26

I went to a museum today.

It was fun, and I met up with one of the Japanese learning/reading clubs I hang out with.

I don't usually go to museums and galleries, but this club gathers for museum trips every once in a while, and I join them. This one is called a museum, but it's like a mix between a museum and a gallery - it has scupltures, it has ancient artifacts or at least their copies, and is has paintings.

I'm not sure I can talk much about the experience itself, but I wanted to mention two things that came to mind while I was there.

There must be some amazing digital artists out there.

As I was looking at a painting from up close, I got hit with that feeling, that probably is pretty common in that situation. "Wait, so this almost photorealistic quality was created by someone just painting? On a piece of canvas? With oil?" It didn't feel real. There was all the complex shading, and the shadows dropping on the floor, and the face looking as if it was printed. How could such an amazing picture be created without all the digital tools? What if the artist made a wrong stroke? There's no undo button! How did they compose it all together? There are no layers?

I'm saying it's a common feeling because it's not the first time. I think it's what people often feel when they see the marble statues famous of being intricate and realistic - the soft flesh, the detailed fishing nets, all made from marble. It's the same with these paintings - the wonder isn't in the ideas, or the ceiling of skill (though that part has its own wonder). The wonder is in the amount of effort to reach those ideas with limited tools.

But tools got better! There are digital artists now who do have the undo button and layers. So where is all the art leagues above the old masters? Well, I didn't know because I never looked. But it's probably on Artstation, isn't it. That's where all the cool digital artists hang out these days. If course, you can't compare these things directly, they're not "better". But there must be absolutely amazing art made with modern tools, and now I want to see it. Especially if there are galleries, where such art is printed or displayed on a huge screen. Where it's not just a tiny thumbnail in a feed on a screen. Where it has weight.

(I used to browse Pixiv for a while, trying to develop my visual taste, trying to find artists I liked. That's how I found ikurauni, which is one of my favorites because of how dynamic everything he draws is. I should get back to it and also browse some Artstation.)

Rembrandt. Being great.

As I was walking among the paintings, some were catching my eye. There were biblical scenes, there were death scenes, all kinds of paintings. The styles felt quite similar, even though different artists had their own nuances.

Then I saw a random painting, and just felt that urge, that feeling "this one is great". It didn't feel way above the rest. Just, if in my mind all the other paintings were, for example, 7.45/10, this one was 7.85/10. I mean, these are famoust paintings by famous artists, it's weird to rate them on a scale and to rate them as anything other than 9-10/10. But, speaking subjectively, and speaking as an example. It was good. It was the one that caught my eye.

So I looked up the artist. Rembrandt. I've heard the name, but couldn't immediately match it with anything else I knew (as I later realized, I just recently listened to Juufuutei Raden speak at length about his greatness). I thought "neat, I should look him up. I wonder if there are other paintings I like here, let me check their artists". I scan through what I see, find another neat painting, look at the artist name. "Rembrandt".

Now this is interesting. And I still couldn't easily tell the difference between these artists. So I would just look at a bunch of similar looking portraits, think "I like these two the best" and they would be painted by Rembrandt. I think this is basically what separates the great from the rest. From the good, the almost great. Or "the best from the great", you can phrase it differently.

I want to add examples, but they're super cringe. At some point I'll make a separate page with them.

Actually, new idea. The examples I just thought of were more related to things I like personally instead of the things that are great/best. But what makes the thing (or an artist) great, is that it makes (almsot) everyone think "you know what, I just personally like this thing". Not as in "the popular thing is good because it's popular", which is a similar idea. More like, "for people with different interests, with different backgrounds and opinions, both those who are new to the media and well versed in it, this particular piece of media appeals to them personally, they would feel as if it's their own little gem among others". Meanwhile everyone has the same little gem!

Speaking of popularity, I think it hurts art perception. For example, I don't like Mona Lisa. But is it because it's popular? Do I just not like popular things? Well, it feels overrated, but is it overrated because it's popular? Does its popularity feed itself? Well, I think it does, but it also makes it impossible to talk about how good the painting itself is. Same with The Starry Night and everything else that's super popular. I like The Starry Night, don't get me wrong, but I look at it and I see the idea of the painting, not the painting itself. I haven't thought about this one enough though, so I'll stop here.