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.

But you can look at a battle painting and still feel the gravatas of it

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

https://twitter.com/Harlan/status/1086653683864084481

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

someone even posted a comment saying "Rome may have fallen, but it's ideas live on."

and I responded "What tenets are those?"

They're not the ones who invented Liberty. You think they know how to use it?

no fucking reply