Random convo I had w/ @calebwatney recently: what explains the fact that sculpture hasn't improved as an art in ~500 years, but movies have?
-
-
usually when the high renaissance is cited as the apex of visual art the yardstick used is naturalistic idealism
-
That's a really good point. Do you think using the terms "better/worse" is generally unhelpful, or just this case?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
I think we can say confidence that David is pretty close to as good as it gets, but I could be persuaded
-
A good argument can be made for the Pieta but that doesn't change anything.
-
michaelangelo's david is a painter's sculpture, bernini's is a sculptor's sculpture
-
but on the "naturalistic idealism" scale what I was going to say is the renaissance isn't the top of the list
-
works like canova's psyche and cupid or corradini's veiled truth are far more accomplished showpieces of technical skill and ideal beauty
-
but they don't get feted as much as the renaissance sculptors because that's *all* they are, and were recognized as such in their time
-
Oh we don't disagree! I wouldn't make the argument that Michaelangelo is the apex I would say I'm hard pressed to find modern comparisons
-
oh I'm not disputing that at all, responding to "500 years" not with "wtf sculpture rules now" but with "150 years"
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.