I'll never understand why humans stopped doing these paintings. Just because of photography? So what, that you can take a picture literally looking like
>>8038642? It doesn't convey anything remotely close to a painting as a photograph. You captured a reality, a second of time. Whereas a painting captures something deeper, an expression, a manifest of reality through lens of our species. The subtle imperfection, the suble artistry, that's what makes realistic art superior over photography. I'm greatly furious, that humans simply gave up on landscape painting just because photography became available for masses. What a disaster, what a catastrophy! What a great tragedy of our time, as we're bombarded with pointless, fruitless horror of modern art which is nothing but random strokes of brush or abstract nonsense where you can't make any details should you try for 100 years. The romance is lost, the precision raped into dehuminazed fetish to undercurrent the expression of depth and character. In chase for the next great thing we leave behind the body of work of mastery, not for the sake of technological progress, but as a spitting insult which dares to slow us down. There's no honesty, no majesty, no empathy. We machine towards future like brainless destructors while being all mighty and so greatly intolerable to anything old as if the new is always the right answer. And it never is alone, as the burden of our species lies in balance, and always will.
