The quality of paintings is linked to the craftsmanship of the painter.Materials knowledge and materials use are important.
In the second half of the nineteenth century, many painters used new industrial dyes that were not colour-real.A purple that changes in grey over time.
The van Eyck brothers used Eitempera as the basis for the dyes, later they mainly used flax seed oil as a base.The real oil paint. Nowadays one uses also acrylic paint. It is unclear how the acrylics behave over hundreds of years.
In The Louvre I saw many paintings with lots of cracks.Much of the eighteenth century. Surface and paint do not form a good unit, probably one has also worked too quickly. These are cloths that have been quickly painted to meet the demands of the French nobility.
Nowadays there is enough knowledge to make paintings of excellent quality.Oil painting, Eitempera, chalk drawings, with dyes of the very best quality, light real. The best paper types, acid-free handmade paper, the best cloths, lacquers, etcetera. A skilled painter can create the very best paintings ever.
You can also paint and experiment with home garden and kitchen paints of the worst quality.On cardboard, badly prepared cotton, etcetera. Often it is difficult to figure out how qualitatively good a painting is. From Dali, for example, I expect that he devoted great care to good materials. Inspired by Velasquez and Renaissance painters. Picasso could have used materials of lesser quality. This is just a blow in the air. And so there are hundreds or thousands of painters currently busy.
Probably there are hundreds of painters who are just as good as Rembrandt or Velasquez.Someone who works for months on a canvas will gladly use good materials.
On the other hand, there are modernists, but I think that every self-respecting painter sets high demands on the material.
Wilko is partly similar to his comparison between oil paints and acrylate paints.But that is the comparison of works that have been made by selection through time, with all day works of today. And his commentary on modern art reflects his opinion. It is already much harder if, for example, we compare works by Rembrandt with that of Vincent van Gogh. Do we say that Rembrandt’s are of higher quality? That is much more difficult. Taste plays a large role as well as selection by time. Actually, you have to compare works from say 500 years ago to those from 400 years ago. In addition, the element of selection time is similar.
In an attempt to deal objectively with the discussion, there are three aspects that I would like to mention.The first is the development of the technique, the second is the number of painters and finally everything that preceded it.
In The course of time the technique has evolved.New pigments have been developed and discovered, which has led to other colours (more!) and other contrasts. Other binders have also been developed and discovered which, for example, dry more slowly or faster, leading to other possibilities. Also Colourlosore binders. Dito.
Because more people have started painting in certain countries and periods, more talented people have been painting what has led to higher quality work.
Finally: Everyone is always on the shoulders of those who lived for him.As a result, the amount of existing work from which inspiration can be raised has increased over time. By contrast, it has become harder to create original or initial work.
You can read this question in two ways.The quality of the work in itself, or the quality of the materials.
Yes, the quality of the materials has gone down.Acrylic paint is not oil paint. And the canvas that you buy now in the shops for creative hobbies does not have the quality that the cloths that Rembrandt painted on had.
Does the quality of the paintwork itself go down?
Broadly speaking, I would say ‘ yes ‘.Most of the paintings I see from ‘ Real artists ‘ do not appeal to me at all. And then I say it is still friendly. But that has a few very important causes.
- A modern artist seems to have to do it from a form of ‘ self-expression ‘.
The moment he or she makes something ‘ commercially appealing ‘, the rest of the art community looks down on that person. If you seem to earn a lot with your art, you don’t do it well, you earn little with it, you don’t do it well either.
Most people forget that painters such as Rembrandt and artists like Da Vinci always work in order.Nothing ‘ self expression of the deepest souls stir ‘, but purely commercial. That Rembrandt arm died has nothing to do with being undervalued, he deserved capitals. He could only not cope with it. Rembrandt is best compared to some American actors and actresses who earn capitals, but are constantly going bankrupt.
A few centuries later, no one knows them anymore. At the moment we see the work of our less talented artists still everywhere we look. But the filter of time ensures that a lot of attention disappears.
Most of the assignments that Rembrandt received would now give you a photographer. We expect more from a painting than it reflects a certain reality.
When you look at Kris Lewis’s painting below, you have to comment, whether you like it or not, that the painter A. knows how to handle a brush and B. More than simply capturing a portrait.
Yes ENT is quite logical: The times are faster.
If you look at paintings like the Night Watch, there were weeks or months to get ready. Sometimes years. And this was of profesional artists. They spend their lives on this. It was a very something, the right pintuur, etc. Everything was not accessible.
In turn, their work was paid well.They could live Luux. Because there were not many.
It’s different.Everyone is impatient, drawing talent was sitting, and with Photoshop you can do it fast in a day.
All in all, you don’t deserve it.
This is the reason that painting is due. But there are plenty of nice visual graphics.Many video games etc are works of art.
But paintings on a canvas, das nie more of the time.