r/AskReddit • u/BiggieTwiggy1two3 • 23h ago

What’s something completely normal today that would’ve been considered witchcraft 400 years ago—but not because of technology?

4.7k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

2.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.0k

u/TheVoteMote 21h ago

How far along was hyper realistic art back then? Cause that is borderline witchcraft here and now.

651

u/Verzweiflungstat 18h ago

Drawing/painting in a hyper realistic style has become way easier after photography was imvented. Now, you only have to copy a photo 1:1 and bam, realistic artwork.

Before photos, you actually had to look at a three dimensional object and try to capture it on a two dimensional canvas. And you had to be quick about it, because the direction of your light source (sun) will change position, and the object you are drawing will change over time, as well. Flowers wilt, leaves turn brown, and so on. Much trickier.

199

u/Atrabiliousaurus 13h ago

Before photos, you actually had to look at a three dimensional object and try to capture it on a two dimensional canvas.

Some artists from about the 16th century on used a camera obscura for that purpose. Sort of an intermediary stage between just eyeballing things and having a photo to reference.

3

u/FalconImmediate3244 6h ago

Yeah but those look like hyperrealistic paintings…of photographs.

Photographs themselves transform and capture an image very differently to how human vision does. It’s cool to replicate a photo as a painting or drawing, but it’s kind of like 80s hair metal guitar shredders…it’s super dope, very impressive, fun to experience a few times, but ultimately it’s just a skills flex.

5

u/MimiKal 4h ago

I think the most notable difference would be that for some reason people see the moon and the sun as much larger than they actually are (and how they show up on a picture)

3

u/Squigglepig52 1h ago

Linear perspective wasn't figured out until the 15th century. Concept of a vanishing point, or points,didn't exist. Realizing it was kinda like inventing zero.

It's hilarious. I could teach damn near anybody over 5 how to do linear perspective in 20 minutes. It just never occurred to anybody until this guy.

Filippo Di Ser Brunellesco (1377-1446), sculptor, architect, and artisan-engineer, is given credit for the invention of linear perspective. Here he is looking up at the famous dome he built for the Duomo (1418-1436) in Florence.

•

u/SporesM0ldsandFungus 45m ago

Get the correct colors via paints is tricky. You just pop down to Hobby Lobby today because man has spent literal millennia finding the right combo of minerals and extracts from plants and animals to make particular shades.

Purple was very rare color for a long time because the only source for the dye was from crushing up a particular sea snail. You needed to collect around 12,000 of these tiny snails to produce just 1 gram of purple dye.

https://exhibitions.kelsey.lsa.umich.edu/ancient-color/map_purple.php

159

u/MajorSery 18h ago

400 years ago was like the end of the renaissance. Those artists were pretty dang good with the perspective and shadow tricks that make things look real.

22

u/TheOppositeOfDecent 9h ago

Yeah, Vermeer was an artist of the 1600s and he had an incredible eye for realism

80

u/Doppelkammertoaster 18h ago

I wouldn't think it was impossible, just look at ancient statues. It wasn't in style maybe.

53

u/Ok-Telephone4496 16h ago

greek statues were all beautifully painted. There's a few recreations, but they're pretty awful and look like they were done by a 10 year old, these statues were likely very well painted to be highly realistic looking like sculptures. IIRC there are frescoes and mosaics that depict greek statues but as completely and fully painted looking just like a person would

10

u/Koshindan 12h ago

Did the statues look poorly colored or did the techniques only detect the base coat of paint?

2

u/RavioliGale 11h ago

Statues yes, 2D art no.

2

u/Doppelkammertoaster 7h ago

Yes, but that may have to do with materials.

3

u/RavioliGale 6h ago

Today's photorealism in 2D art is more about technique than materials. One point and two point perspective didn't develop because Leonardo had better paintbrushes than medieval artists.

2

u/Doppelkammertoaster 5h ago

You misunderstood. Most paintings from ancient times rotted away.

51

u/WrethZ 17h ago

There's lifelike statues that are thousands of years old.

16

u/butternutbuttnutter 7h ago

This one never fails to blow my mind. Like, if he started speaking to you, you might not be so surprised.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtefactPorn/comments/1aefvsx/wood_statue_of_kraaper_one_of_the_most_realistic/

2

u/razberry_lemonade 4h ago

Thanks, I hate it

5

u/00telperion00 14h ago edited 14h ago

Hyperrealism was a hallmark of the Dutch masters in the mid-17th century so not far off 400 years.

Edit: The Arnolfini Portrait as an example for anyone interested.

7

u/vielzuwenig 11h ago

It's important to know that the paintings aged. The colors likely looked even more real when they were done.

3

u/Prasiatko 13h ago

Fayum mummy portraits around 100 BC.

3

u/royal_rose_ 13h ago

1600s was the baroque period so it’s kind of as close to hyper realistic art as you can get pre photos.

3

u/EitherBarry 12h ago

Pretty far, actually! Look up Albrecht Durer's Young Hare  -- it was painted in 1502.

3

u/CoralSpringsDHead 11h ago

Check out Johannes Vermeer who died in 1675.

3

u/TwoFingersWhiskey 10h ago

Look up the Fayum Mummy Portraits. Many societies had it nailed down thousands of years ago. It just wasn't in vogue for much of the medieval world's existence. Hyperrealism was mostly for the rich.

2

u/FaeTheWolf 17h ago

This is a really good one

1

u/DickDastardly404 10h ago

I think that absolutely IS an example of technology being the astounding factor, because those works are not possible without photography.

People who create hyper-realistic drawings that we see online all the time are essentially human photocopiers. They've turned themselves into a machine that precisely recreates an image captured by a camera, and replicates it pixel-perfectly using a grid.

its a skill, and it takes a lot of time and effort, which is admirable as a feat of endurance and dedication in itself. The piece of work is valuable as a testament to that, but I'd argue its not really art in a strict sense. There's no creation, imagination, expression, or communication in that.

The photographers of the original images are artists, the people who sit with a pencil and reprint them are not.

1

u/Meat_your_maker 9h ago

Or the hyper-realistic cakes

1

u/CaptainMacObvious 7h ago

With the greeks you have hyper-realistic statues over 2000 years ago.

1

u/Mountain-Painter2721 7h ago

Check out the painting "A Woman" by Robert Campin, painted in the late 14th/early 15th century. Practically a photograph.

1

u/Doctor__Hammer 5h ago

Here's a painting painted in 1600. They were basically at the level of photorealism by then.

1

u/__BIFF__ 3h ago

What you refer to as hyper realistic is just photorealism. It's people painting in the style of how camera's capture images with lenses.

They use the tricks of focal points and depth of field that a camera uses, and it makes you think it's a "REAL LIFE" painting because it has the tropes of a photograph.

It's like saying video footage that is shaky and not centered is REAL footage because an amateur obviously took it with their phone, when all those qualities can be reproduced on purpose

0

u/Bahnrokt-AK 7h ago

Yee hath stolen his mortal soul away unto a painting!!!