Famous Charcoal artists?

Were artists of the middle ages bad when it came to painting people or did people actually look that bad?

• Were artists of the middle ages and such times bad artists when it came to painting people or did people actually look that bad? I mean, paintings done within the 18th to 19th century show real looking people that one can identify with, but those earlier are scary. I know about the size difference: perspective was dumped for importance. In group paintings, the more important the person, the bigger he or she was made, while those of least rank tended to become dwarfs scuttling about the canvas in reduced size. They got the image of trees, bushes, flowers, buildings and stuff right, along with rocks, rivers and clothing, but the people just look... off. White people were pasty white, the eyes often looking puffy, lids half closed, and their faces did not look real. Forget about the occasional black person to appear, because he was usually painted a curious 'black' and either deliberately made to look horrific or held the same, odd 'dead' facial image as the whites. Religious paintings got me. I mean, I've looked at some where the Madonna and Child must have been painted by someone who hated them. While clothing, background and all would be good, the faces would be horrible, ugly, pasty, unpleasant to look at and, in some cases, either distorted or on about the level of a kids attempt. I spotted a change around the late 15th century, or so, when famous or rich men started having portraits made of themselves and they started looking more realistic. The faces took on life like characteristics, the eyes became normal and not diseased looking or puffy, and, of course, perspective went into everything. These people were usually dressed like 'fops' in the blousey, dark clothing, that ruffled neck thing, stiff looking material and knee high boots of leather. To me, all of the paintings looked dark and gloomy, but much later I read where age had darkened the protective varnishes put over the paints or they had not been cleaned in a couple of hundred years. Modern- middle 1900s- painters could do work so great that one had problems determining if the work was a photograph or a painting. I looked at Rubin's works. He liked chunky people. Pale, sick looking, chunky women again with curiously bland faces. Again the backgrounds were 'normal' but the people looked strange. Now, did people look that bad in the early centuries or were artists just crappy when it came to real life? Was it a 'style' to paint people looking over tranquilized, puffy, far too pallid, with too smooth faces, bland expressions and doughy in appearance? Oh god, then the religious paintings. Why were so many painted with the Christ Child looking actually demonic, or ugly? Even Mary has been portrayed in a similar light, like a 6th grader did the faces. (If you've never seen ones that aren't that bad, look up ugly renaissance babies) I've seen people with no training sketch better images on notebook paper now in high school, along with myself and anyone else in the visual arts major. Now days, even if the artist is not that good- like those charcoal portraits gotten for $5 at fairs and such- you can clearly see the resemblance to modern people. They had to have had great artists in the early centuries who could sketch a real looking person. But I've only ever found a few handful of them. Art museums of ancient art are packed with portraits of such sick, demented looking people living in castles, dressed in fine clothing and all. I'd figure that they'd get irritated at being painted so poorly, unless they actually looked that way. So, did people look that way? Or were most artists just bad at painting people?

• Answer:

  Yup - they were that bad. Painting is HARD! It took 1000's of years to learn to do it well. Compare cave paintings to modern paintings that are so realistic, they look like photographs. You also have to realize that painting took a long time, and not everyone could sit for a portrait. So, the artist would sketch, and then fill in details as he could. And, there was a lot of disease and such then, which could affect a person's appearance. So, put all these tings together, and you get some pretty rough looking paintings.