this post was submitted on 21 May 2026
279 points (99.3% liked)

Trippin' Through Time

6982 readers
96 users here now

Tripping' Through Time

A Lemmy community for historic art pieces overhauled into modern memes.

Rules

  1. Only image uploads allowed
  2. Only edited, historical images may be shared
  3. The instance rules of https://lemmy.ca/

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Chais@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (5 children)

Sometimes I wonder if humans just "evolved" better painting skills. I mean people back then surely must have realised that their painting looks nothing like an actual cat. So either they were told specifically to paint a cat with a human face or they were really bad at their job.
Same goes for older works. Egyptian paintings lacked depth and had that weird legs-torso rotation. Like maybe our brains just got better at conceptualising perspective and stuff.

[–] Mulligrubs@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

We now have access to a staggering amount of art.

In, say, the Middle Ages, few people owned illustrated books, even fewer owned art like paintings. Many never left their own small town, so if you weren't in Rome et al you were on your own artistically. Things can get weird (like these cats).

[–] prettybunnys@piefed.social 3 points 1 month ago

I’ve always had a pet theory that knowledge itself is an evolutionary force and some things like this follow that path.

I’m folding your idea in.

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 month ago

Well yeah, Descartes didn't appear in a vacuum and neither did Michelangelo...

On second thought, maybe Descartes, wasn't the best example to use. But he didn't truly arise in a vacuum, he just used one as the starting point for his thought-experiment...

[–] BCsven@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago

There were amazing sculpters and artists, but I think anyone with talent had a rare chance of being born rich and honing that skill set. So maybe these were just the palace's beat artist on hand? The human faces are just weird though. There must have been a reason

[–] JohnnyEnzyme@piefed.social 1 points 1 month ago

I want to say that's it's moreso just a case of technique ever-improving. Also a case of a certain art style being en vogue and normalised, suggesting that a more physically accurate-looking cat might have been less welcome or expected than the style of the day.

You can add "expression" to that second point, also.

[–] matengor@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 month ago

#2: Artist: Hmmm, do cats have ears? I can't remember, but probably not.

[–] psx_crab@lemmy.zip 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Asked to draw cat, but all you can think of is your ex Catherine.

[–] JohnnyEnzyme@piefed.social 2 points 1 month ago

Funny how plenty of modern artists are just about as wonky when drawing animals.

I guess it goes to show that learning various animal visual anatomy can be just as significant as learning our naked ape visual anatomy.

[–] Wataba@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago

First isn't too bad. Fourth is fucking terrifying.