If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(From the Grapevine)   Togas never go out of fashion   ( fromthegrapevine.com) divider line
    More: Obvious, Tel Aviv, Ancient Rome, Israel Antiquities Authority, Byzantine Empire, Jerusalem, Archaeology, Assaf Peretz, Roman Empire  
•       •       •

1489 clicks; posted to Geek » on 09 Feb 2018 at 11:05 AM (23 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



27 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2018-02-09 09:46:01 AM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-02-09 11:20:05 AM  
We're done here, last one turn out the lights.
 
2018-02-09 11:28:11 AM  
When I first looked at the photos, I was expecting to see some sort of childish drawing. Not that I'm hating on ancient artists or anything; I just wouldn't expect them to know much about anatomy or perspective.

This is 1800 years old. As in 200 AD. Does this moran not understand that the Greek empires that brought us the incredibly lifelike marble statues like the Venus de Milo were hundreds of years older than that? When does the author believe that lifelike art actually began? The Renaissance?
 
2018-02-09 11:28:14 AM  
And when he says 'here'; he means all of Fark and the entire Internet, not just this thread.
 
2018-02-09 11:28:46 AM  
Thanks a lot, Shaggy.
 
2018-02-09 11:40:48 AM  
quickmeme.comView Full Size
 
2018-02-09 11:56:30 AM  
It doesn't have to be on a wall to be called a mural. I learned something today.
 
2018-02-09 11:57:03 AM  

Shaggy_C: When I first looked at the photos, I was expecting to see some sort of childish drawing. Not that I'm hating on ancient artists or anything; I just wouldn't expect them to know much about anatomy or perspective.

This is 1800 years old. As in 200 AD. Does this moran not understand that the Greek empires that brought us the incredibly lifelike marble statues like the Venus de Milo were hundreds of years older than that? When does the author believe that lifelike art actually began? The Renaissance?


(1) It is mosaic, which is an art-form that doesn't lend itself to nuanced details.

(2) There was a shift away from realistic figures through the first millennium - just look at much of medieval art.  Art has not been a constant movement toward photorealism.  When you see realism as getting in the way of - or even antithetical to - your message, you ditch it

(3) There is also the fact that not every piece of art was made by a great master.  Home art was often slapped up as fast as it could be, and b whomever you could get.  Public art got the high-end treatment.  Your house was more likely arted up by Thomas Kinkade than Rembrandt.
 
2018-02-09 12:02:10 PM  

Shaggy_C: When I first looked at the photos, I was expecting to see some sort of childish drawing. Not that I'm hating on ancient artists or anything; I just wouldn't expect them to know much about anatomy or perspective.

This is 1800 years old. As in 200 AD. Does this moran not understand that the Greek empires that brought us the incredibly lifelike marble statues like the Venus de Milo were hundreds of years older than that? When does the author believe that lifelike art actually began? The Renaissance?


Anatomy especially gets me. I suppose he thinks nobody would have thought to look at a real live person to figure out what they ought to look like in a painting?
 
2018-02-09 12:05:39 PM  

turboke: It doesn't have to be on a wall to be called a mural. I learned something today.


phalamir: ...

(1) It is mosaic...


phalamir is super pissed at turboke right now
 
2018-02-09 12:10:33 PM  

SuperChuck: Shaggy_C: When I first looked at the photos, I was expecting to see some sort of childish drawing. Not that I'm hating on ancient artists or anything; I just wouldn't expect them to know much about anatomy or perspective.

This is 1800 years old. As in 200 AD. Does this moran not understand that the Greek empires that brought us the incredibly lifelike marble statues like the Venus de Milo were hundreds of years older than that? When does the author believe that lifelike art actually began? The Renaissance?

Anatomy especially gets me. I suppose he thinks nobody would have thought to look at a real live person to figure out what they ought to look like in a painting?


You say that, but even early Renaissance painters didn't paint the infant Jesus as a baby, but a really small adult.  There is an entire sub-section of Madonnas w/ 50yo Midget.  And Michelangelo had famously bad women - every one has bolt-on Tupperware containers on their chests - despite the fact that it would have been amazingly easy to see topless women even if he didn't want to fark them.

/And I pray to God that Picasso wasn't trolling the circus freak-shows for models.
 
2018-02-09 12:12:31 PM  

mufhugger: turboke: It doesn't have to be on a wall to be called a mural. I learned something today.

phalamir: ...

(1) It is mosaic...

phalamir is super pissed at turboke right now


Mosaic is defined by its material, not its location.  Mosaics can be murals, but don't have to be - and murals can be mosaics, but don't have to be.
 
2018-02-09 12:15:41 PM  
FTFA: Apparently, college students aren't the only ones to celebrate togas.

This was the first line of TFA, and it went downhill from there.
 
2018-02-09 12:16:14 PM  

phalamir: There was a shift away from realistic figures through the first millennium - just look at much of medieval art.  Art has not been a constant movement toward photorealism.  When you see realism as getting in the way of - or even antithetical to - your message, you ditch it


Well, there is a reason they were called the "Dark Ages." It just seems shocking to me that someone would actually admit to not understanding that realism and perspective in art existed in the Roman empire. Literally the first thing that pops into my head when you say "Roman art" is a realistic marble statue.

As far as the move towards photorealism, I do still consider that period in the 1700s when realism (not necessarily the movement) took hold to be the epitome - maybe the Dutch Golden Age? Impressionism really took things downhill from an aesthetic perspective, even if the 'meaning' became stronger.
 
2018-02-09 12:22:06 PM  

Shaggy_C: phalamir: There was a shift away from realistic figures through the first millennium - just look at much of medieval art.  Art has not been a constant movement toward photorealism.  When you see realism as getting in the way of - or even antithetical to - your message, you ditch it

Well, there is a reason they were called the "Dark Ages." It just seems shocking to me that someone would actually admit to not understanding that realism and perspective in art existed in the Roman empire. Literally the first thing that pops into my head when you say "Roman art" is a realistic marble statue.

As far as the move towards photorealism, I do still consider that period in the 1700s when realism (not necessarily the movement) took hold to be the epitome - maybe the Dutch Golden Age? Impressionism really took things downhill from an aesthetic perspective, even if the 'meaning' became stronger.


One thing to remember when you get to Impressionists is that the camera was starting to become a practical device.  No matter how realistic you were as a painter, a schlub with minimal training could do it better in a couple of seconds.  You're literally wasting your time trying to be realistic.  You, however, could message the ever living hell out of a painting, while photography hadn't quite matured as an art form to the point that they could keep up.

Also, I don't think the writer was trying to say realism had never occurred beforehand, but that third century art wasn't often realistic - and especially not home art.  Seems like bad phrasing more than anything.
 
2018-02-09 12:30:18 PM  
Not sure about togas - but when I wore a kilt "regimental" (commando) a few times I had the happiest set of balls on the planet!
 
2018-02-09 12:31:43 PM  

phalamir: Also, I don't think the writer was trying to say realism had never occurred beforehand, but that third century art wasn't often realistic - and especially not home art.  Seems like bad phrasing more than anything.


What got me was that they used the word 'perspective' - which is something that I remember specifically being used not too long ago in a discussion of Egyptian art and how some wall painting may have been the first attempt at adding 'perspective' to the art. So, clearly this person is somewhat educated - why, then, the surprise? I just don't get it.
 
2018-02-09 12:35:52 PM  

Shaggy_C: Well, there is a reason they were called the "Dark Ages."


Actually, they didn't think it was appropriate to use realism.  Art was supposed to confer social position and office over individual.  So, God/Jesus was the biggest person in the scene, then angels, then religious figures, then kings, then nobles, then soldiers, then commoners.  Giant-ass Jesus looming over wee peasants was intentional.  And "The King of Bohemia" was more important than "Fred, 7th King of Bohemia" - expressing kingness took precedence over Fredness.
 
2018-02-09 12:43:21 PM  

Shaggy_C: phalamir: Also, I don't think the writer was trying to say realism had never occurred beforehand, but that third century art wasn't often realistic - and especially not home art.  Seems like bad phrasing more than anything.

What got me was that they used the word 'perspective' - which is something that I remember specifically being used not too long ago in a discussion of Egyptian art and how some wall painting may have been the first attempt at adding 'perspective' to the art. So, clearly this person is somewhat educated - why, then, the surprise? I just don't get it.


For the same reason you are surprised if a toddler uses perspective - it isn't expected in that context, even if perspective has existed in a previous time period.  Third century home art is not an expected context for perspective (or at least nuanced perspective).  Remember that stuff like this was not meant for public consumption.  It was decoration for a home, seen by the household and close friends.  It was the equivalent of Great Aunt Mildred's oils you hang in your foyer - this might even have been done by the Late Roman equivalent of Great Aunt Mildred.  Art for that setting is more about appealing to the homeowner and/or appeasing Great Aunt Mildred, not approaching the quality of public art, which would have been much more realistic and had higher quality.
 
2018-02-09 02:05:58 PM  

Shaggy_C: Well, there is a reason they were called the "Dark Ages."


And that reason was intellectual snobbery in the 18th Century.
 
2018-02-09 02:09:11 PM  

phalamir: /And I pray to God that Picasso wasn't trolling the circus freak-shows for models.


This one doesn't look too freaky:
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-02-09 03:04:56 PM  

phalamir: mufhugger: turboke: It doesn't have to be on a wall to be called a mural. I learned something today.

phalamir: ...

(1) It is mosaic...

phalamir is super pissed at turboke right now

Mosaic is defined by its material, not its location.  Mosaics can be murals, but don't have to be - and murals can be mosaics, but don't have to be.


I always assumed murals went on a wall because, well, 'mūrus.' But per Wikipedia, a "mural is any piece of artwork painted or applied directly on a wall, ceiling or other permanent surface." I'm glad I looked that up before I berated TFA.
 
2018-02-09 03:07:10 PM  
I only have one toga now days and only use it for ritual orgies.
 
2018-02-09 04:18:51 PM  
It's PARTY time in the cockpit!

img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-02-09 06:33:50 PM  
Nor dyslexic goats
Nigerian dwarf goat kid is the GOAT
Youtube UyvAgjNhE9o
 
2018-02-09 10:42:02 PM  

phalamir: Shaggy_C: When I first looked at the photos, I was expecting to see some sort of childish drawing. Not that I'm hating on ancient artists or anything; I just wouldn't expect them to know much about anatomy or perspective.

This is 1800 years old. As in 200 AD. Does this moran not understand that the Greek empires that brought us the incredibly lifelike marble statues like the Venus de Milo were hundreds of years older than that? When does the author believe that lifelike art actually began? The Renaissance?

(1) It is mosaic, which is an art-form that doesn't lend itself to nuanced details.

(2) There was a shift away from realistic figures through the first millennium - just look at much of medieval art.  Art has not been a constant movement toward photorealism.  When you see realism as getting in the way of - or even antithetical to - your message, you ditch it

(3) There is also the fact that not every piece of art was made by a great master.  Home art was often slapped up as fast as it could be, and b whomever you could get.  Public art got the high-end treatment.  Your house was more likely arted up by Thomas Kinkade than Rembrandt.


Velvet Greco
 
2018-02-10 02:18:07 AM  

Shaggy_C: When I first looked at the photos, I was expecting to see some sort of childish drawing. Not that I'm hating on ancient artists or anything; I just wouldn't expect them to know much about anatomy or perspective.

This is 1800 years old. As in 200 AD. Does this moran not understand that the Greek empires that brought us the incredibly lifelike marble statues like the Venus de Milo were hundreds of years older than that? When does the author believe that lifelike art actually began? The Renaissance?


So, like, if you spend a lot of your life digging stuff up, you dig up a lot of crap.  Crap artwork, crap tools, all the basic crap we have in our life.  It's probably true that there was a higher percentage of crap back then because they lacked the tools and time that we have today.  Archaelogists love that crap, I'm sure, but it doesn't mean it isn't a nice surprise to see something good once in awhile.  I don't think he's a moron, just realistic, but I think you're being unfair.
 
Displayed 27 of 27 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report