Art history is kinda pointless if the art is all destroyed isn’t it?

There aren't really words for how mad it makes me. Like.. murderous

That’s how I feel when I see historical artifacts or buildings being destroyed

Honestly, I lump most of that under art. My favorite class ever was a history of architecture

an Art History student doesnt possess every piece of art they study? They study it, them studying it is what keeps it alive after its destroyed

The books with the photos are what keeps it alive

The Weimar Republic is destroyed yet I still studied that at college...

But only if they arent destroyed too

What are they going to do? Replicate it all? Either the art exists somewhere and survives it in some way, or it doesn’t exist and disappears after a generation.

<:PeelyGun:712488523583848499>

That is a massive difference

In what way?

Both are history

Because lemme tell you how I havent the talent to recreate the garden of earthly delights tryptich

You guys win the nerdiest internet argument I've seen all month award good work

One is a period government the other is a piece of culture

Why is it more valuable to study one over the other

You want to compare a painting or a book to a massive nation that existed for a decade, governing a ton of people, having an impact on the economy and governments of other nations

We've probably already lost 99% of all the art ever created

Knowing about the downfall of the Weimar republic shows you what to avoid, knowing about the Mona Lisa is a fun bit of reading, but not particularly useful.

The.. useful art is psychological in nature

Going back full circle

The black death. Dancing skeletons

It tells you more about the era and the people than the remaining writings

Knowing the art, literature and culture of the world allows us to understand humanity and the world through history

The destruction of any statue, be it left or right, be it hateful or heroic, is catastrophic. They should be kept in a museum, and shown as part of history.

And those things help us to know how people felt during the plague, and other things, but they don’t help us to know things like what decisions were being made, who exactly was most affected, where it came from.

Agreed

Unless you know where the art originated.

But knowing the empires, influential people, and important points in history is more practical

<a:1717_Crab_Rave:726883571033440366> history forgotten is bound to be relived

If you only want to know a single piece of history sure @VulpesVulpes

Then again, I could have gotten a dual degree in history with 2 more classes but i was so done with liberal teachers by then 😂

But if you want a contextual understand of a period and people definitely look at the art and culture of the time

History should be presented objectively and from the context of that era, not ideologically.

Agreed. And if it has to be with an ideological bent, that bent should be explained

There is no such thing as objective history

Like, it was written by this dude, who won

So take it with a grain of salt

Well, history is written by winners, so yeah.

I’d argue that the belief in objective history is worse than not having history at all