Weren’t there artists at that time who could draw humans for what they actually looked like. For instance, look at the paintings of kings from the 17th Century or before.
In: Other
One potential answer is lenses.
The technology to make high quality lenses first emerges in Holland and Italy during the 15th century. These allowed artists to project images of a sitter onto a canvas and to sketch the main lines and shades, giving the hyperrealistic paintings the renaissance became famous for. (It’s also worth noting that many of the paintings involve subjects where this technique would be particularly effective, like shiny armour in a darkened room with a single ‘spot’ source of light. A renaissance artist’s studio would have resembled a photographer’s studio today)
On the other hand, Classical Art (and some [Egyptian Art](https://images.app.goo.gl/UBSvomimxSBWgb2J7)) made sculptures that are near perfect, and their mosaics are also close to realism, and that can’t be explained with lenses.
I think it’s clear that stylisation played a significant role: it wasn’t just that people *couldn’t* do ‘realistic’ (that is, as we know from photographs) portraits, it was that they weren’t trying to. They were often aspiring to something else: to show the power of a ruler, to represent the Gods, to communicate something or exhibit a particular aesthetic sensibility. The Greek philosophy of art (Plato and Aristotle) *did* expressly see mimeticism (looking-like-the-thing) as being the purpose or measure of good art though, which explains why Greek and Roman mosaics, sculptures, and [sarcophagi paintings](https://images.app.goo.gl/nRjmXVgYTeoiaWLo9) are as realistic as they are.
Latest Answers