>>10771386>Do you think that people used to be able to admire just a single one for a longer period of time in the past?When they used to have to go to a museum or gallery to look at them, no doubt they appreciated them more than we do. But you have to remember that we've had art commonly available since the 17th century, at least, even if they weren't on a screen. Woodcut illustrations were common in books, and later magazines, ads, etc. I think it also depends on the person, though. I'm sure there were people back when art wasn't as readily available, even among the few who could go to galleries, who didn't care for it. It's the same now too, where, despite having access to it, most people don't choose to use their access that way. In any case, although nothing can replace seeing pieces in person, or even thru a book, people can still be struck by art they see on a screen.
>c.cuThanks. Hmm, I guess I do see why you think they're as ripe as how I see younger girl - because of the 'Venus' shape. Those stone agers did have something right.
>Is that really what you want?I dunno. At a certain point, it won't be about what I want.
>Well go on, in what ways?Well, it's silly, but there's something to be said about the pretty pictures. Besides obvious things like the ability to portray emotions effectively, you can also make scenes, for example, more suspensful, because you can more clearly see the characters in relation to each other - again, same with in plays. Now, imagining characters and their surroundings is half the fun of books, but seeing those things illustrated in a way that your mind didn't imagine, or in an style unlike that of your mind's eye, can be equally exciting. Sure I'm just preaching to the choir, though, since you read manga.
If you're looking for something to read after that manga, a graphic novel I really enjoyed is 'Miss Don't Touch Me', which can be read here:
https://desuarchive.org/co/thread/113335236