Why old european painters think moors are black?and now KANGZ use those pics To support their arguments

why old european painters think moors are black?and now KANGZ use those pics To support their arguments

Other urls found in this thread:

blackhistorystudies.com/resources/resources/15-facts-on-the-moors-in-spain/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

another one

...

why were people so good at painting compared to today?

Old stuff always best

>why old european painters think moors are black?
Because they were
Stay mad whyteboiii

Because there is no standard nowadays due to Relativism.

as slave maybe

north africans are more closely related to whites than blacks

Because Europeans hated Moroccans, so when they had to paint them they searched for the ugliest they could find. the Gnawans.

>the Gnawans
THIS

they were, and also a bunch of dar al-Islam came north through Morocco to crusade

Because back then, a person smearing his piss and feces on a canvas wasn't art, it was mental ilness.

BBC IS FOREVER

Because schools of art, in the literal sense and sense of movements, were much stricter and rigorous, funded by rich, tasteful patrons. Also, Communism and the Cold War. Literally.

Way, way back, art, while not fully respected, necessarily, was not looked down on. An art degree was not a joke. An art "degree," or any amount of renown, was earned over decades of effort, apprenticeship. It was a very competitive industry, with several pupils under one master, one school, who would do their best to meet the standards of their time. They would often spend whole years of their life on one piece. This was true of sculpture and painting. Rodin's "Gates of Hell" come to mind there, to me.

This was also during a time where monarchy and money were very involved in art, more than they might be today. As is widely known, despite claims that religion caused the Dark Ages, it absolutely directly funded many of the Renaissance works, with the rich seeing it as a penance, a good payment to please God. That's why we have the Sistine Chapel and the like. This continued, the Kings and aristocracy of the time funding lavish, technically brilliant paintings and the like in the classical styles. They eventually started moving into depictions of their own increasingly degenerate lives, Rococo paintings and the like. Even still, it was seen as a half-duty, a "thing" of the aristocracy to find good artists and fund their work. That's why a lot of old paintings were of battle, glory. "Oath of the Horatii" and the like, movements accounted for.

As we moved to the waning days of the Modern era, the schools often broke up, or tried to revolutionize, deconstruct in beautiful ways. This is where Pointillism, Impressionism, all that sort of thing came from. They still had richer patrons and great works. Postmodernism was affected by the wars, by the rise of Communism, and directly funded by governments in some cases to wholly deconstruct, despite early Postmodernism's value.

white boys can't compete

Do you even know history? Those paintings are mainly depicting black slaves/Eunichs guarding the Harems of the sheikhs/elite in Al Andulus, which is why theyre holding weapons in front of some fancy palace. Blacks did have a presence in Islamic Spain, but they were mainly slaves. I laugh everytime some WeWuzkings post these pics as proof that blacks were moors, when anyone with a triple digit IQ could see that these men were clearly slaves.

I kind of tapered off for space at the end there, but that's the gist. Literally, the attempts to challenge the norm and old standards, the deconstructionism of Post-Modernism were either formed or co-opted by Communism and Communists later on. While legitimate Commie or Fascist governments would, and still do, fund very elaborate, classical-style propaganda, in circles of culture, the aim was subversion.

Early Post-modernism was great. Expressionism, a favorite of mine, was often chaotic and brutal, but also very stylish, and stark, with its artists influenced by WWI and the events of their day. These sorts of things can be said of most of the early century, even the Dadaists, who were philosophically influenced, but still very respectable.

Getting to around Neo-Expressionism, which still had some value, you get the classic Pollock "splash paintings" and the like. While Pollock and his friends still had an ethos, their deconstructive influence still ended up misinterpreted by the following generations. "Anything can be art" was misused. Rauschenberg, Warhol, they were all still great. But what followed was foolish.

There is evidence and much written that, around that time, the CIA and Soviets both funded that sort of shit, either to make the general public mad at the artists or enjoy it and be subverted. It was kind of a petty game that ruined the art culture. On top of this all, champagne socialism spread, and with that also the rich who saw Warhol, heard the Velvet Underground, and knew of the movements in New York and tried to love it and fund it to be trendy. This all coalesced and tumbled down into a bunch of people with more money than sense trying to appear more progressive and open than ever, funding new, odd performance art with none of the ethos of its predecessors, stark assemblage with none of the work. That's how we got the ridiculous lack of standards we have today, often said to be more money laundering than modern art.

Wtf? Why do they look like redguards from the elder scrolls series?

Why?
Because these fuckers.

Redguards are literally based on Moors...

Didn't you ever see the Robin Hood movie with Morgan Freeman as a Moor?

Well where the fuck do you think they got the idea?

This dingo is right on pretty much everything.

another moor look like 50cent

Because they were literally the blackest people we knew back then. And morocco and Mali were basically considered the same thing because they were both African and Muslim.

Who cares what the children born with monkey tails think. Post all the pics you want of monkeys...shave them down they look just like the cracka.

Here are some more bullshit sources:

blackhistorystudies.com/resources/resources/15-facts-on-the-moors-in-spain/

So yeah, basically
Communism is a subversive force, and we all know that after, well, history, as well as things like the Yuri Bezmenov interviews. Marx based his bullshit on the writings of Hegel and Hegel's Dialectic, which was also instrumental to the swinging pendulum of the art world. This was co-opted and misused as subversion, and it was very visible. The Relativism of Marxist madness did this.

Art is almost a direct trend on politics. It's actually quite fascinating. As the pendulum swings, so too does the art. As the world thrives, so too does the art. As the culture degenerates, so too does the art.

Ever wonder why the modern, liberal-dominated art world is so detached from the rest of society, from middle America and the like? Ever wonder why the youth is increasingly asking why literally any disgusting thing can be art? Ever wonder why the shut ins, the video game artists and the NEETs respect good animation, try harder to have standards in their drawing than most modern painters? Ever wonder why more and more of them find interest in the old ways, in the classical styles? In the artistic value of old propaganda, in Fascist aesthetics?

As the pendulum swings, politics is not the only thing that follows.

>tfw when Moors get BLACKED by the identity politics/KANGZ crowd before whitey

Most of those painters never left their home countries and only had vague estimates on what the rest of the world looked like.