Message from @Goblin_Slayer_Floki
Discord ID: 536287052321521691
are you going to draw a disney character in a brutal melee, like that is like Rousseau levels of.... well, dishonesty, in terms of what an actual battle would be like
lol
well here is the thing
well the boyishness is there to get the viewer to sympathize i guess, because it was humanistic... not that humanism is bad over all (it is what inspired more realistic paintings in the first place), but eventually they kind of double down on the humanism until it looks like disney, to get the most unempathetic person to say 'well this is a person, not an object!' or something
i'll address your other comment first
a painting is a static thing, painting something realistically, like a battle, it wouldn't convey the full gravity and feeling of the event
you have to understand that without music or movement, you have very little to work with in terms of getting the emotion and importance of the event across. so you have to exaggerate it to highlight those things
picture is still a thousand words
it's condensed a bit
we're just desensitized by the amount of 'feeling' or info that can be conveyed... in a lot of ways, movies and videogames are redundant in conveying these things
imo
sure
well, fun talk
i suppose you agree?
well i had more lol
but thats okay
yea, i have to afk
anyway so
Tbh i look at classic battlefield paintings and get more emotion than many action movies or games.
yeah, that's the point, and the point i was trying to make
The key difference is without studying, you tend to have less empathy with a picture than a movie or game because the movie or game has the advantage of getting you to relate or like the character involved.
Even without character knowledge
Its more of taking the scene in and feeling the scene as upposed to movies/games where the feeling is more character based
those paintings are meant to be epic because its trying to show the full scale of times
and the importance of the events
Both can equally move a person, but i see it for different reasons.
Because both have pros and cons depending on how they attempt
Wrong channel, delete this @Broo TulsiGang 2024 🇬🇧 🇺🇸
inb4 "no u"
2017 is history 🤷🏿
dont play games
We agreed that prior to 9/11 is pre-history before we made this
^
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oPCtYA47rE&lc=z22sud2gpy2mhfre0acdp433laszooljk4ccy4y2d21w03c010c.1547937296604850 posted a comment on the above video: "The roman emperor of roman constantinople (which is not rome, but still roman!) wore purple boots. masturbates furiously"
i knew it would trigger a response, and sure enough
i get a fucking wall of text from some eastern euro
A Jim Fan I do not understand your comment and it is misleading. First of all, Constantine the XI Paleologos was the last Emperor of Rome, albeit reduced at this time primarily to the City of Constantinople. When Constantine the Great founded the new capitol of the Roman Empire on the site of the Ancient Greek city of Byzantium (from which the empire later erroneously got its name from later Western historians) in 330AD, its official name was New Rome, the successor to old Rome. Therefore it was in effect Rome, the capitol of the Roman Empire now situated in the East. However, because Constantine The Great had founded.... etc. (YOU GET THE POINT)
it goes for another 5 paragraphs or something
is sucking the dick of a bunch a dead monarchs part of reviving eastern europe's past?
because that's unecessary double downing imo