this post was submitted on 24 Nov 2024
328 points (98.2% liked)
Traditional Art
4524 readers
240 users here now
From dabblers to masters, obscure to popular and ancient to futuristic, this is an inclusive community dedicated to showcasing all types of art by all kinds of artists, as long as they're made in a traditional medium
'Traditional' here means 'Physical', as in artworks which are NON-DIGITAL in nature.
What's allowed: Acrylic, Pastel, Encaustic, Gouache, Oil and Watercolor Paintings; Ink Illustrations; Manga Panels; Pencil and Charcoal sketches; Collages; Etchings; Lithographs; Wood Prints; Pottery; Ceramics; Metal, Wire and paper sculptures; Tapestry; weaving; Qulting; Wood carvings, Armor Crafting and more.
What's not allowed: Digital art (anything made with Photoshop, Clip Studio Paint, Krita, Blender, GIMP or other art programs) or AI art (anything made with Stable Diffusion, Midjourney or other models)
make sure to check the rules stickied to the top of the community before posting.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
In a word: orientalism. This art movement was predicated on the exoticism and “othering” of subject matter and the bystanders serve as a proxy for the audience of the art itself.
Thank you for your response!
Welcome! I should have linked the wiki but here you go: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientalism
Edward Said’s Orientalism is a real slog to read, but definitely the foundational academic work on this, if your interest is piqued.
Orientalism wasn't an art movement, the picture is in "academic" style.
IMO your interpretation can be put in a more straightforward/blunt way: the painting is basically pornography built upon cheap cultural stereotypes. (And it really is bizarre that this sort of garbage art gets upvoted to much, simply because it has an air of refinement around itself that excuses its clearly pornographic character.)
Maybe we're just upvoting it because we enjoy pornography...lol.
Well, I guess that would be fair, as long as we don't confuse sexual appeal with artistic value. (Saying this in particular due to a poster guy ITT who said an another poster critical of the painting should "get some culture".) But the fact that it is posted on an art sublemmy and not some NSFW sublemmy, suggests that the confusion has occurred.
Lol. Great point.
Now I find myself contemplating how long one could theoretically go with a daily cross-post that technically fit the rules of both this and at least one NSFW community...I wonder if they would ever run out of eligible art pieces...
This is sad. It's basically a figure study in 4 parts. Go back and slap whomever you paid for your degree.
Maybe you should slap your ophthalmologist instead. You're acting as if the picture does not represent what it literally represents, or as if it does not have the effect that it clearly does have and which it also intended to have. I won't argue any further against denial of reality.
The onlookers look like attendants of the guests.