In computational terms, a low resolution version of an image is almost by definition ‘simpler’, with fewer colours and details intact, but it seems like it would be much harder to do a convincing 1:1 replication of it in a painting compared to recreating a ‘clean’ HD version.
Or am I way off the mark? 😆 I’m not a painter, obviously. Seems like getting all of those weird JPEG artefacts right would be something of a novel skill for a traditional painter (or even a digital painter, for that matter).
That’s why historical depictions of battles are often dramatic and why Jesus and His disciples are sitting at one side of a very long table
Wut 😁?
The drama was because only (very) rich people could pay for a painting because paint was ludicrously expensive, who were rich? Kings. Who liked paintings of voluptuous battles? Kings.
For the last supper (jesus and his boys sitting on the same side of a large table), mebbe they didn’t have to live in cramped up spaces like we do and had large tables, or maybe that would have been a boring painting with 6-7 necks in the middle. Your pick!
Art is not to paint realisticly (except for that time in history) you can, and should, make it beautiful or impressive or both!
I think the painting of Jesus was theological like a lot of religious art, meant to depict a story rather than be a realistic depiction of an event
Well of course.
Also made to look “holy” and magical. It was surely (I haven’t looked it up) a comission from the church.