>>2538798you gotta think of it in context, though.
they had hardly any resources, and what they had was often prohibitively expensive. shit we take unquestioningly for granted like access to basic paper wasn't just expensive, it was a legitimate political monopoly in italy for centuries to keep the prices up. and if you didn't live close to an atelier or in some court somewhere, good luck on communicating with other artists to share their knowledge.
despite these limitations, they produced the best stuff of their generation, and compared to the awful endless paintings of jesus that plagued the centuries before it was a world of difference in skill.
they were masters because they had the capacity for mastery. they just weren't standing on the solid base of shared knowledge and technique bouguereau & co had (which they themselves helped build for later artists) or the incredible access to resources we have today that allows those motivated asian wunderkinds to reach professional levels before they hit 20.
they are not as technically skilled as the masters of later generations. but if they had had the same opportunities as those later generations, they would have been.
same reason we consider erastothenes an amazing mathematician even though he didn't know advanced calculus in ancient greece.
