It was in the middle of a debate with a friend when I made the point that many of the masters of the previous ages would not "kill for what we have now", since we were discussing how much getting the information you need to learn artmaking has advanced. Take the Renaissance for example, universities focused more on the written word, manuals as we know them now were few and even if there were artist studios before, I highly doubt most got further than a second generation- meaning most of the artists were self-taught. And still they managed to produce works and studies that are admired to this day.
My point was that simply drawing is all you had. If you needed anatomical research you had to take the bother of asking for a fresh corpse, and if you needed figure drawing or perspective you had to draw from life -that's all there was.
It might be a flawed point though, I know close to nothing to Art History -but I would like to ask, were any of the former masters brought here, would they feel compelled at all to take up Loomis or Bridgman or? Is all the information we have now a burden more than an aid?
((just for the record, you have Young Albrecht Durer's self portrait at 13))