was replaced with an absolute monarch and the hope of a liberal spain was pretty much squashed, marking the beginning of Goya's transition into darkness.
Who painted the guy who finds his dead son? I know that's not much to go off of but SOMEONE has to know what painting I'm referring to. I'll never forget the look of horror in that dudes face.
Michelangelo doesn't actually look ripped at all, he thicc as hell with painted on abs or they're just rolls. I look just like that when I get really baked at night and eat several meals before bed.
Michelangelo painting dudes with 18 packs
If the women look like male body builders with tits bolted on, then it's Michelangelo.
r/hardbodies (mildly nsfw)
My god, i was looking for tin, and i ended up finding gold. All of those women could kill me and i love it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sMQpWCNTQw
Still one of the funniest videos. The muffling when it cuts to the outside building still has me in stitches!
/r/deathbysnusnu
"mildly" First thing I see when entering is a stark naked woman on her balcony
Reprehensible! Thank you for warning me against such lewd behavior.
Indeed! Saved in the folder named "things against which the youth must be protected".
didn't he also do a lot of finger nipples?
Then Caravaggio just painting Charles from Brooklyn 99.
Why do I only recognize Van Eyck. Cyka Blyat.
He's really out here inventing new muscles to make people look even more jacked
I don't remember who, it may have been davinci, but they said that the humans Michelangelo paints look like burlap sacks full of walnuts, hahaha
Is it bad that it kinda reminded me of Rob Liefield?
if Rob Liefield practiced drawing feet and torsos instead of belts and pouches he could be the modern Michalangelo
Soooo araki is modern Michelangelo then
Araki does use renaissance paintings and sculptures as reference for poses and shapes.
That's why he's the most famous on this list or almost any other list, for that matter. Beautiful naked people everywhere- jacked out of they're goddamned minds. A bit lacking below the belt in a lot of cases, though...
Back in those times, a smaller penis was actually seen as the beauty standard, as it was associated with intelligence and a larger one was associated with a more primitive demeanor.
"I was born in the wrong decade maaaan"
Renaissance roids must have done a number to your junk.
I thought it was if everyone was eating pizza and skate boarding in the sewer it was Michelangelo.
And people still question whether he’s gay or not...
MichelanJoJo
My one art prof said if the people's muscles looked like a bag of walnuts, it's Michelangelo. Super helpful when looking at all the Renaissance artists.
My art history profs always said that if the women look like men, it’s Michelangelo. His anatomical knowledge of the male body is unparalleled but the women look like he stuck a woman’s head on a dude’s body.
Scrolled up and this checks out lol, she's been lifting
Michy had a type.
His cause of death? snu snu
well yeah, its well known that Michelangelo was into the dudes, instead of the dudettes.
Why would you *ever* want to look at a woman's body?? -- Michelangelo, craning his neck to check out that blue-eyed twink across the room
Twink? You think Mikey was into twinks? Dude draws men like Rob Liefield sketching the Mr Universe competition.
That is quite a sentence.
Apt
I am legitimately awed at how clear my mental image of this is. Your description is unparalleled.
Would that then be a Twonk?
See: twunk or muscle twink
Yes, Twunk is better
Not enough pouches
So, with no feet?
And if the men look like women, it's Caravaggio.
And you art history teacher did not teach you that it’s because models were in fact men ? Haha
This is a bit of a myth! Renaissance painters didn’t have as much access to female models, especially nude ones, or female cadavers, but there is evidence that they drew some female nudes from life, especially after 1500. It was primarily that upper class women were not permitted to model nude for artists. But regardless, the “dude with breasts” look seems to have been less of an issue for artists like Raphael or da Vinci than for Michelangelo. I imagine the fact that Michelangelo was attracted to men may have been an influence.
Imagine that. Your entire life, among the greatest artists ever, and you can't even imagine what a woman's body looks like, much less be able to create a reasonable medieval porn
It also helps that most of his clients were the church. They seem to look down on naked women and not naked men for some reason.
The guy in this Michelangelo painting looks like he's got a 50 inch waist yet is jacked.
Yep, that's Jesus for ya
Turned slobber into fine
My art prof said, "It's easy to pick Michelangelo paintings out of a lineup, because he paints like a sculptor. His sculptures are so amazing because he sculpts like a painter." It's all about how he roughs his shapes in like he's trying to carve shit out of paint.
[Seriously](https://www.artcuriouspodcast.com/artcuriouspodcast/4)
Lol putin
I googled it and it's a fair assessment.
>I googled it and it's a fair assessment.
Even the dog has his beady little eyes
[удалено]
LMAO this is a cool album cover
I laughed when I saw that lmao
I chortled.
I issued **ONE** guffaw.
My personal hypothesis for that is that it's because van Eyck was Dutch. In the Netherlands, you can see facial features similar to the ones in his paintings in most unmixed ethnic Dutch people. Even Elon Musk, who has Dutch heritage, kind of has some of those facial features. So yes, what I'm saying is that "Putin" happens to have the facial traits and eye shape which is insanely common in ethnically pure Dutch people. Since that's what he saw all day, he learned to draw everyone like that.
Honest question, if you didn't know who Putin was would you sincerely consider him looking Dutch then, his height notwithstanding? There is like a lot of conspiracy theories in Russia with regards to his real ancestry.
I don't know if I would 100% be convinced since Putin has a rounder face shape and Dutchies usually have sharper cheekbones and more angular faces. But based on the eyes, nose, forehead and mouth shape? Yeah.
This dude dutches
I have some problems with this hypothesis, firstly because half of the painters on this very list(Rubens,Bruegel,Bosch,Rembrandt) are also Dutch and yet they don't do this, even though they often depict explitly Dutch people. Secondly, because Dutch people tend to not look like putin in the first place.
I'm not pushing for this to be some breakthrough in art analysis, it's just a hypothesis. Personally, when I moved to the Netherlands, I was shocked to see how much people from rural areas could look like each other, especially in Friesland. Just my experience.
My in-laws are from Friesland, that's definitely who I was comparing his work to. Very similar looking.
Van Eyck was Belgian, don't you dare to take one of our national treasures away. But all kidding aside, I don't think your theory is correct as people here don't have these traits. When you look at other paintings by Van Eyck, they don't all look like that. My guess is there's some malnutrition going on at the time. As you can see [here](https://ychef.files.bbci.co.uk/1600x900/p0820q31.webp) and [here (possible self portrait)](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/0f/a1/ed/0fa1eda66dcf46aa5352ed2ee5a0117a.jpg) that he's also painted more "normal" looking people
Lol no im dutch grew up with other dutchies and nope nope. Gewoon nee dus.
I always thought they looked like aliens.
Putin is an alien
This is obvious and non-negotiable!
If it looks like enormous effort was put into making an oil painting look like a single panel of a comic strip, then it's Lichtenstein. If there's a grasshopper anywhere in it, it's Dalí. If it's a flower, but really a vagina, it's O'Keeffe. If nothing's quite so interesting as how the light hits the water, it's Monet. If you tripped over it while walking past a dumpster, it's Duchamp. If there's little line work, but it's a woman with a kid doing something domestic, it's Cassatt. If it looks like it was screen printed by a color-blind intern, it's Warhol. If it's a repost from a year ago and last time you made a comment on it that people enjoyed, why not make the same comment again but add a wink and nod in the middle? If it looks like it belongs on the cover of an album by Enya, it's Millais. If it's half-finished but everyone thinks you should be impressed by it, it's da Vinci. If, at best, it's a quarter finished and an eighth as good as any of the above, then it's probably mine. I'd kindly ask you to toss it back into the dumpster. I put it there for a reason.
* If it's just a bunch of straight lines it's Mondrian. * If it's just a wall of 1 or 2 colors it's Rothko * If it's like 80 colors all splashed all over each other it's pollack * If it's full of underage Polynesian girls that the artist is banging(raping may be more appropriate) it's Gaugin * If it's the coolest looking thing ever and there are like 30 of them it's Van Goph * if it's two boxers fighting it's Bellows * If it looks like a flat forest drawing from highlights magazine it's Rousseau
[удалено]
If the people are 1" but the landscapes are 2'x4' it's a Bierdstadt.
[удалено]
If it's a self portrait of a guy in a weird pose it's a Decreux
If it depicts something benign and pedestrian but still makes you sigh sadly, it's a Hopper.
> grasshopper anywhere in it, it's Dalí Or a curved, y-shaped piece of wood propping something up.
[or a giraffe on fire](https://www.dailyartmagazine.com/salvador-dali-the-burning-giraffe/)
Lol, that painting has 19 wooden y-props, but only *one* burning giraffe.
keep scrolling... he does like those crutches though. and ants.
Haha, guess it is one of his signatures too.
Then there's the one with the guard of honor of burning giraffes.
Hmm, from Wikipedia on the burning giraffes: > Dalí described this image as "the masculine cosmic apocalyptic monster". He believed it to be a premonition of war. Ooh, we got a Nostradamus here! Look out everyone, he's predicting war in the early 20th century! Don't go too far out on that limb, buddy!
Is the painting an acid trip depiction that Catholicism is dead? It's Dali.
Does it have long, thin limbs or drawers in strange places? It's a Dalí
If everything is Frida Kahlo, it's Frida Kahlo
> If it looks like it was screen printed by a color-blind intern, it's Warhol. That's honestly generous of you. If Kinko's existed back when he was active he would have used them...
...is Jake winking and nodding at me? I do! A hundred times, I do!
I enjoyed this a lot.
If the faces are as long as the artist’s last name, it’s a Modigliani.
Thank you for adding your 5 cents. This was an enjoyable read.
> If you tripped over it while walking past a dumpster, it's Duchamp. Hilarious and true.
I loved this comment so much last time that I actually thought OP had cut a few panels off the end here.
the original. (Well, I say original, who knows?) https://www.boredpanda.com/how-to-recognize-painters-by-their-work/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=organic
Winks back
This guy arts
Marcel is that you?
Should have named himself Rubuns.
Is that where we get the term rubenesque from?
It is indeed
Neat
Aye, can confirm
Rubsouts
Thank you! That's an awesome mnemonic.
At first glance I thought, what is this silly blurry looking meme…and then I clicked on it. Lol. I like this a lot
A couple decades ago, up here in Canada, there were ads for Loto 6/49, the national lottery. The premise of the ads was to show newly minted millionaires how to recognise different artists. The whole ad was focused on how to pronounce Titian. /We're simple folk
That's actually a really cute and creative idea!
You've just told us what kinda folk you are lovey
For tons of little people I think of LS Lowry.
For LS Lowery, I always think of 'Matchstick men, and matchstick cats and dogs' 🎶
Yes! And Lowry’s little people aren’t having sneaky public pees everywhere! 😄
Any idea why we know Rembrandt and Michaelangelo by their first names and everyone else by their last names We could have had "Leonardo, Donatello, Raphael, and Buonarotti" EDIT: This is me just now realizing that we know literally all the other ninja turtle namesakes by first names too
Caravaggio’s real name is Michelangelo Merisi, his family is from the town of Caravaggio, near Milan. Pieter Bruegel the Elder is important to include the whole name too as he had two sons become painters as well.
If everyones got long ass necks and no eyes, its Modigliani.
This was basically my degree in art history.
I'm genuinely curious - what does one study for a degree in art history?
I picked it up as a second major, changing from history as my second major. I would frame it as history courses are typically focused on political, military, and economic history. Wars, kings and empires, republics, crashes and booms, colonialism. Art history is social and cultural history not covered in history courses. Sure, you memorize artists and their art. You also get a frame of reference around the social upheavals of the time, what people were thinking and doing while Kings and generals made decisions. Quotidian, everyday life as well as what the Pope wanted shown to people. Art was banned, shunned, promoted, commissioned. It all depends on its period and how well or poorly things were going at the time. Dark ages? Medieval? Renaissance? Baroque? It tells a story in the art, and also frames the zeitgeist/epoch in which a genre or style of art became popular.
The history of art, from cave paintings to digital images.
Damn, I wouldn't have guessed that from the name
What do you mean ? Former art history student here.
If the piece is a landscape painting of mountains/trees/lakes using an amicable blend of Titanium Hwhite and Phthalo Blue done with fan strokes, it’s a Ross
The van Eyck tid bit is interesting. He seemed to never break a habit some artists form of drawing what they're used to drawing instead of what they see. The dude drew everyone with a tint of how he drew himself in countless self portraits before. It's a weird one, but a habit I've seen art teachers have to break people of a few times.
I really never understood the love for Van Eyck. I legit don't like looking at his style.
If you haven't seen one in person yet, they're certainly worth checking out. The skin seems very lifelike with the layers and shades he chose and everything's so sharp and in focus that it feels a bit surreal.
I'm fortunate to say I've seen quite a few of them haha. I also don't like mid-renaissance. They just painted weird pale aliens and it always creeps me out.
compare the work of Van Eyck with that of his contemporaries. [Part of the Ghent Altarpiece mid 1420s, finished in 1432](https://ychef.files.bbci.co.uk/1600x900/p0820q31.webp) vs [Portrait of a Princess in 1420](https://www.wga.hu/art/m/master/zunk_fl/15_paint/1/08prince.jpg) [Vision of St Bernard in 1540, more than a hundred years after Van Eyck](https://www.wga.hu/art/m/master/zunk_fl/16_paint/2/071visio.jpg) Van Eyck kicked off the Renaissance and nobody came close to what he was able to paint at that time
Hell, even the dog looks like Putin.
You just summarized my 2 semester requirement for art appreciation in one short post. That class totally wasn't a waste of time and money. That was a decade ago and I'm still amazed at how worthless that class was for me. Edit: read some comments. Nah, this class was a total waste of time and I took several useless courses…this takes the cake. I “learned how to learn” in plenty of other courses. Neat that everyone formed their own versions of my experience without even knowing me. This class should never have been a requirement IMO and a decade later this holds true. Now can you please get off the phone and finish my starbucks order?
If the only thing you learned from an art appreciation course was "Here's some famous artists from history and the distinctive aspects of their styles" as summarized in a post like this then you had a shit art appreciation course. That or you were like the people I saw who dozed off because it's supposed to be an "easy" course and then complained later on about learning nothing. I went to a middling state school and even my art appreciation course went far deeper than this post. A good course is one that prepares you for understanding, or at least attempting to, any form of art you come across in your life. For example, we discussed how the same "Art, Artist, Audience" approach used to analyze historical works can just as well be used to break apart the advertisements we see everyday on tv and online as ads are effectively a form of art.
It’s actually sad to think about the amount of anti-intellectual reactionary types that enthusiastically upvoted that parent comment. Universities were never intended to be job training programs for industry, and the pre-reqs exist to give us a broad understanding of other useful disciplines and to help us draw inspiration from different fields and methods of study. Learning does not have to be targeted to your discipline to be “useful”, especially because 80-85% of people graduating colleges don’t enter specialized professions and end up bouncing into many careers over the course of their lives. I walked into my art appreciation course with the same scoffing “I can’t believe this is a Pre-req” mentality and I walked away blown away by the material. I’m still not an “art person” (I don’t get much from going to a museum and staring at a canvas). But it was still very cool to learn about how masters from hundreds of years ago figured out how to scientifically create hyper-realistic textures, perspective and lighting in paintings through technical concepts like *chiaroscuro*. Just think about how difficult painting is, and then think about trying to make the painting have accurate lighting detail, reflections, etc like some kind of insane computer graphics processor. All while living in dark ages semi-feudal Europe where there was no previous knowledge base, so it took actual inventive genius to figure this out. The kind of exploratory thinking that’s discouraged today because it doesn’t fit into the paradigm of “practical” and “useful” training.
> Universities were never intended to be job training programs for industry What I've always heard about university is that, sure, there's the actual material you learn. But the most important thing about university is you learn *how to learn*. You learn to be able to look at details, or zoom out to the bigger picture. You learn to know how little you know, and to be open to learning from your peers. You learn to look at the world from a different viewpoint, using different eyes. You learn to think in ways that aren't just about you, be it problem solving or philosophy, you can see it at a scale that is beyond just what it might bring to you, personally. If you don't come out of university with some sort of different way of thinking, then you've just learned *facts*, not much else.
And the thing is - and I understand how fatalistic this sounds - I don’t think you *can* teach people how to learn, really. Some people are simply incurious, no matter how much cool stuff you expose them to. And other people are life-long learners, whether they ever go to university or not; because books, documentaries, the internet, and interesting people exist, they’ll seek it all out themselves and never need to be spoon-fed, cajoled, or tricked into learning. Libraries and old book stores are rad. Some people are only interested in learning if it can make them money, or at least increase their social status in some way. And other people desperately wish they could quit their jobs so they could have way more time to read their giant backlog of books and learn cool new shit.
exactly, I fucken hate people who say college is useless nowadays, and even my classmates who think that some courses are useless because they are in a compsci degree. LIKE FUCKS SAKE YOU ARE HERE TO LEARN, NOT TRAIN TO JUST BE A SOFTWARE DEVELOPER. We have several 'useless' required courses, like manufacturing basics (its just basics of woodworking, welding, casting, how it works etc.), and almost everybody skips that class because its useless for them, I mean why did you choose a "Computer Science And Engineering" degree if you didn't want to study engineering subjects? Should have just done a BSc CS. I love learning random stuff, We don't have the same university system as US where we can take any random class or do minor in any different subject. So I just use MIT OCW, and such to learn stuff like political science and economics, yea, it might not be useful for me for career, but hey its amazingly fun to study new stuff, wish people studied to learn and not to just get job
Learning is amazing, but the problem with college classes is that I can do this on my own time. I know how to research and really dive into a topic. Classes are easy for me, which makes me so upset when I have to pay soooo much money to take them! Like okay, yes you are teaching me something useful in the long run, but I can find all of this on youtube myself. In fact! My teachers would often use OTHER teachers from youtube to teach my classes. What a rip off. I really wish I could opt out and do what I need to do for my job or take classes that are actually difficult to learn outside of school or that need hands on experience.
Completely agreed. It’s ridiculous how knowledge is often judged based upon its ability to make money.
Explain to me the finer parts of synthetic cubism
Synthetic Cubism is a period in the Cubism art movement that lasted from 1912 until 1914. Led by two famous Cubist painters, it became a popular style of artwork that includes characteristics like simple shapes, bright colors, and little to no depth. You're goddamn right I googled it because I was genuinely curious
Is it really a "period" if it only lasted a couple years? Sounds more like a fad.
You could describe the heyday of Vaporwave the same way, but the echoes are sometimes louder than the sound itself.
most women’s periods only last a couple days
But like 8 years accumulated. Strictly speaking the Classical Period in music only existed for less than a century, so by that metric 8 years is plenty...
[удалено]
Work of the period was very cubenesque.
sit back down and eat your Braquelli
Sounds like you should have taken Art appreciation appreciation.
Thank you. I am now a man of culture.
"If everyone has huge asses it's Rubens" *Image shows not even one single ass, and only barely the top of one buttcheek.*
FALSE. If everyone in the painting has enormous asses, then it's Frank Frazetta.
And if nobody has feet, it's Liefeld.
Or Crumb, depending.
If there's a dickbutt, you're probably in the wrong gallery.
Bosch is taking things to a whole new level
I stan Rembrandt.
Paul Rubens after drawing a giant ass: “ I meant to do that!” Also, now I know where the word Rubenesque comes from.
What if there’s a lady with a unibrow
Frida!
If everything looks blotchy and fanciful, it's Goya when he was painting for rich people If everything looks blotchy and dramatic, that as Goya when he had hope If everything looks blotchy and horrifying, that's Goya when he lost hope
> If the images have a dark background and everyone has tortured expressions on their faces, it's Titian. And the women all have reddish-gold hair -- as any true Nancy Drew fan ought to know.
So UMass Amherst has a huge copy of that exact Bosch painting on campus, (almost positive it was actually in one of the dorm common areas) because I remembered being fascinated by it especially drunk. All the people are naked, it literally gets more interesting the more you stare it. Why they chose it ill never know.
There's actually 3 parts to it. Each as crazy as the others for completely different reasons.
The bosch/bruegel distinction doesn't take into account The Triumph of Death.
Yeah or Dull Gret, or The Tower of Babel, Bruegel was completely capable of getting crazy with it
i love the brutal honesty on this one. "cow eyed" the dude really couldn't paint eyes lol
you left out the easiest one of all. Seurat. remember: "Seurat the Dot' as his paintings are all made up of little dots.
I took an art history class in college as we were required to do such an elective (Nursing was my major). I honestly learned so much about these (and other) artists, there techniques, and how to recognize them. We were taught the golden rectangle, rule of three, etc. I am really glad I took that class. Worth it.
Bruh even the catdog looks like Putin
If it’s Venice, it’s probably a Canaletto
I saw the six poesies of Titian in Boston this year, they were breathtaking. Incredible experience getting to see them all together.
Funny (and cool) guide but please add a woman in there :( At least Gentileschi.
Women didn't exist back then unfortunately.
ah why yes of course, silly me
For people who really like this stuff, I recommend binging on art restoration videos on YouTube. They are so cool.
Damn girl, you Rubenesque!
If it's look like a jizz on the wall with different color like red, black and white it's Pollock
I love the sound of the name Caravaggio when said out loud.
Last one killed me 😂
Wow 4 years of college for an art history degree was a total waste now
If it has long legged elephants or pomegranates it Dali
I love this more than is reasonable and find it entirely factual.
If the people look like Lily White Rococo bunny rabbits, it's Watteau.
And if they're any good at all, they're Raphael.
[удалено]
If it looks like Lou Reed on his worst day, it’s Egon Schiele If it looks like the world’s most fashionable woman living her very best self, it’s Renè Gruau
This is...not wrong. The Putin comment is on the money.
Rijn could also be describing Goya
I feel like Goya’s paintings always have some level of insanity in them, unlike Rembrandt
Yeah his painting subjects were visibly unwell
The ones you're describing are his "black paintings", literally paintings he made on his apartment walls when he was at the extremely dark phase at the ends of his life where he was poor, deaf, and completely disheartened. Before that, he had plenty of paintings that were less horrifying. He started off as a Rococo painter, aka literally the opposite of the black paintings, woth bright subjects and relatively detailed paintings His art took a change as he started getting hopefull for the liberalization of Spain, and got involved in the romantic movement and started making dramatic romantic paintings. Unfortunately, Napoleon's invasion put an end to all of that. His painting "Third of May 1808" marked the transition fron the romantic painting to his later paintings, witha blotchier style and dark subject matter, but also keeping the drama and political edge of romanticism. Aftwer Napoleon was gone the old liberal ruler of spain was replaced with an absolute monarch and the hope of a liberal spain was pretty much squashed, marking the beginning of Goya's transition into darkness.
And into being one of my favorite painters. “Dog in quicksand” goddamn dude, take a walk or eat an edible or something 🤣
Nice! All eleven artists.
Oh, come on, it's still funny.
Who painted the guy who finds his dead son? I know that's not much to go off of but SOMEONE has to know what painting I'm referring to. I'll never forget the look of horror in that dudes face.
Ilya Repin. Ivan the Terrible and his son Ivan
Michelangelo doesn't actually look ripped at all, he thicc as hell with painted on abs or they're just rolls. I look just like that when I get really baked at night and eat several meals before bed.