omnonim replied to your post “This, by the way, is also why I will fight anyone who says Egyptian...”
people claim egyptian art is like this because they couldn't do "proper" one?
So the general perception of modern “realism” in art is that it only came into existence after the Greeks developed a perspectival style. This is what I myself was taught in art school (I didn’t agree with it back then either, but I was only 16 at the time and had zero knowledge of Egyptian art styles beyond “I like the way this looks”, so I couldn’t put into words why I didn’t agree).
Anything that isn’t perspectival is deemed by a good number of people* to be “primitive”. Sometimes these same people will say “non-perspectival” art is to perspectival art what a child’s drawing is to a Rembrandt painting. I’m sure I don’t have to go into the ramifications of calling art styles by predominantly POC cultures “primitive”, or comparing them to children’s drawings.
But, the thing is, Egyptian art isn’t even purely non-perspectival. It’s a very different form of perspective, but there is some perspective in there. Even sometimes in a way that we’d now recognize as actually perspectival. A good example of this is the Battlefield Palette:
As you can see, the lion’s paws are perspectively posed before his victim.
That’s why Emma Brunner-Traut coined the term “aspective” to describe the Egyptian style. “Non-perspectival” just isn’t correct. Unfortunately there are still far too many people who have the wrong idea of it. Egyptian art (and, for that matter, Mesopotamian art) was realistic. It was just a different brand of realism.
*usually people who aren’t classicists or ancient historians