No.1619
Thoughts on this video? This guy brings up some good points but he makes way too many generalized statements about modern art which leaves a lot of what he says sounding very pretentious. Personally I think some modern art (painting a single black dot on a white canvas to represent emotions wank stain blah blah shit) is usually pretty awful but at the same time giving your artwork a message or statement isn't a bad thing. I also don't think we can really have objective standards for art because it is one of the most subjective things in the world, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and it's much more interesting to have someone put their feelings and ideologies into a piece than to have objective standards.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNI07egoefc&app=desktop No.1620
>>1619Were you paying attention at all?
He was trying to say that you can make as many statements as you want, but it's no excuse for producing and accepting low quality trash.
No.1621
>>1619To a degree I agree with him.
The lower you set your standards for what 'art' is, the lower the quality.
No.1623
I agree with him to an extent as he make some pretty broad generalizations. The fact of the matter is that there's a point where a piece relies entirely on context and eschews any sense of skill or effort. If you need to go at great length to provide an explanation to communicate the idea or the meaning of a piece then you have fundamentally failed as an artist.
No.1628
The only problem I've ever had is that everything, including a highest quality years-worth-of-work renaissance masterpiece, and a femnazi slut sticking paint into their vagina, are dumped into the same category called "art". There are more distinctive terminology, but it's not used nearly as often as it should.
No.1630
The thing he didn't mention was they some at pieces that are considered modern really only attempt to experiment and break design philosophy (ex: Pollock's paint splay was a way to create something with no focal point), but people forget these are experiments and not all experiments are successful.
No.1633
>>1620I think symbols can have a lot of aesthetic value, especially in multimedia. There's an animation sequence by steve girard in the film "wawd ahp", the film is like symbolic gibberish but embellished with animation and sound. His art (if you look on his tumblr) is arguably "bad" but the animation is so cool that I think he's onto something.
I'm thinking 'conventional' art could borrow a lot from those contemporary art museum absurdities. It doesn't have to take a full dive into the abyss, just borrow a little.
No.1634
Does the "Art Renewal Center" care about artforms like cartoons, caricature? Or is that too degenerate for them? They sound suspiciously anti-fun.
No.1635
Isn't the last thread about this still around? At any rate, he's right, artists are lazy shits, investors want their investments to have the widest market possible, and too many people want to believe they can be an artist just by wishing on a star, so they refuse to see through the bullshit.
No.1636
>>1630Are you saying the masters never experimented either? Of course they dd. The difference is they could tell what did and didn't work and never tried to sell it. These days you put a marble in a box of paint, shake it around and then sell it to tasteless rich people while explaining to them that you're breaking into a new field of visual theory based around the idea of a piece with no focal point.
No.1637
We just had this thread where the same video was posted
>>>/art/1185