'>>7143991
Until the (((culture))) can be revived, the arts cannot be revived either.
There is only the (((new))) renaissance, festering forever.';

'>>7144019
do you think our task of revival is much more dificult than 14-16 century masters?

The teacher has always existed, which michelangelo and leonardo used as masters.

We need to learn from the same master of Titian, Rubens, Watts, Monet.';

'It can and should be revived.
Here is how I think we will achieve it:
1. Stop relying on the 19th century sight-size technique (copying the model.) We must learn and understand the structure , the anatomy, the rhythm, and the gesture of what we are seeing. I think most modern classical ateliers like the Florence Academy can only teach copying, so don't go there. Their students produce beautiful but incredibly boring work, and I would be shocked if any of them can create from their imagination alone.
2. Devote at least 4 hours a day to painting practice, but the more we can do the better.
3. Read classical literature, read poetry, learn everything we can about the old masters, listen to classical music. We should immerse ourselves in nature and beauty.
4. Bring your own imagination into it because we don't want to just copy the past works, right?
5. Don't be vulgar (like Odd Nerdrum's paintings of people shitting themselves or his erect dick) It will alienate the audience
6. Get politics out of this renewal, because some very unpleasant ideologies like to associate with the classical arts, as if it's "theirs"
7. Form a community of like minded artists (eventually we will have enough people.)
8. Above all we must be willing to keep going even if the whole world is against us with AIs, modern "art" and other BS, just stop listening to the annoying trolls and do our own stuff.';

'None of you bother to put in any actual effort towards researching about 17th-19th century art beyond knowing the artist names and their works';

'>>7143991
If a classical revival is a worthwhile pursuit then pursue it yourself and others will follow.';

'>>7144061
My Time-Life Library of Art would like a word with you.';

'>>7143991
Gather a few like-minded individuals, and start doing shows. At these shows, state your goals: "Revival of the standards for art".
There's actually a bit of a movement going on in Britain for it, but it also takes interest to keep these things going - so go to these shows if they happen around you, and be vocal about them.

>>7144019
Culture is formed and effected by many things, and a single splash can leave very large ripples. An art movement based on the old standards and principles could well make people admire and use such standards and principles in their day to day lives.

I'd also say that the movement should aim to glorify humanity, rather than portray the darker aspects of it - if you're going for a positive cultural shift as well.';

'Odd Nerdrum is doing it from Norway, influencing people across Europe and some in the US as well.';

'>>7144741
But Odd's group is following something called the Memorosa Dogmas. The worst rule of theirs is that they ban the colour blue. See this video 1:08 when they show their dogma list.
https://caveofapelles.com/2021/the-memorosa-dogmas-and-how-they-can-improve-your-own-paintings-sebastian-salvo-jan-ove-tuv/

Plus his work is simply vulgar.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twilight_(painting)';

'>>7144056
Very underrated response, specially the third and eighth points. Historical realist illustration of higher order are a requirement, and by higher order I mean something greater than ourserlves, greater than stupid politics and ideologies. History is culture, literature is culture, music is culture, and the only way to be part of the creation of culture is by immersing yourself in culture as an spectator. Do you think for a second that titian and bernini, michelangelo, mucha, bouguereau, all these people that reached the highest echelons of art were illiterate? Just their amount of allegories, of illustrative realist paintings of historical, mythological and sacred topics, the deep understanding of the topics and subjects they approached, it's nothing short of beautiful, and only beauty can save culture.

As for the community: go out and open an atelier, indoctrinate the youth to appreciate high art.';

'>>7145713
An addendum: this is the kind of art that AI will never be able to create, because to talk deeply to humans you need yourself to understand humanity, and to put that understanding into art through technique. AI is just a simulacrum, a statistical model, and even if it might copy the looks and mimic the techniques it will never be human and touch humans existentially';

'>>7144056
>We must learn and understand the structure , the anatomy, the rhythm, and the gesture of what we are seeing.
You just described the Russian Academic drawing technique.';

'>>7144841
>tribute to the natural, the true human being whom we all fear
>Plus his work is simply vulgar.
Seems effective imo.
I will say, as a scat fetishist I have some expertise here, the feces appears to be landing in front of her left foot but in that particular squat her buttocks should be in-line with her heel, it should be very slightly behind that foot. Not good anatomy';

'>>7145713
I recently switched from digital art to traditional oil painting and I'm working on a series of drawings and paintings inspired by Greek and Roman myth and classical authors and poets: Homer, Virgil, Ovid, Petrarch and others.

The Renaissance and the Baroque have many secrets and we, as painters, should work to recover and rediscover them. There's so much symbolism, so many stories, it's like swimming in an ocean of meaning and beauty.

I hope that other artists out there are doing the same - reading, painting, learning, diving deep into classical culture, and flipping the middle finger to AI.

There's one thing I am certain about when it comes to the future of the fine arts: our human imagination will always beat AI. Machines cannot invent new fantasy worlds, or even designs for a spaceship that it hasn't seen before. It's only going to do the same, bland, average "trending on artstation" look that everybody is so tired of that they want to bang their heads against the wall.

I am not religious, but I think it's interesting that Pagan religions are the fastest growing right now. People yearn for nature-worship, for reaching toward the sacred, for experiencing more than their endless days of "eat, shit, sleep, work, fuck, suffer" and for true connection with one another. I think that fine art, like religion, can give this to people.

In the end, anti-human sentiment will not succeed. It will not survive. Just like paintings that depict people shitting, it will be cast aside and forgotten. One day we will have a new Renaissance in this world, and it will be amazing.';

'>>7143991
I have the answer but for most of the plebeians it sounds like "gibberish" and "schizoposting."
It's not they're just too blind by "what they already know" to see all the things that I know
they don't know.

Help me anon: how do show someone that all art has ever amounted to so far really is "show and don't tell." People can't seem to tell
what there is
NOT to tell.
That's why they learn to draw realism and love AI. "They like it." We live in the haunting age where people need to show "EVERYTHING" just to feel the quiet whisper of a "yay me likely"

but idk. thats just my take. what do you think?';

'>>7146133
Particularly, I'm going through a lot of change in life and won't be able to dedicate much time to the pursuit of art for the next few months, but your goal and mentality are similar to mine. I've been doing digital since forever and it's just not cutting anymore, it always feels like I'm fighting against the machine to get things, so some months ago I took charcoal and am planning on going for gouache and later oils to transition to traditional.

One thing in which we differ, however, is that I'm religious. And not only am I religious, I'm of the mentality that AI will never compare to humans since we share a root in creation with God, and even if only He can create we can rearrange creation and harness its power, as we do with science, engineering, bending nature and at times even reality to our will, which AI can't do. AI is an statistical analysis based on human reorganization of God's creation, it carries no human intent, and unlike we it shares no part with divinity, it's a mathematician's toy.

As for your perception on paganism and some other nuances: touch grass, the internet is not indicative of reality. I stumbled upon this thread looking for resources on gouache, it's been forever that I haven't been to this site, and to agree with >>7146235 I will add if you want to achieve anything of significance in life you'll have to go counter-"culture", and there's nothing more contrarian than the internet. No matter trying to justify this as a tool, go out and teach the youth, your ideas and efforts will outlive your existence whereas here you're just another datapoint in the statistical pool of insignificance. And in disagreeing with the anon also: is realism purely what meets the eye? What are symbols? What is metaphysics? Does it not require physical displays to be related to the immaterial? What is Logos? Isn't beauty godly? Food for thought';

'>>7146347
While we're discussing religion, I have to bring up the subject of death, as it's necessary to explain why I'm sympathetic to religious belief while not being religious myself:
In the Netherlands, the doctors are giving poison pills to physically healthy patients with depression. There was a news article about an unfortunate woman, only in her 20s, who struggled with bad mental health, and she went to the doctors saying she wanted to destroy herself- so her physicians very happily and very legally killed her.

They could have helped her get better, they could have led her to recovery and wellness, they could have shown her she had other options, because her physical health was good she was young, and the mental health could have improved - but no. They fucking killed her! And don't tell me "but she consented! She chose that fate" she consented to being murdered?! What?! Do you think people can consent to being murdered, what about that German cannibal who ate a consenting victim? Is that fine as well. Are we that divorced from respecting human life? Human dignity? The idea that that woman's life was worthy of saving?

So because my stance on that and other social and cultural issues is so strong, I stand with the Christians, the Buddhists, the Jews, the Hindus and every other variety of faith that respects humanity enough that we can all agree "murder is very fucking wrong"

I sincerely hope things turn around. For society and for art.';

'>>7146408
I agree that almost every life is worth saving. But we have to ask ourselves, where is the line between respecting the sovereign will of others and forcing them to do what is best for themselves?';

'>>7146414
If she wants to die, she can do it herself, the problem is when the state gets unlimited powers to give the death penalty to the mentally ill instead of giving them proper care to feel better. Basically, physicians must respect the Do No Harm idea.

Did you know the Nazis' first batch of victims were consenting volunteers? https://www.amazon.com/Origins-Nazi-Genocide-Euthanasia-Solution/dp/0807846759';