4:20 Forgive me but I can't figure out what flaw you are trying to illustrate here. It seems like you're suggesting that the top of the table not being a flat horizontal in your vertical field is a perspective flaw, but if you were looking at an actual real physical table from that same angle it would not be either.
It took me a while, but I think they are trying to say that if you view the painting from the side, looking down the length of the table, then you will not get the perceptual illusion of depth for looking down the length of the table, because the lines of the table don't converge, as they run tangential to the intended line of perspective in the painting. The solution would be for the top & bottom edges of the table to become UN-parallel when viewed from the side, tapering together on the edge of the painting away from the viewer. Presumably the left & right table edges would also straighten out & become parallel... as they would then be tangential to the plane of perspective. This would of courses A) require magic & B) is still a rather stupid take, as nobody expects that from a flat painting.
I think I see what he was getting at but instead of using the line of the top of the table I would have just pointed out that from the view we are now seeing the painting in that picture of it in the museum the single point perspective the painting uses for things like the walls and side openings is now at a completely arbitrary point in relation to the perspective of the viewer of the photograph.
Ok but why this specific way of rendering linear perspective makes a whole period of art "better" than other? Perspective is just a tool thar responds to the expectations of art in a particular age, a more dynamic perspective don't fit in peak renaissance world view. That's literally the most uninformed thing I've ever seen.
@@labeilleautiste6318 art is not about technique lol we are not talking about design or engineering. If there is a progression how you explain the romans knowing about modern perspective hundreds of years before the renaissance lol also roman perspective is just an optical illusion, it does not reference how the eye sees because it's impossible to replicate it precisely in a 2D medium.
One point perspective is fine, but you're treating paintings as three dimensional representations which they aren't, so your perspective is what is off. Learn draftsmanship before you critique it.
Can someone explain how having multiple vanishing points on an axis is more 'realistic' in a way or compensates the movement of the eye? I can't wrap my head around that
Cool stuff! I wouldn’t say the illusion of perspective breaks when you focus on certain areas of a point perspective art piece. I can always get lost in a nice photo of a city. But the idea that you can support different perspectives to support more than one focal point is very cool. Realism doesn’t mean it’s better (as we see with animated movie trends recently)
I don't think perfectly symmetrical images are more "sophisticated" than the complex images produced during the Renaissance, even if they have multiple vanishing points. Probably, those ancient images have multiple vanishing points because they wanted to preserve the perfect symmetry, not because they knew how human vision and cognition work.
Having multiple vanishing points is more realistic in certain situations For instance, if a plane is flying towards you at a slight angle, we know the wings edges are parallel to each other, but each wing needs to go to a different vanishing point in order to look realistic. That is, a single vanishing point only makes sense when the lines are parallel to the direction you are looking. Once parallel things aren’t parallel with your direction of vision, then they go to different ‘vanishing points.’ That is, three lines won’t all converge at the same point.
@@pyropulseIXXI "Once parallel things aren’t parallel with your direction of vision, then they go to different ‘vanishing points.’" I don't think that's the definition of vanishing point. What converges at the vanishing point is a grid of parallel lines but doesn't mean that all the lines in an image need to be parallel to the grid.
He said perspective, and the way a person perceives space is an optical illusion... 😅 Something already tells me that he doesn't know what he is talking about. Things look smaller when they are further away because they are further away, and that's not an illusion... an illusion would be if the object was made to look far away when in reality it is actually really close or something along those lines... he doesn't understand that a trick is different from truth and things don't increase or decrease in size due to distance. Small things up close have more detail then large things far away. He is acting like a person can't tell the difference when that is not true.
The reason one point perspective isn't convincing is because we don't see one point perspective. One point perspective only occurscwhen you zoom in, e.g. wity a telephoto lens. In real life we see five point perspective (or something very close to it). I've been trying to jesrn to draft in three point perspective in order to account for both horizontal and vertical distortion away from the viewer - it frankly makes the subject in question look much more real.
Near the end of the fifth century BC perspective-painting with vanishing-points was developed by Agatharchos of Samos as Plinius the elder tells. (Et non habemus quin id dubitemus.) The phenomenon of the vanishing-point is discribed by Lucretius in "de rerum natura". Renaiccance artists always referred to perspective-drawing as a skill developed in antiquity. The surviving acient wall-decorations show many slight or obvious variations of the actual exact construction as modern-time- works also do. The misunderstanding started in the late 18th Century with Gotthold Ephraim Lessing who had even less knowledge of ancient painting than we have today. He found mistakes in the perspectives of roman wallpaintings and therefore claimed modern paintings to be better.
5:25 ok but how about including those rooftops that have a vanishing point that is totally off the chart. I am not sure if I would call that more sophisticated. It is simply different.
I don't think you explained why it was better. The ancient didn't have a detailed, theoretical understanding of prospective, as far as we know. Tangentially, Brunelleschi is also responsible for the first architectural project that surpassed the technical capabilities of the ancient world: the dome of the cathedral of Florence
Very cool! Another thing is about architecture perspective during Ancient Greece. The layout of temple’s positions was based on a view point, so looking from a specific direction you could see the lateral of a temple matching with a hill on the horizon and then the front of another temple.
Ancient and medieval attempts at perspective were based on artists' intuition rather than any geometrical analysis. That's why, in some cases, the 'converging' lines are parallel to each other, and everything always converges to the center. Brunelleschi, being an architect, was very familiar with geometry, and he successfully applied his knowledge in developing linear perspective. Liking one style or another is a matter of tastes but real perspective, as far as we know, is definitely a reinassance invention.
"Ancient and medieval attempts at perspective were based on artists' intuition rather than any geometrical analysis.... nd everything always converges to the center." That's baloney so far as the ANCIENT art goes; 1st off as the video pretty clearly demonstrated, not all ancient art DOES converge to a single center, there are multiple examples where it converges to multiple centers, akin to LATER renaissances art, in order to accommodate the movement of a viewers eyes up & down a piece, & to further create an illusion of depth. Second - you have zero idea of how ancient art was composed, because nobody knows that... most records of what they did have been simply lost to time along with the rest of ancient history. At best, you an manage guesses from the art itself... except of course as above if we're specifically talking about perspective than the art suggests they did understand the principles, because we HAVE advanced examples of the technique. So far as the underlying mathematics go... well that WAS the ancients, NOT the renaissance thinkers. THAT bit of ancient history was comparatively well preserved, probably due to the general utility of mathematics & geometry.
@@kgoblin5084 You are confusing two different things. The subject of geometry was indeed very advanced in ancient times and we still study it today, but the application of this knowledge to create realistic perspective is unique to the Renaissance. When I said everything converges to the center, I meant there are no examples of two or three-point perspective. And most importantly, no painting before Brunelleschi displays accurate foreshortening. We don't have proof that the ancients developed geometrically accurate perspective-no paintings, no mosaics, no reliefs, no murals, no written sources, etc. According to your reasoning, the ancients could have invented the Ford Fiesta because we don't have proof that they didn't. Is not a matter of opinions, duscussing further is useless
@@loookas I guess they used perspective theory to build the Parthenon of Athens. It was made to look a certain way from a certain perspective point from afar.
@@Khórtos The technique you are referring to is called "entasis" and it is closer to an optical illusion. I was used to make the structure look straighter adding a bulge and convex curves not straight lines. It can't be applied on paintings unless you want a gigantic piainting look straighter to an observer below
All I can say to you is that when you ended your video I groaned in frustration. I don’t recall me having had this reaction to any other material I had seen on UA-cam. 😃👏👏👏👏 I can’t draw, paint, or do maths, but if I could, I would paint something from different perspectives, whilst the whole retained unity recognisable from each perspective. I would imagine it from as many angles as possible- as if I was looking at it from right, left, behind the canvas, at different angles floating around it etc. Maybe I am wrong because I am literally ignorant in such matters, but even when I look at the cubist painting that you have shown, it makes sense (kind of) only from my viewpoint. The Mediaeval sets of perspectives still follow an axis, and I feel that it should be used to convey a sense of verticality as purpose, movement and direction and meaning (that, for me, is spiritual- the human world and the upper, Divine ones). The Renaissance perspective purposefully collapsed all others into one; if feels like monopolising attention as it monopolised The Divine (‘I am The Way’, ‘nobody comes to the Father, but through me’). Like reality, I think that a painting should reflect and harmonise (ideally) all points of view, all perspectives, revealing Beauty (not Escher’s quirky whimsicality, masterful as it is) that can be experienced by everybody, each person with their own perspective. Art should not entice and monopolise the viewer’s mind, imposing the artist’s views in the chosen viewpoint. The artist has a duty of revealing Beauty to all the viewers. And I believe that Beauty fosters empathy and mental flexibility in that the viewers are invited (nay, urged) to see things differently and from other(‘s) perspectives. Thank you very much for sharing.
Ancient Art and pre medieval european art has a symbolic flatness to It. And its totally symbolic. Egypcian, sumerian, persian, even Catholic ortodox ART with mosaics and icon paintings, marginal drawings on scriptures, book illustratioms and even tapestry were Trying to convey deep meaning not throw imitating reality, but operating out of It. Thats why its better, renaissance its Just The "ilusionism" of reality and Lost almost ALL The simbolic Weight and meaning. Specially in Catholic sacred art, because its removes The parallel dimension were sacred things operates, The ether of faith, The catharsis of your own Inner truth, or The way you complete The world by your own sol.amd presence. You are Trading a unique view for The illusion of a view. In POST modern times we see this happening in our every day media. Old games were blocked and stylized, but they have this imaginative self perspective of reality, games like soul reaver, resident Evil and other from 90s aesthetic have this feeling of operating in other dimensions, cause they follow their own rules of operating outside of The illusionism of representing reality. Old movies, books illustrations, comics and such too. POST 2000 we have this funneling of style were most artists are obssesively want to represent characters and places like copies or real peoples and places. Most of The became boring and unfertile. The copy of a copy of copy, same colors, same faces, same style with a few bastions of creativity... Thats why a flatten view of The world ART with stylized characters and ambience is better and way more enchanted and creative than Just scan mathematical forms and fórmulas on a system and say this is ART in The era of digital reproduction...
Holy cow I rarely go into the comments anymore, an it’s for this exact reason. the people who are into history/archaeology/art have turned into insane snobs. These people think they’re so intellectual. No one smart is clutching their pearls in comment sections.
there are multiple more reasons you could have gave. i want to know about the texture and different use of techniques. linear and one point perspective is schoolboy stuff man.
Good fucking job, the way we see this world is an illusion of a third dimension and art in its core is a convincing representation of this illusion which is not easy to do, especially when depicting something out of imagination.
Excellent presentation. Pretty amazing how the Renaissance fascination for perspective flooded western art, but it never took hold the far east, where it was virtually ignored and considered a gimmick.
Perspective boomed massively in Japan when there was a growing craze for anything western, in the 19th Century, both during and after the Shogunate. That famous Hokusai stuff is heavily influenced by western art. Even the pigment is mainly Prussian blue. It's just that most of the time Asian cultures just have a "way things are done" and expression encouraged but narrowly circumscribed, usually hiding limitation behind abstraction.
The triumphal arches on the sides of the painting of Christ handing the keys to St Peter also look wrong because the tops are straight in line, across the picture. That line should curve down towards the edges in order to be convincing. If you look, square on, at a straight, level wall that is higher than you, and follow the top of it will seem to dip down more the further you look to left or right. Parallel lines, horizontally and vertically across an image should seem to form around a bit of a bulge, rather than forming a straight up and down grid. This is also a problem you get with 3d art, as it doen't do curving/fish-eye perspective either. (Cameras, by contrast, can sometimes exaggerate the effect, making it difficult, say, to take a photo of an oblong picture without the frame distorting and curving in too much at the corners.) I don't particularly agree that the ancient artists were using a 'sophisticated' form of perspective. I think it's more likely those frescos were painted intuitively. If it's a symmetrical composition then all the vanishing points will form a central line anyway, even if no particular plan is in place.
I don’t understand the point here. Especially the table argument here. But it’s 6 minute video and it’s more like this guy’s opinion than anything. Perspective was deployed in art earlier but it doesn’t mean the pieces that were created later were worse in how they were painted. This might be one of the reasons why so many comments here say it’s kinda dumb video, but there’s so much you can put into 6:20 minute video, next time I would try to put more sources instead of opinions and own observations.
Came for the click bait title but was glad to see some good examples of the use of perspective in early western art. Interested to see what this video would be like if you spent more time explaining your thoughts. But overall a good video for someone wanting to know more about perspective in art.
The titel of this video is very cick baity and in some way missleading as the topic is only arround the variants of perspective drawing and not about the quality of art itself. Regarding the topic itself, the renaissence was a time of re-discovery of the antike based on viewing of antike art and reading of antike books again. And it is correct that the one point perspective has some weakness because if a painting is relative big, the eye is wandering over the painting and then this one point perpective doesn't fit anymore. Artists notes it and begun to find ways to improve it very quickly if needed for their art piece.
The Renaissance was a time in history when people shifted their gaze to a time when the arts, culture, politics, and economics, were so much better than what they were currently experiencing in their time, and they looked back as far as they could go. So, yeah, they would agree with you, that the much older art was much better. That was kind of the whole point of the Renaissance.
Well, i think there is NOT such a thing as good or bad art, therefore there isn't an art better than the other. Also, cubism is not "prospective free" because every one sees the world differently or because the eyes moves in different directions...
@@kbcaterpillar No, it is far more interesting that what you think. It is based on the fascination with Einstein's theory of relativity, published shortly before the birth of Cubism. In fact, cubism is the observation of a subject in space, but above all its interaction with the fourth dimension. Visually it draws inspiration from African masks, seen in Paris during the Universal Exhibition. Spatial decomposition and geometrozation had already been partly explored by Cezanne, who in turn drew inspiration from the early Italian Renaissance, qualities perfected by Cubism and which laid the foundations for all subsequent artistic avant-gardes, such as Futurism and Dada.
4:15 That's one ugly museum. A hate letter to the human condition. Anyhow, do not let the negativity in these comments discourage you. We live, we learn.
Nice video! Not sure if I'd call it 'better' but I wouldn't say Renaissance paintings are better than than the medieval paintings either. As you say, two parallel lines never meet. Or a circle becomes an oval when seen from the side. In this way, medieval symbolic painting conveys ideas in a better way. Anyway, I wanted to tell you that my latest video is on a similar subject: About how AI generated art is more akin to the medieval paintings rather than perspective. Would be interested to hear your thoughts!
@@claudiamanta1943 depends on your definition of art. It has certainly very little to do with our modern understanding of art which is about human expression, authenticity etc. But did you know that in the Middle Ages artists were nameless and painted identical icons of the Virgin Mary? That also has very little to do with our understanding of art. Personally I like to say that Art is this thing that started around the renaissance with humanism and in fact later capitalism. Therefor I prefer using the word ‘representation’ when referring to art throughout history and AI images. That wider definition is about how a society chooses to represent itself. And AI certainly represents our current world.
@@ludvigInLegendaryLands I think and I believe that art is a way of revealing and unfolding Beauty whilst, also, investing it with meaning as an added layer in the process of translating it within the human realm- the condiment that brings out and combines the flavours of all the ingredients in a meal. It’s stirring honey into the wine of life. It stirs and moves the soul in a direction (positive for people) via contemplation. Fundamentally, there is no difference between experiencing art and experiencing The Divine. It’s a reminder of roots and promise of fruits, whilst intimating a direction. Whether the viewers decide to answer the call or not should remain at their discretion… though no soul cannot not answer the call of the luminous Numinous if revealed properly and with reverence for the Divine, the human, and the creative act itself. Art is inviting and engaging, it is immediate initiation and revelation. The Middle Ages’ painters depicted the religious figures following a strict set of rules probably hoping to not be quite 100% guilty of worshipping idols (iconoclasm has been a pain in the neck for many, unless one is CG Jung, obviously, with his desperate Ego showing the archetypal finger to a god he refused to himself). Or, perhaps, they had to engrave in the minds the religious set of archetypes through repetition and dogmatic artistic rules. The seeming ‘stiffness’ of the Ancient Egyptian art is another example of engraving the human souls. Hatshepsut’s depiction with royal attire was not a sign that she identified herself as a ‘he/him’, but was a depiction of the head of state. Their queens and kings did not matter as individuals, they merely served the Divine through revealing, enhancing, and maintaining Maat. But I somewhat digress, sorry. It was a representation which has only a fixing order and its function(s), thus not pure art. Ideology is not art, it’s the semantic level that distorts it. You may argue that any creative endeavour has an underlying ideological hue, and I would agree. However, there is ideology, and there is ideology, the difference being the intent. The ideology of humanism does not put the human being at the centre of everything, but the human reason, which is as ridiculous and hubristic wishful thinking as it is cynical because it has led to dehumanisation. Unfortunately, no society chooses how to represent itself or, indeed, what to believe. This has always been- and will forever be- the responsibility of the ideologues. Especially the modern ones, and especially those in the West, have failed miserably. To use your example, AI as the pinnacle of the technology ideology. It is not representing the current world. It is how the techo ideologues would have masses think and see. I see absolutely no reason why I should worship the stained towels of these ideologues who masturbate their dysfunctional brains they need to enlarge via anti- human, atomising insanity. Their products are not seminal; they’re just sterile seeds of evil.
@@claudiamanta1943 wow very well put. I agree with everything here, however I wouldn’t put ‘art’ on any pedestal. Whether it is Jackson pollock funded by CIA or Rembrandt representing a new capitalistic class, or michellango representing a Christian feudalism. I’m simplifying here, but the point is that any form of representation is tied up with an ideology and a power structure. And indeed AI images represent an anti-human technocratic future. But so does much of human creations that have simply become content. And yes you are more than free to hate AI images and choose a representation that suits your ideology. Anyway, I would love to have you critique my videos!
@@ludvigInLegendaryLands Thank you. Art has, indeed, an ideological substrate. But absolutely everything does. It’s not en end in itself, but a means. I would still put it on a pedestal in the same vein as the Ancients did as they had a much richer and flexible mind than our contemporaries. I would rather have a statue of The Divine than worship the human mind that hubristically fools itself it doesn’t whilst worshipping itself and its products. Me and AI and its minions who hide their lack of ability to create behind this idol of theirs are not friends. Actually, this has made me into its enemy. An impressive achievement on their part as I naturally hate confrontation. But, given the penury of men, a woman must do what needs to be done and grow some balls. Thank you for the invitation, I shall have a look at your channel.
I never understood why renaissance art is said to be so great when rococo, romanticism, even baroque is so much more fun. I understand that you have to walk before you can run, but if someone knew nothing about films, would you recommend them silent films or the lord of the rings?
The renaissance was an artistic revolution. Not just a simple walk before a run. All the future art styles may have been more sophisticated but they didn't innovate as much as the renaissance. When you look at the achivements of a specific age you dont compare them to the upcoming age to know their greatness but to the former age. The movie allegory isn't the best example because silent films were more like a gimmick at the time not an actual art style yet, and that wasnt the golden age of filmography in terms of innovation
@@codboss7092 Compared to what came before, I agree that it's more fun, but I don't know why everyone goes on and on about it when you're sure to have more fun with art from the 1800s.
@@RuthvenMurgatroyd Yeah but not as good as Anders Zorn, John Singer Sargent, William Adolphe Bougerau, John William Waterhouse, Caspar David Friedrich, and many more that came after.
As someone who knows a bit of art history, this is one of the dumbest videos I've ever seen
Сould you elaborate pls?
Commenting without explanation. That's dumb !
4:20 Forgive me but I can't figure out what flaw you are trying to illustrate here. It seems like you're suggesting that the top of the table not being a flat horizontal in your vertical field is a perspective flaw, but if you were looking at an actual real physical table from that same angle it would not be either.
Thanks I literally was coming to see if anyone else noticed this
It took me a while, but I think they are trying to say that if you view the painting from the side, looking down the length of the table, then you will not get the perceptual illusion of depth for looking down the length of the table, because the lines of the table don't converge, as they run tangential to the intended line of perspective in the painting.
The solution would be for the top & bottom edges of the table to become UN-parallel when viewed from the side, tapering together on the edge of the painting away from the viewer. Presumably the left & right table edges would also straighten out & become parallel... as they would then be tangential to the plane of perspective.
This would of courses A) require magic & B) is still a rather stupid take, as nobody expects that from a flat painting.
bro couldve just stopped at "perspective was employed by classical artists long before the renaissance"
but he goes to make nonsensical takes
@@MrAaaaazzzzz00009999 Yes but the clickbait though.
I think I see what he was getting at but instead of using the line of the top of the table I would have just pointed out that from the view we are now seeing the painting in that picture of it in the museum the single point perspective the painting uses for things like the walls and side openings is now at a completely arbitrary point in relation to the perspective of the viewer of the photograph.
Mediaeval art is underrated
This videos is so rеtаrdеd my goodness,
Shallow in detail and information with an amateur understanding of art history
hmm I have the same feeling about this comment.
i thought it was only me. you would think the target audience for this video wouldnt be someone who doesn’t know what linear perspective is.
Ok but why this specific way of rendering linear perspective makes a whole period of art "better" than other? Perspective is just a tool thar responds to the expectations of art in a particular age, a more dynamic perspective don't fit in peak renaissance world view. That's literally the most uninformed thing I've ever seen.
Because its a progress, a technical advancemant
@@labeilleautiste6318 Art isn't a craft. There's no advancement, people just do what correspond to their historical-economical needs
@@Raphael3032 there is an évolution of technic throught the accumulation of knowledges so yes a progression...
@@labeilleautiste6318 art is not about technique lol we are not talking about design or engineering. If there is a progression how you explain the romans knowing about modern perspective hundreds of years before the renaissance lol also roman perspective is just an optical illusion, it does not reference how the eye sees because it's impossible to replicate it precisely in a 2D medium.
@@Raphael3032 You're talking out your ass
You said in the video that in the later Rennesiance they actually adopted the multiple point perspectuve style. So the whole video is just bullshit.
shh
Fare thee well - on life's journey
One point perspective is fine, but you're treating paintings as three dimensional representations which they aren't, so your perspective is what is off. Learn draftsmanship before you critique it.
Can someone explain how having multiple vanishing points on an axis is more 'realistic' in a way or compensates the movement of the eye? I can't wrap my head around that
Cool stuff! I wouldn’t say the illusion of perspective breaks when you focus on certain areas of a point perspective art piece. I can always get lost in a nice photo of a city.
But the idea that you can support different perspectives to support more than one focal point is very cool. Realism doesn’t mean it’s better (as we see with animated movie trends recently)
I don't think perfectly symmetrical images are more "sophisticated" than the complex images produced during the Renaissance, even if they have multiple vanishing points. Probably, those ancient images have multiple vanishing points because they wanted to preserve the perfect symmetry, not because they knew how human vision and cognition work.
Having multiple vanishing points is more realistic in certain situations
For instance, if a plane is flying towards you at a slight angle, we know the wings edges are parallel to each other, but each wing needs to go to a different vanishing point in order to look realistic.
That is, a single vanishing point only makes sense when the lines are parallel to the direction you are looking.
Once parallel things aren’t parallel with your direction of vision, then they go to different ‘vanishing points.’
That is, three lines won’t all converge at the same point.
@@pyropulseIXXI "Once parallel things aren’t parallel with your direction of vision, then they go to different ‘vanishing points.’" I don't think that's the definition of vanishing point. What converges at the vanishing point is a grid of parallel lines but doesn't mean that all the lines in an image need to be parallel to the grid.
There is so much more to art than perspective. It's like one ten-thousandth of the equation… This is insulting to art.
talk about being a contrarian
He said perspective, and the way a person perceives space is an optical illusion... 😅 Something already tells me that he doesn't know what he is talking about. Things look smaller when they are further away because they are further away, and that's not an illusion... an illusion would be if the object was made to look far away when in reality it is actually really close or something along those lines... he doesn't understand that a trick is different from truth and things don't increase or decrease in size due to distance. Small things up close have more detail then large things far away. He is acting like a person can't tell the difference when that is not true.
The reason one point perspective isn't convincing is because we don't see one point perspective.
One point perspective only occurscwhen you zoom in, e.g. wity a telephoto lens.
In real life we see five point perspective (or something very close to it).
I've been trying to jesrn to draft in three point perspective in order to account for both horizontal and vertical distortion away from the viewer - it frankly makes the subject in question look much more real.
Near the end of the fifth century BC perspective-painting with vanishing-points was developed by Agatharchos of Samos as Plinius the elder tells. (Et non habemus quin id dubitemus.) The phenomenon of the vanishing-point is discribed by Lucretius in "de rerum natura".
Renaiccance artists always referred to perspective-drawing as a skill developed in antiquity. The surviving acient wall-decorations show many slight or obvious variations of the actual exact construction as modern-time- works also do. The misunderstanding started in the late 18th Century with Gotthold Ephraim Lessing who had even less knowledge of ancient painting than we have today. He found mistakes in the perspectives of roman wallpaintings and therefore claimed modern paintings to be better.
5:25 ok but how about including those rooftops that have a vanishing point that is totally off the chart. I am not sure if I would call that more sophisticated. It is simply different.
wow! mediveal people used non-realistic styles to convay spirtual concepts. Shocking
I don't think you explained why it was better. The ancient didn't have a detailed, theoretical understanding of prospective, as far as we know. Tangentially, Brunelleschi is also responsible for the first architectural project that surpassed the technical capabilities of the ancient world: the dome of the cathedral of Florence
How pointless is it to compare understandings between different dead people in writings, when we can see evidence of in the work itself.
I don't know a lot about art but this was a big yapping session
If you were my stufent I'd barely give you a pass..why did this get recommended to me.
Very cool! Another thing is about architecture perspective during Ancient Greece. The layout of temple’s positions was based on a view point, so looking from a specific direction you could see the lateral of a temple matching with a hill on the horizon and then the front of another temple.
That theory has never been proven definitely.
I read somewhere that they at least tamper with the columns so they appear straight.
@@gabrielmonteiro8884 Manuel Bravo has a video about Delphi out about this kind of arrangements.
See video: “That’s a bold statement”
Watch video: “…”
How about we just agree that postmodern art is complete shit and leave renaissance art alone
Next video: How Yasuke was the first black samurai to travel to the Americas
Ancient and medieval attempts at perspective were based on artists' intuition rather than any geometrical analysis. That's why, in some cases, the 'converging' lines are parallel to each other, and everything always converges to the center. Brunelleschi, being an architect, was very familiar with geometry, and he successfully applied his knowledge in developing linear perspective.
Liking one style or another is a matter of tastes but real perspective, as far as we know, is definitely a reinassance invention.
"Ancient and medieval attempts at perspective were based on artists' intuition rather than any geometrical analysis.... nd everything always converges to the center."
That's baloney so far as the ANCIENT art goes; 1st off as the video pretty clearly demonstrated, not all ancient art DOES converge to a single center, there are multiple examples where it converges to multiple centers, akin to LATER renaissances art, in order to accommodate the movement of a viewers eyes up & down a piece, & to further create an illusion of depth.
Second - you have zero idea of how ancient art was composed, because nobody knows that... most records of what they did have been simply lost to time along with the rest of ancient history.
At best, you an manage guesses from the art itself... except of course as above if we're specifically talking about perspective than the art suggests they did understand the principles, because we HAVE advanced examples of the technique. So far as the underlying mathematics go... well that WAS the ancients, NOT the renaissance thinkers. THAT bit of ancient history was comparatively well preserved, probably due to the general utility of mathematics & geometry.
@@kgoblin5084 You are confusing two different things. The subject of geometry was indeed very advanced in ancient times and we still study it today, but the application of this knowledge to create realistic perspective is unique to the Renaissance. When I said everything converges to the center, I meant there are no examples of two or three-point perspective.
And most importantly, no painting before Brunelleschi displays accurate foreshortening. We don't have proof that the ancients developed geometrically accurate perspective-no paintings, no mosaics, no reliefs, no murals, no written sources, etc. According to your reasoning, the ancients could have invented the Ford Fiesta because we don't have proof that they didn't.
Is not a matter of opinions, duscussing further is useless
@@loookas I guess they used perspective theory to build the Parthenon of Athens. It was made to look a certain way from a certain perspective point from afar.
@@Khórtos The technique you are referring to is called "entasis" and it is closer to an optical illusion. I was used to make the structure look straighter adding a bulge and convex curves not straight lines. It can't be applied on paintings unless you want a gigantic piainting look straighter to an observer below
All I can say to you is that when you ended your video I groaned in frustration. I don’t recall me having had this reaction to any other material I had seen on UA-cam. 😃👏👏👏👏
I can’t draw, paint, or do maths, but if I could, I would paint something from different perspectives, whilst the whole retained unity recognisable from each perspective. I would imagine it from as many angles as possible- as if I was looking at it from right, left, behind the canvas, at different angles floating around it etc.
Maybe I am wrong because I am literally ignorant in such matters, but even when I look at the cubist painting that you have shown, it makes sense (kind of) only from my viewpoint.
The Mediaeval sets of perspectives still follow an axis, and I feel that it should be used to convey a sense of verticality as purpose, movement and direction and meaning (that, for me, is spiritual- the human world and the upper, Divine ones). The Renaissance perspective purposefully collapsed all others into one; if feels like monopolising attention as it monopolised The Divine (‘I am The Way’, ‘nobody comes to the Father, but through me’).
Like reality, I think that a painting should reflect and harmonise (ideally) all points of view, all perspectives, revealing Beauty (not Escher’s quirky whimsicality, masterful as it is) that can be experienced by everybody, each person with their own perspective. Art should not entice and monopolise the viewer’s mind, imposing the artist’s views in the chosen viewpoint. The artist has a duty of revealing Beauty to all the viewers. And I believe that Beauty fosters empathy and mental flexibility in that the viewers are invited (nay, urged) to see things differently and from other(‘s) perspectives.
Thank you very much for sharing.
Ancient Art and pre medieval european art has a symbolic flatness to It. And its totally symbolic. Egypcian, sumerian, persian, even Catholic ortodox ART with mosaics and icon paintings, marginal drawings on scriptures, book illustratioms and even tapestry were Trying to convey deep meaning not throw imitating reality, but operating out of It. Thats why its better, renaissance its Just The "ilusionism" of reality and Lost almost ALL The simbolic Weight and meaning. Specially in Catholic sacred art, because its removes The parallel dimension were sacred things operates, The ether of faith, The catharsis of your own Inner truth, or The way you complete The world by your own sol.amd presence. You are Trading a unique view for The illusion of a view.
In POST modern times we see this happening in our every day media. Old games were blocked and stylized, but they have this imaginative self perspective of reality, games like soul reaver, resident Evil and other from 90s aesthetic have this feeling of operating in other dimensions, cause they follow their own rules of operating outside of The illusionism of representing reality. Old movies, books illustrations, comics and such too. POST 2000 we have this funneling of style were most artists are obssesively want to represent characters and places like copies or real peoples and places. Most of The became boring and unfertile. The copy of a copy of copy, same colors, same faces, same style with a few bastions of creativity... Thats why a flatten view of The world ART with stylized characters and ambience is better and way more enchanted and creative than Just scan mathematical forms and fórmulas on a system and say this is ART in The era of digital reproduction...
Do you recommend any books on medieval art or ancient art I could read? (preferably that I can find for free on the internet 😅)
Holy cow I rarely go into the comments anymore, an it’s for this exact reason. the people who are into history/archaeology/art have turned into insane snobs. These people think they’re so intellectual. No one smart is clutching their pearls in comment sections.
there are multiple more reasons you could have gave. i want to know about the texture and different use of techniques. linear and one point perspective is schoolboy stuff man.
based alert, you are right btw
Good fucking job, the way we see this world is an illusion of a third dimension and art in its core is a convincing representation of this illusion which is not easy to do, especially when depicting something out of imagination.
You shouldn't think of art as an illusionist effect; it's a means to express the soul, human condition, and truth.
👎👎👎
Excellent presentation. Pretty amazing how the Renaissance fascination for perspective flooded western art, but it never took hold the far east, where it was virtually ignored and considered a gimmick.
Perspective boomed massively in Japan when there was a growing craze for anything western, in the 19th Century, both during and after the Shogunate. That famous Hokusai stuff is heavily influenced by western art. Even the pigment is mainly Prussian blue. It's just that most of the time Asian cultures just have a "way things are done" and expression encouraged but narrowly circumscribed, usually hiding limitation behind abstraction.
' better ' is highly subjective
You can twist it like you want. It looks like shit.
The triumphal arches on the sides of the painting of Christ handing the keys to St Peter also look wrong because the tops are straight in line, across the picture. That line should curve down towards the edges in order to be convincing. If you look, square on, at a straight, level wall that is higher than you, and follow the top of it will seem to dip down more the further you look to left or right. Parallel lines, horizontally and vertically across an image should seem to form around a bit of a bulge, rather than forming a straight up and down grid. This is also a problem you get with 3d art, as it doen't do curving/fish-eye perspective either. (Cameras, by contrast, can sometimes exaggerate the effect, making it difficult, say, to take a photo of an oblong picture without the frame distorting and curving in too much at the corners.)
I don't particularly agree that the ancient artists were using a 'sophisticated' form of perspective. I think it's more likely those frescos were painted intuitively. If it's a symmetrical composition then all the vanishing points will form a central line anyway, even if no particular plan is in place.
I learned a lot.
I don’t understand the point here. Especially the table argument here. But it’s 6 minute video and it’s more like this guy’s opinion than anything. Perspective was deployed in art earlier but it doesn’t mean the pieces that were created later were worse in how they were painted. This might be one of the reasons why so many comments here say it’s kinda dumb video, but there’s so much you can put into 6:20 minute video, next time I would try to put more sources instead of opinions and own observations.
Fascinating. Thank you for sharing!
Came for the click bait title but was glad to see some good examples of the use of perspective in early western art. Interested to see what this video would be like if you spent more time explaining your thoughts. But overall a good video for someone wanting to know more about perspective in art.
Yes! I've always wondered about this too! Thank you!
I almost fell asleep
tldr christians
Great condensation of what is often an extremely dense topic - thanks!
Wouldn't a more sophisticated form of vanishing point being a 2 point perspective view?
AD! AD! AD!
I should’ve studied art history 😢
🤗 Same here.
But you can read and watch UA-cam videos of good quality (like this one).
Just watch UA-cam. My art history class in college was just a bunch of 20 year old movies lol.
JONATHAN PAGEAU, GET IN HERE
The titel of this video is very cick baity and in some way missleading as the topic is only arround the variants of perspective drawing and not about the quality of art itself. Regarding the topic itself, the renaissence was a time of re-discovery of the antike based on viewing of antike art and reading of antike books again. And it is correct that the one point perspective has some weakness because if a painting is relative big, the eye is wandering over the painting and then this one point perpective doesn't fit anymore. Artists notes it and begun to find ways to improve it very quickly if needed for their art piece.
I guess they used perspective theory to build the Parthenon of Athens. It was made to look a certain way from a certain perspective point from afar.
Imagine making a ranking of artistic periods, you are worth nothing as an art historian.
These are not things that are done for "fun". Go to university and study (sorry for bad english)
The Renaissance was a time in history when people shifted their gaze to a time when the arts, culture, politics, and economics, were so much better than what they were currently experiencing in their time, and they looked back as far as they could go. So, yeah, they would agree with you, that the much older art was much better. That was kind of the whole point of the Renaissance.
Do you have a bibliography for this, apart from the blog? I would be interested in learning more.
Well, i think there is NOT such a thing as good or bad art, therefore there isn't an art better than the other. Also, cubism is not "prospective free" because every one sees the world differently or because the eyes moves in different directions...
You said it!
Cubism is philosophically boring. It's just aspective views based on Egyptian art.
@@kbcaterpillar No, it is far more interesting that what you think.
It is based on the fascination with Einstein's theory of relativity, published shortly before the birth of Cubism. In fact, cubism is the observation of a subject in space, but above all its interaction with the fourth dimension. Visually it draws inspiration from African masks, seen in Paris during the Universal Exhibition. Spatial decomposition and geometrozation had already been partly explored by Cezanne, who in turn drew inspiration from the early Italian Renaissance, qualities perfected by Cubism and which laid the foundations for all subsequent artistic avant-gardes, such as Futurism and Dada.
She works hard for her money, so hard for it honey.
Medieval mosaic enjoyers: 🗿
total obsession over the characters in the abrahamic pyramid schemes, think it increases their social credit faith-for-afterlife score 😂
yet everyone of those people where better than you. you're like a monkey laughing at a man
Fantastic ! Being an artist this is mind altering , no one told us about this , and the result looks more natural as you pointed out
Ummm....Art 101?
This was interesting😊
It just didn't
Why Ancient Art Was Better Than Renaissance Art? Acording to who? this is the most ridiculous statement.
4:15 That's one ugly museum. A hate letter to the human condition. Anyhow, do not let the negativity in these comments discourage you. We live, we learn.
really nice video
A superb offering. Highly informative, much appreciated.
Super!
Wow!
Nice video!!
Who cares. It’s all great art at the end of the day
Cool
Nice video! Not sure if I'd call it 'better' but I wouldn't say Renaissance paintings are better than than the medieval paintings either. As you say, two parallel lines never meet. Or a circle becomes an oval when seen from the side. In this way, medieval symbolic painting conveys ideas in a better way.
Anyway, I wanted to tell you that my latest video is on a similar subject: About how AI generated art is more akin to the medieval paintings rather than perspective. Would be interested to hear your thoughts!
AI ‘art’ is not art.
@@claudiamanta1943 depends on your definition of art. It has certainly very little to do with our modern understanding of art which is about human expression, authenticity etc. But did you know that in the Middle Ages artists were nameless and painted identical icons of the Virgin Mary? That also has very little to do with our understanding of art.
Personally I like to say that Art is this thing that started around the renaissance with humanism and in fact later capitalism. Therefor I prefer using the word ‘representation’ when referring to art throughout history and AI images. That wider definition is about how a society chooses to represent itself. And AI certainly represents our current world.
@@ludvigInLegendaryLands I think and I believe that art is a way of revealing and unfolding Beauty whilst, also, investing it with meaning as an added layer in the process of translating it within the human realm- the condiment that brings out and combines the flavours of all the ingredients in a meal. It’s stirring honey into the wine of life. It stirs and moves the soul in a direction (positive for people) via contemplation. Fundamentally, there is no difference between experiencing art and experiencing The Divine. It’s a reminder of roots and promise of fruits, whilst intimating a direction. Whether the viewers decide to answer the call or not should remain at their discretion… though no soul cannot not answer the call of the luminous Numinous if revealed properly and with reverence for the Divine, the human, and the creative act itself.
Art is inviting and engaging, it is immediate initiation and revelation.
The Middle Ages’ painters depicted the religious figures following a strict set of rules probably hoping to not be quite 100% guilty of worshipping idols (iconoclasm has been a pain in the neck for many, unless one is CG Jung, obviously, with his desperate Ego showing the archetypal finger to a god he refused to himself). Or, perhaps, they had to engrave in the minds the religious set of archetypes through repetition and dogmatic artistic rules. The seeming ‘stiffness’ of the Ancient Egyptian art is another example of engraving the human souls. Hatshepsut’s depiction with royal attire was not a sign that she identified herself as a ‘he/him’, but was a depiction of the head of state. Their queens and kings did not matter as individuals, they merely served the Divine through revealing, enhancing, and maintaining Maat. But I somewhat digress, sorry.
It was a representation which has only a fixing order and its function(s), thus not pure art. Ideology is not art, it’s the semantic level that distorts it.
You may argue that any creative endeavour has an underlying ideological hue, and I would agree. However, there is ideology, and there is ideology, the difference being the intent. The ideology of humanism does not put the human being at the centre of everything, but the human reason, which is as ridiculous and hubristic wishful thinking as it is cynical because it has led to dehumanisation.
Unfortunately, no society chooses how to represent itself or, indeed, what to believe. This has always been- and will forever be- the responsibility of the ideologues. Especially the modern ones, and especially those in the West,
have failed miserably. To use your example, AI as the pinnacle of the technology ideology. It is not representing the current world. It is how the techo ideologues would have masses think and see. I see absolutely no reason why I should worship the stained towels of these ideologues who masturbate their dysfunctional brains they need to enlarge via anti- human, atomising insanity. Their products are not seminal; they’re just sterile seeds of evil.
@@claudiamanta1943 wow very well put. I agree with everything here, however I wouldn’t put ‘art’ on any pedestal. Whether it is Jackson pollock funded by CIA or Rembrandt representing a new capitalistic class, or michellango representing a Christian feudalism. I’m simplifying here, but the point is that any form of representation is tied up with an ideology and a power structure. And indeed AI images represent an anti-human technocratic future. But so does much of human creations that have simply become content.
And yes you are more than free to hate AI images and choose a representation that suits your ideology.
Anyway, I would love to have you critique my videos!
@@ludvigInLegendaryLands Thank you. Art has, indeed, an ideological substrate. But absolutely everything does. It’s not en end in itself, but a means. I would still put it on a pedestal in the same vein as the Ancients did as they had a much richer and flexible mind than our contemporaries. I would rather have a statue of The Divine than worship the human mind that hubristically fools itself it doesn’t whilst worshipping itself and its products.
Me and AI and its minions who hide their lack of ability to create behind this idol of theirs are not friends. Actually, this has made me into its enemy. An impressive achievement on their part as I naturally hate confrontation. But, given the penury of men, a woman must do what needs to be done and grow some balls.
Thank you for the invitation, I shall have a look at your channel.
Both are still unlimited times better than “Modern Art”
I doubt you know anything about modern art. Bro saw one meme about modern art and decided its all like this
I never understood why renaissance art is said to be so great when rococo, romanticism, even baroque is so much more fun. I understand that you have to walk before you can run, but if someone knew nothing about films, would you recommend them silent films or the lord of the rings?
The renaissance was an artistic revolution. Not just a simple walk before a run. All the future art styles may have been more sophisticated but they didn't innovate as much as the renaissance. When you look at the achivements of a specific age you dont compare them to the upcoming age to know their greatness but to the former age.
The movie allegory isn't the best example because silent films were more like a gimmick at the time not an actual art style yet, and that wasnt the golden age of filmography in terms of innovation
@@codboss7092 Compared to what came before, I agree that it's more fun, but I don't know why everyone goes on and on about it when you're sure to have more fun with art from the 1800s.
Because artists like Da Vinci, Michelangelo, Dürer, Hieronymus Bosch, van Eyck, and Hans Holbein were brilliant actually.
@@RuthvenMurgatroyd Yeah but not as good as Anders Zorn, John Singer Sargent, William Adolphe Bougerau, John William Waterhouse, Caspar David Friedrich, and many more that came after.
@@Siegfried5846 I disagree. They are up there with them.
They hated him because he spoke the truth
Great content, straight to the point and reach of valuable informations, support from Italy 🫶🏻