John Ruskin was a prominent art critic during the late 1900's who held in great esteem the academic art of the period. His works are a good illustration of the generally held attitudes of that period, but he was on the wrong side of the notion of abstraction that began to take root in Paris. Further reading: http://www.tate.org.uk/whats-on/tate-britain/exhibition/turn...

Late 1900 is the '80s and '90s.

The stuff you linked to is from the 1800s.

Maybe you meant 19th century?

Nice try, calling it the “wrong” side. For more on that side, check out Art Renewal Center: https://www.artrenewal.org/articles/Philosophy/TheReal19thCe...

Being on the wrong side of a movement just means the losing side, nothing objective.

I had considered that, but still detected — perhaps incorrectly — a whiff of implied denigration in the choice of what to say about Ruskin and how to say it.

My comment was an attempt to establish a neutral balance by linking to an argument in favor of the wrong side. If anyone has a good argument for the right side — for why abstraction rules and traditional drawing, painting, and sculpting skills are worthless — I would love to read it. Hopefully, it amounts to more than “because we have photography now”.

I may disagree with what I perceived as the tenor of the original comment, but I saw no reason to downvote it. I see no reason why mine should have been downvoted, either.

I liked how he challenged our edge-detection NN in lesson 3. With a gray paper, it is possible to use a dark and white pencils, making 2D looks like 3D. He does it again in lesson 8, drawing some leaves.