>>948561I actually do get what you're talking about - to me, Bougereau and his ilk are at the height of artistic achievement. It's just that your arguments are so idiotically composed that I kind of feel compelled to point it out to you so that you're not misrepresenting a point of view that I somewhat share.
You're sitting there getting angry about concept-art - why? If you're going to get angry at anything, it should be the people who hold it up as being the highest point in art - it's not the people who are creating it who will be lauding it as the best thing since sliced bread; they are, more often than not, amongst the ones who have the highest regard for the old masters.
You actually hit upon the greatest fault in your logic in both posts:
>Art needs to have some originality in order to be good. >drones repeated drawing Master Chief knock offsYou've managed to out-do yourself in proving you have no idea what you're talking about. You say that modern concept-artists are doing nothing but rehashing and copying one another, yeah? You do realise that's essentially all that the great masters did, right? Painting after painting after painting of mythological and biblical scenes they themselves did not create, near identical portraits of beautiful people that, whilst technically stunning, were near identical in theme and composition - the fact that you're even trying to argue that a lack in creativity is a flaw in modern concept art whilst holding it up in a direct comparison to classics just boggles the mind; the only reason I can think of for someone thinking this is that you have no education on the matter whatsoever.
Creativity was expressly discouraged, in fact. Strict adherence to specific schools of painting styles and learning was enforced in all ateliers pretty much until modernity.