>>5973278You have no idea about what you are talking about. Look at the drawings and you will see that they have control and taste greater than our modern masters. You can see how quickly and efficiently they drew.
Taking long to paint is only fair to mention against an artist when it was because they had to keep fixing mistakes or indecisiveness, neither of which is generally true for old master technique and process.
Them taking longer because of the nature of working physically with materials is not something to take away from them at all. Especially since the ones that take a year are often complex large pieces that again have to be done manually, in which a lot of time is not even spent painting, but rather preparation, travelling to discuss with patrons, procuring materials, commissioning panels. And that in that time period they are also working on other projects, both designing and executing. Even the act of setting up a painting that is 5 or so feet wide and transferring to it takes considerable time. Even just stepping back to view it over the course of panting takes a lof of time compared to zooming in and out with some shortcuts. Working on a piece for a long time that necessarily requires a lot of effort is actually an advantage for the estimation of an artist. If a digital artist working things of the same complexity as another takes a full year whioe another takes a week, then you might have a case of fair comparison.
Imagine if somehow we had a computer program that could create digital food that could be transmitted to our tastebuds, where you just add the right ingredients and use a tablet and pen for a digital pan and spatula, crunch in the time it cook at which temperature with shortcuts, and then say they are better chefs than someone who has to prepare everything and physically cook and use much more of their senses because the real chef took longer.
