Please post a piece from your favourite "classical" artist!Really just looking for new pieces to do master studies from (for colour/comp/rendering mostly) but there's too much variety... Hard mode: no Sargent allowed ;D(Personal fave is the "Roses of Heliogabalus" by Lawrence Alma-Tadema, it looks like a mess but the detailing is amazing!)
>>2810413not really a "classical" but still..
>>2810413Technically not classical but i really like this piece
>>2810413a well painted chicken
ill give it a shot
>>2810413>it looks like a mess but the detailing is amazing!Almost always my favourite kind.
>>2810667Same here! I know fixating on the tiny details isn't the best way to go, but can't help it when textures are so skilfully painted.Thanks for all the pics btw!
>>2810714I bet this guy got bullied by his painter bros for making her neck so freakishly fat.
It's another old master thread with almost no actual old master.
>>2810732More like another thread about old oil paintings with an unprecise title.The term might not be used correctly, but OP specifies what this thread is for in their post, the priority not being that it's actual old master paintings from before 1800, evident by them posting Alma-Tadema and mentioning Sargent.But here, have some Van Dyck.
This is only the middle panel
Orientalists make my dick hard.
>>2811077I had no idea there was even a distinction, thanks for clarifying! If there's a next time I'll just name it "dead oil painters" or something.
>>2810636there is something so beautiful about the contrast between her skin and the background.
>>2810534Never seen this before, it's amazing
>>2811456I didn't know before checking wikipedia, after someone posed the question here about a week ago. The more you know.It's an art history term, but definitely used more loosely on /ic/, here including basically all skilled painters who have been dead for a while.
>>2811077The misconception is wide-spread. It reaches even into successful and influential mentor-painters that are looked up to for guidance. It often thus happens that the influence and exposure that artists think are old masters are overwhelmingly not old masters.
>>2810413If you like Alma-Tadema you'll also like his student John William Godward.
this my fave Bouguereau painting
>>2813376But those are artists, not art-historians. Could one not say that outside of a scientific use, the term has a broader, more colloquial meaning? I mean it obviously does, if it is used so frequently and everyone knows what is meant by it.
>>2813573I suppose I should have clarified that I'm not speaking of mere artists, but that they are also instructors who often talk about history here and there, for various reasons. That an incorrect usage achieves a colloquial meaning is no grounds for clearance to continue with its usage and develop it even more as a colloquial term. In many cases it should rather be corrected. I should also correct myself in saying that the misconception is wide-spread as it's not entirely accurate; it is wide-spread among those who even know about the so-called academic 19th century painting at all, which is still relatively obscure to the public.My concern with this subject is not chiefly to do with the field of art history of meaningless trivia, but for form. The way the world was viewed and painting changed either drastically in the 19th century, especially around the later half it seems, or that it gradually changed to the point that it could not anymore be accounted among the art of old masters, as when a person changes by degrees into something which could no longer be considered its old self. To theorize the reasons of this is the responsibility of historians...
Benczur's Narcissus is gorgeous.
>>2810635>>2810636>>2810714>>2810735>>2811077>>2811456>>2811501>>2813392I absolutely love these. High-level detail, especially in cloth folds, gives me the strangest art boner.Thanks for sharing. I only wish I had something to contribute to the thread.
>>2813387woah i've checked up on godward before but never knew about that, thanks so much! do you have more of his work that you like?>>2816725yay! that's what this thread is for heheh. i also have a lot of trouble finding stuff myself but it's so inspiring discovering new artists.
>>2815927what is with all the droopy eye-lids?
>>2810615Woah ive never seen someone post this painting before, wow!
Mucha was so good, he's one of my favorite painters
>>2810413It looks like vomit in the thumbnail.
>>2817265that's why i love it~
>>2817251Ah, that was the one painter I liked a lot but couldn't remember the name.
>classical art>none of it from the classical period. Fuck man, you people make fun of art students but jesus fuck do you need an education.
>>2823829OP obviously has not idea what they're talking about so why don't you post classical period works like a good anon
>>2823841Don't mind him. He's just a talentless pseudo-art historian who has it wrong besides. That said, many of the works posted are either a unwitting mockery of classicism or go against it completely.
>>2817251Seeing his slavic epos in real life was pretty amazing.The scale is phenomenal.This reminds me that in the national gallery in prague there were some paintings which I really liked, but failed to remember the artists of.There were several pieces each depicting a women, each representing concepts like liberty, art, law and so on.
>>2823829>>2823841>>2823951see >>2811077Wrongly used terminology aside, it's pretty obvious what OP is and is not concerned with and what accordingly may be posted in this thread.
>>2810413That's a very beautiful piece, anon>>2810534This too