Why is it that some of the great civilizations of the world only left stylized artwork, especially portraits?
If you think about artworks from any period further back than the last millennium, it seems that all the painted or drawn stuff is so highly stylized that portraits etc are not recognizable as individuals. I know the Romans, Greek and Chinese in particular were capable of producing very lifelike sculpture. So why didn’t they do what every modern kid does and draw people that look as they actually appear?
I once got bored with my boyfriend and his iPod and drew a very recognizable portrait of him. I still have it. I’ll never be an artist but it wasn’t that hard. What prevented people from doing the same thing with a burnt stick and a chunk of bark? Is it simply that no example survived? That seems unlikely as stylized pictures show up everywhere from Medieval Europe to Asia to the Far North and to the Mayan and Inca civilizations. Somebody must have come up with a “photographic” style portrait!
I suspect as well that some of it was based on what we now would call the uncanny valley. If you are trying to produce something realistic, but it’s flawed due to poor technique or equipment, the flaws will really stand out, and it’ll look really, really wrong.
If the image is already stylized, it’s both easier to avoid making those flaws, and the flaws won’t be as obvious.
Why make something realistic? If you want to know what a tree, a horse or a person looks like you can go outside and see one.
Art is too important for such trivia. We need to show what the essence of the world is, how the King is the embodiment of Celestial Order (his unusually large nose is irrelevant), how the seas themselves give up their bounty to our people. Restricting an artist to showing each rope on one of the fisherfolk’s boats is absurd.
Some of those ancient civilizations, such as the Maya and Egyptians, had writing systems that were highly pictorial, so some of the “art” wasn’t intended to be representative of reality so much as to communicate with the reader/viewer. Think of the stylized symbols used all over the world to denote things like men’s and women’s toilets - we can draw/print realistic human beings! Why don’t we do that instead of stylized silhouettes?!? Why do political cartoons use caricatures? Why not photos of the people depicted?!? It’s because realism isn’t necessary to convey the message, or might even get in the way of the message.
Probably doesn’t account for all the stylized aspects of those civilizations’ art, but some of it almost certainly.
Yes, the Greek, Roman and Egyptian examples are certainly very natural but the Chinese isn’t. I had no idea the Egyptians did mummy portraits of that quality!
In the past creating art was a more time intensive and probably expensive thing to do. The time involved could seriously cut into things you probably needed to do - like procuring food for instance. Carving likenesses into stone wasn’t as easy as running down to Walmart and grabbing some cheap paper and paint. I think it’s a fair question to ask if you going through the trouble to create a likeness, why not make it look as close to the original as possible.
And which ancient Egyptians would be popping down to the (sealed) tombs to look at pictures of their absent loved ones?
Ancient art wasn’t always (or even often) about personal use. A lot of it was propaganda: serving the needs of the state and ruling dynasty, whether in the public eye or in the eyes of the undying gods.
In other words, your question proceeds from faulty assumptions.
As an art movement, yes, but in terms of representationalism (which is how I understand the OP) it goes back much farther. (And capital-R Realism was more a philosophical idea and what subjects were art worthy, how they were portrayed, etc. than one of painting technique.)
And then there is photo-realism, which is, basically, painting or drawing something that looks like a photograph. Never understood the appeal.
Please note that the mummy portrait is from the 3rd century AD. By that point in history, Egypt had been Roman for longer than the United States has been a country. And before that, it had been Hellenized (i.e., conquered by the Greeks) for about the same time.
Which one of these traditional Chinese portraits is realistic enough for you?
Look at the date–3rd century AD. By then, Egypt had been under Greek, then Roman rule for a longer time than the period between Christopher Columbus and today. Of course their art would have been Hellenized/Romified by then.
Right. Realism was about painting peasants in the act of digging potatoes or poor people eating potatoes, or other, non-potato-related things that actual people did in real life.
Before then, even highly representational art was usually paintings of Jesus, or angels or Kings, wearing symbolic clothes and making symbolic hand gestures, and other things that, while it looked like a realistic person doing them, wasn’t very realistic. Sort of like a sci-fi movie wouldn’t be called “realistic” even if the actors looked indistinguishable from real people.
But also, as said above, because they weren’t trying to convey what people looked like. Art was time intensive, so it was meant to say more than simply that. The stylization was part of that.
Sure, but you still have portraits of ordinary people in Renaissance art, as well, especially in self-portraits. I mean, yes, I guess it’s not “realistic” in the sense that it is a posed portrait, but from the OP, the sense seems to be representational rather than abstracted/stylized versions of the subject: “f you think about artworks from any period further back than the last millennium, it seems that all the painted or drawn stuff is so highly stylized that portraits etc are not recognizable as individuals” For the purposes of the OP, the sci-fi movie would count, but something like, a sci-fi cartoon would not.
