File: 1418652082269.jpg (1.4 MB, 2523x3245, 2523:3245, 32X41 IMG - MARK ROTHKO - ….jpg)
No.1840
Most of 8chan seem to hate it. What you guys think of it?
No.1843
Hate it, an insult to art that is actually nice.
No.1844
I judge it on a case by case basis. If I like a piece, then I like that piece.
No.1850
We've already had at least two threads about this.
>>>/art/1185
>>>/art/1619
Read those and consider abandoning this one.
>8chan seem to hate it
Several reasons why but with 8chan in particular you'll find that because of the nature of 8chan's population, many are aware of the social-political relations to what caused modern art to turn out the way it is.
That stigma on top of removing objective standards and quality control is already bad enough.
No.1859
File: 1418760448725.jpg (223 KB, 1800x2332, 450:583, Rene-Magritte-Painting-131….jpg)
>>1850>many are aware of the social-political relations to what caused modern art to turn out the way it is.Joos?
I think is incorrect to say that modern art is just a scheme or money laundering. You know there are ALOT Modern and even contemporary paintings that are great.
>That stigma on top of removing objective standards and quality control is already bad enough.but those standards were subjective too
and alot of modern art has great quality. Look at Claudio Bravo, or Dali. Or this Magritte. You know because some paintings are not realistic doesn't mean they don't have great quality.
No.1871
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>1859>le joos "Joos">doesn't believe modern art is a huge scam>"but those standards were subjective too" in regards to when art was measured objectively>pulls the same old "muh realistic!" card1/10 simply because:
>You know there are ALOT Modern and even contemporary paintings that are great.Is sort of true. There are good contemporary artists, problem is that the art galleries and art "society" would rather have some goat-smegma smeared on a tv-screen with some 2deep4u description to it, than an actually well-made piece of art. Here's a very good contemporary artist:
http://serge-marshennikov.tumblr.com/You can try to jerk around it however much you want, the truth stays the same: Art is not subjective, but objective. If you for some reason cannot understand this truth, try watching the video called "Why is Modern Art so Bad?":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNI07egoefcIf that doesn't get inside your head, watch video related series.
No.1872
>>1871those videos sucks.
and I'm not suprised that you don't know this
>"but those standards were subjective too" in regards to when art was measured objectivelykek
and the most famous ones are the paintings of royal families and rich
>Art is not subjective, but objective.Of course art is objective, but you are looking it subjectively. And you haven't realized it.
>There are good contemporary artists, problem is that the art galleries and art "society" would rather have some goat-smegma smeared on a tv-screen, etcYou are wrong. ALOT of painters sell work for millons. Claudio Brravo is one of them. (pic related)
>with some 2deep4u description to ityou are wrong. it's the opposite.
Everyone wants to understand art. Why not try to understand
the song of a bird? Why does one love the night, flowers,
everything around one without trying to understand them?
But in the case of a painting, people have to understand.
—Pablo Picasso
No.1880
>>1871For some reason I don't think you would have the same problem with the aesthetic nonsense that is melodic music.
In the mean time, here's Frank Stella, who is a more technical painter than any of the cunts on this board.
No.1884
>>1871lol sheit mane what a coincidence
I just came here to dump some marshennikov images and talk about contemporary art that is actually well crafted
No.1887
>>1871>>1884One of the best contemporary realists I know of is Steve McCurry. This one is a bit old but is his most famous.
What I love about this is just how sincere it is. He depicts people as they are, instead of distorting them to fit his own synthetic ideals. Refreshingly honest compared to most other contemporary shit that has some political baggage hanging from it, or the ruthlessly catering entertainment arts.
No.1889
>>1887You know that that's a photograph, right?
>Afghan Girl is a photograph by journalist Steve McCurry. The photograph has been likened to Leonardo da Vinci's painting of the Mona Lisa[1][2] and has been called "the First World's Third World Mona Lisa".[3]T>he subject of the photograph was called "the Afghan Girl" by the public until she was formally identified in early 2002 as Sharbat Gula (Pashto: شربت ګله) (pronounced [ˈʃaɾbat]) (born ca. 1972), an Afghan woman who was living as a refugee in Pakistan during the time of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan when she was photographed. The image brought her recognition when it was featured on the cover of the June 1985 issue of National Geographic Magazine at a time when she was approximately 12 years old.
>other contemporary shit that has some political baggage hanging from it, but you just did this!
Posting more photography art
No.1900
>>1859>Joos?>I think is incorrect to say that modern art is just a scheme or money laundering. You know there are ALOT Modern and even contemporary paintings that are great.Anon it sounds like you might be projecting a bit of what you said.
>those videos sucks>and I'm not suprised that you don't know thisOh ok, just because you said so.
No.1923
>>1900>Oh ok, just because you said so.
>Doesn't know that those video are cherrypicking>Doesn't know they are just selling Ideology>Doesn't know that there are great paintings in Modern and Contemporary art>Doesn't know that their way of looking at art is subjective tooC'mon anon you can get better that this.
Posting more photography art
No.1973
>>1872>Video has section on how wonderful a fraud Picasso was>Quote Picasso being a fraudkek
No.1974
>>1880Music that is all melody is garbage. It requires tethering in the physical (rhythm and dance) or verbal (lyric and song) or it quickly becomes pointless wankery. There's a reason why Jazz fell off the radar when everyone got so full of themselves and started ignoring the audience's needs, you know.
No.1987
>>1974Show me the earliest example you can find of a jazz track that "ignored its audiences needs", that way I can judge how lame your opinion is.
No.1988
>>1987Earliest example? I take it you already accept the concept, then?
No.1991
>>1988Rhythm is important. I want to catch you in the act of throwing out the baby, though.
No.2027
No.2039
>>2027The entire channel sucks.
No.2040
No.2041
>>2040Really wish Hotwheels would fix that error already.
No.2048
>>1923>Doesn't know that their way of looking at art is subjective tooThis is what subjective-pomo faggots say all the time, that the call for objective standards is in itself subjective.
That's how warped you people are.
You don't even care for any other people's input because you are looking for validation in your own views in the first place.
No.2050
>>1923Subjective opinions are rooted in facts though. The picture uses lines, colors, value, etc. that can be perceived with senses. Why were they used, and were they successfully used to achieve a purpose? If we just say, "Yeah, well, that's just your opinion," we might as well not fucking bother.
No.2056
A piece of art can achieve exactly what it intended, but that doesn't mean I have to appreciate it. You can have a "great" piece of art that is lame as fuck, easily. Bouguereau, Pollock, same person.
No.2057
>>2048>>2050i dont get this two.
are you supporting abstract art?
No.2093
Generally I dislike most of it. I don't think art had to have a meaning, the medium is mainly based in visual appeal, and while I very much appreciate emotional, meaningful works I don't think it's fair to criticize modern art for lacking it. However, most of it fails to look good in my opinion, and in a genre that largely lacks most technical skill and meaning, appealing to the eye should be its major concern. The image in the OP is bad art in my opinion, while the colors don't look too bad together the composition is too simple and empty, it looks unfinished. There isn't a focal point, no visual interest aside from the pale borders at the top and bottom. It needs differing values and more than just a blank swath of peach covering the majority of the canvas. The artist could have used the pale colors and similar values to create a light, tranquil piece, but it fails to communicate that and just looks like he started to paint something and gave up on the idea before doing hardly anything. I do enjoy aesthetically pleasing modern art, but I don't think I've ever seen a piece of it I could call great, it might look nice sometimes but it doesn't show much refined skill, just knowledge of color and composition. And if an artist can use color and composition well, they should learn to paint actual subjects and expand their ability instead of just sticking to abstract stuff. It might be nice to hang as decoration, but anyone who highly values it is probably full of shit.
No.2094
>>2093>The image in the OP is bad art in my opinion,Oh shit, I didn't even realize OP's image was supposed to be an art. I just saw a notepad "open for discussion" or some shit.
No.2283
>>2094Learn to draw abstract faggots, maybe learning something real will un-fuck your brains.
Btw, expressionism/modernism/ "i dont need to learn shit look at this framed napkin with cum" and all that knowledge-degrading shit is an effect of cultural marxism, a.k.a jews.
No.2284
>>2094sorry,
>>2283 wasnt meant to you.
No.2300
From Harmony Korine's new exhibits
redpil as fuk
No.2330
To try to put it in an extreme Layman's
Have you ever gone to a board like /x/? Have you ever liked something peculiar even though it isn't technical or refined? Have you ever gone to a webpage and enjoyed how nicely made it was? Have you ever liked a landscape? Have you ever liked the way a tree looks? Have you ever liked someone's hair texture and shape? How about the inside of a computer looks like?
All these things could be something you like a lot aesthetically, but not something obvious. They don't have gorgeous curves of a woman with the perfect pigment of skin. If they were to be cropped out alone and stretched it wouldn't be any traditional painting. It would be weird but pretty (or just enjoyable to look at). They're not a person or a building. A lot of modernist art captured things that were unfortunately neglected.
A lot of abstract expressionist works like color field approached beauty differently. If I were to see that on a webpage or in the sky I would think it would be lovely or even beautiful, and they thought so too and thought it could be beautiful for all cases, and in this case, "art".
No.2332
>>2330>the perfect pigment of skinIn hindsight this sounds like I'm promoting some Afrocubano stuff, which I'm not. Probably should have described it differently.
Anyways, think about some dreams you've had, or if you're a drug user how interesting something looked. They were odd and maybe even gross, but captivating.
No.2333
>>2330Have you sorted out a prom date yet?
No.2340
>>2330Aesthetics mean shit without artistic fundament.
Yeah you can appreciate the simplicity of random shapes and colors, but it is just not the same as appreciating a, "full" if you will, work of art.
>a sandwich is a perfectly fine food, but to say it equates to the craft of a cheff is just prepoustrous.Abstract shit=sandwich
Rest of fundamentally based art=high cuisine
This topic enrages a lot of people because rich assholes are buying "sandwiches" in millions of dollars, whilst every other "cheff" has to work at "chain restaurants".
No.2341
>>2039I liked some of the videos, but then i diacovered these assholes are jews posing as conservatives.
Even if some of the things they say sound reasonable, the israel videos are a reality check.
Fuck prager
No.2344
>>2341No one is completely sane.
No.2345
Why do the great masters only draw soft porn and bedsheets?
No.2347
>>2345Same reason why foreplay makes the actual sex fun.
It's the thought that counts and with a bit of titillation, well you get the idea.
No.2349
>>2340But you're already making so many presumptions and arbitrarily made purposes, along with an analogy that hardly makes sense.
Why a sandwich? A lot of modernist works try to experiment different elements, and you're comparing that to a sandwich, which has no merits, because it's the same contrived thing. Because work? Well, if I suddenly found several pounds of gold and put not effort, it would still have value. Also, what if the painters put a lot of effort into their modernist works?
So many assumptions. Try opening your mind a bit.
No.2350
>>2340>>2349In other words, art isn't defined as "hot lady in floaty bed sheets, maybe some babies, maybe some tits; looks just like IRL but with slight (only 5%, else becomes trash) adjustments, only 10% surrealism allowed."
Who cares about the price? Jesus, it's art and people finding new creative outlets, why whether or not how people spend their money cause such anger? Why are "REAL artists who are high class chef equivalents" forced into poverty because people prefer different stuff?
No.2354
File: 1424097631423.jpg (3.32 MB, 3490x2032, 1745:1016, Bierstadt_A_Storm_in_the_R….jpg)
>>2349>try to open your mindGet fucked retard, abstract art is nothing but trash defiling real knowledge.
How about YOU open your mind to the possibility that abstract art is in fact worthless drivel?
And btw, learn to draw maybe, most of the time, people "appreciating" shitstains on canvas are "educated" (a.k.a. brainwashed) faggots that can't even draw stick figures.
>>2350Keep being a good goy, people don't like different things, they are being told by the media what is "art" and what art should they like.
Real artist are being forced into industrial-utilitarian works because of this, making a tiny fraction of the price these avant-garde pieces of shit make with no knowledge or effort involved.
Google: "why beauty matters?" on vimeo.
No.2362
>>2354Epic arguments dude. I can't contain all this epicness. Dude this shit is all gay af lmao. Fuck this gay art I prefer real art. Shit like my skyrim background that's real art none of this dumb shit.
>Real artist are being forced into industrial-utilitarian Holy shit. Didn't know there was a mob forcing real artists into these evil sweatshops.
Thank you for le enlightening me, and now I have enough salt to hold me over for the month. Thanks man :^)
No.2364
>>2362>I can't draw nor paint, that's why i like to pretend that muh abstrekz are the same to a skillfully performed fundamental-based painting.It's ok man, everyone can learn, but you gotta drop that shit reasoning first.
No.2365
>>2362This is the saddest thing I've ever seen.
No.2366
>>2364>>I can't draw nor paint, that's why i like to pretend that muh abstrekz are the same to a skillfully performed fundamental-based painting.I don't even make abstract art or realist art, what does that even have to do with anything? Why are people not allowed to enjoy things that are different?
Try explaining your *chan humor to your mom, you can't. It's weird, archaic, almost nonsensical, but enjoyable nonetheless. It doesn't have traditional set up -> lead up -> punchline + timing. A lot of times stupid remarks get people laughing on the chans. It's unorthodox but we've found something different that we find hilarious. Why can't the same be said for visual beauty?
Have you ever looked at the Aurora Borealis? If someone just made a painting of that with no frame of reference whatsoever, would it lose its beauty? I don't think so, it would look like some abstract expressionist paintings.
Sure there are several movements that may seem dumb (and probably are dumb and are complete shit), but that's the thing, there's been several different movements. To neglect all of them because they're considered "modernist" or "post-modernist" and not "classical" is silly. There's to be SOMETHING you find enjoyable, you just didn't put the effort to understand or find them.
>shit reasoningYou haven't even made an actual argument. All you've said is that "it's not full enough for me, it's dumb and stupid and doesn't have REAL meaning", I just responded with the same tone.
>>2365>samefaggingNow that's sad.
No.2368
>>2366>I don't even make abstract art or realist artCalled it and dropped it.
Learn to draw before trying to argue about art scrub.
>http://www.8ch.net/art/res/617.html#800>inb4: you don't need to be a musician to critique music you are just a close minded channer with bad taste bruh!Same situation, learn to make music to understand why some "elitists" think certain musical genres are nothing but shit.
>several people disagreeing with me?, must be a same fag!Yeah no.
No.2371
>>2368>>2368I'm studying it and learning, reading Loomis and whatnot, just not a "professional" creator of any sort. That is completely irrelevant though. You don't need to be a professional chef to know when something tastes good/bad.
>Same situation, learn to make music to understand why some "elitists" think certain musical genres are nothing but shit.Not really no, I do make music, I like making ambient works though. I'm assuming you think that's not REAL music therefor it's irrelevant. It's amazing, you only accept opinions if they already agree with you and make the stuff you already deem as "acceptable", and if they don't they're automatically wrong.
You haven't once made an actual argument and still threw a tantrum.
>>several people disagreeing with me?, must be a same fag!It was literally one extra person.
Again, try making an actual argument. Please. This whole thread you just say "no, it's dumb you're wrong and stupid" and pretend you're "elite" all while complaining about "elite". I don't think I've ever talked to someone as try-hard and dense as you.
No.2372
>>2371I could waste my time arguing with you about this shit, but I already did several times before in /ic/(maybe you where also there!), so no, git gud pleb, maybe if you manage to acquire skill, one day you will understand why abstract art is crap and why you are a fucking retard for liking and supporting it.
I'll even give you a headstart
>Abstract "art" is shit because it does not use foundation.Plain and simple, and don't try to push your mental gymnastics because there is absolutely nothing abstract about foundation and it's use.
Also, if you want to ressort to the "it's about the message not about how it looks" crap, be aware that if you write an essay with perfect grammar but vapid subject matter, it will be regarded as mediocre at best, but if you write an essay with shit grammar(L1k3 d!z), it doesn't matter if the message is thought provoking, it will be regarded as garbage, and likewise, a work of art with vapid subject matter but perfect execution will always be held as superior compared to a "thought provoking" collection of shitstains.
And, if you are trying to compare ambient music to abstract art, you just don't get it, abstract art is not music, just noise with a convoluted description of what that noise is supposed to mean.
No.2373
>>2366
>>samefagging>Now that's sad.
>get's called out >>2371
>It was literally one extra person what are you trying to prove? :^).that he was not samefagging.
No.2374
>>2373Congrats?
>>2372>>Abstract "art" is shit because it does not use foundation.And I'm saying who cares. Does the Aurora Borealis use foundation? Do creepy /x/ demons use foundation? Do random things that are seen as beautiful, interesting, captivating, or something that would make you interested in its visual aspects ALWAYS follow classical art foundation?
No, and it's extremely arbitrary of you to think that.
Plain and simple.
>And, if you are trying to compare ambient music to abstract art, you just don't get it, abstract art is not music, just noise with a convoluted description of what that noise is supposed to mean.Your only means of arguing is making retarded analogies that don't hold at all, but you pretend it's clever.
>STILL referring to the whole money laundering thingYou do realize a lot of post-modern pieces are performance pieces and other things too abstract to really "launder money through"? How the hell do you launder money through that?
Also, there are several artists with technical skill, and since you make them out to be sweatshop workers, they should be EXTREMELY cheap for money launderers to use to push their money, and if they're pushing millions, they could EASILY pay them a high wage. Stop your fake boogie mans that not only follow reason, are based on few examples.
Again, "modern art" has A LOT of content, not just a picture of some dude's polish anus. A lot of them don't follow foundation, that's the point and they found another means of making something visually enjoyable.
Also, if it's REALLY that easy and requires no effort, why haven't every single one of you done it and made an easy $100k? Because there was effort in something else.
You also realize a lot of these artists know technical art and do have a technical background, and I do support them knowing that and being expected to know that, otherwise they're not evolving anything.
Ambient music is like abstract art, it searches enjoyment from nontraditional means. A lot of beauty from ambient music is textures. Not from tonal means.
Jesus man, how can you not see your blatant circular logic?
No.2375
>>2374aurora borealis is not drawn nor man made jackass.
anyway, i'm not reading all that retarded crap because you already made your point clear, you are a missinformed little twat with shit taste and you don't know how to actually draw, congrats.
seriously bro, learn to draw.
No.2376
>>2375>>2372I'm still unsure whether or not modern art is real art or not, and for the most part I don't think so. but holy shit youre a fucking faggot. you fall into every stereotype that makes youtube so retarded. you remind me of those deviantart faggots that would post god awful art and whenever they're called shit white knight faggots would spew the same "lets see you do better!" fuck you retarded faggots you are honestly the real cancer to art and everything humanities.
No.2378
>>2375>aurora borealis is not drawn nor man made jackass.Ok, how does someone miss a point this hard? Anyways whatever, I should have realize I wasn't going to get an actual discussion out of this.
>>2376This. It's especially annoying when you try to give actual critiquing and they only get buttblasted and retort with "let's see you do better".
Am I supposed to record my works for them? Advice is advice.
No.2380
>>2374>>2374> if it's REALLY that easy and requires no effort, why haven't every single one of you done it and made an easy $100k?Because I'm not the son or friend of a powerful someone and the CIA isn't funding my shit :^).
No.2381
File: 1424264763780.jpg (331.46 KB, 1295x1600, 259:320, Zin Lim-www.kaifineart.com….jpg)
>>2376I sincerely do not give a fuck, I've reached a point where I don't care anymore if some random faggot has been indoctrinated to like the product of applied cultural marxism.
But let me tell you, if people preserving tradition and knowledge are the "cancer" here, I don't know how fucking detached your mind is from reality, but people clamoring for bullshit and making it harder for everyone else to be traditionally educated, are in no way near to being better.
>>2378>Ok, how does someone miss a point this hard? What point you fucking idiot, you cannot equate abstract shit to natural phenomena, art is man made, it needs fundamental knowledge and acquired skill to be elaborated, a rainbow or a tornado don't, these are forces of nature, these things happen without human intervention, that's why "art" without knowledge nor skill is worthless, because it's not a natural event that might look cool or beautiful in its simplicity, it's a retard dripping paint in a canvas.
No.2386
>>2374>Ambient music is like abstract artYou're right. They're both about as interesting as listening to someone talk about their dreams and for the same exact reason. It's completely masturbatory.
No.2466
modern art and contemporary art are different movement.
No.2467
No.4103
I like it.
Does anybody else would like to have a fine arts thread?
No.4106
I don't like where the argument is going, but simple modern art sold for million dollars? Why?
No.4107
>>4106
You're commenting on a 7 month old argument.
None of that shit is worth a million dollars, none of that shit is worth even 100 dollars. But it's not hard to force the price to whatever you want when you have control of the whole art industry or whatever you want to call it.
No.4116
"Modern Art" is just a scam so that creatively bankrupt people can make a living. Pretty well organised circle jerk too.
Should not be confused with actual art.
No.4162
>>4107
>>4116
Imbeciles ahoy.
No.4163
>>4162
>sell a blank sheet of copy paper for 80 zogillion dollars
>not a scam by kikes who are manipulating the industry
Whatever you say Austin.
No.4164
>>4163
You are a generalizing clown.
No.4166
>>4164
And you've yet to provide a single meaningful argument of any kind. The only thing that seems to come out of you is personal insults.
No.4195
I like it, everyday im liking it more and more, its much much creative and interesting.
>>4106
why not?
>>4107
>>4116
>>4163
>implying
who should decide how much a painting should cost? you?
No.4203
>>4195
I would think an artwork's worth is determined by historical and social importantance coupled with the artist's skill, as well as its demand to be owned by others.
Unless half of this contemporary stuff manages to spark big waves in some way, it's not worth more than the material that was put in to make it.
No.4209
>>4203
>spark big waves in some way
>historical and social importantance coupled with the artist's skill
and thats precisely what happens.
the only tricky thing for you would be what 'skills' is.
No.4235
No.4293
>>4195
>who should decide how much a painting should cost? you?
Of course not, the artist and his friends should.
After all he made the painting he knows how much it cost :^)
No.4296
>>4203
>I would think an artwork's worth is determined by historical and social importantance
That's because you are not thinking like an artist.
Anything can make big waves in the collective mind given the right ammount of bullshit and shilling, what really determines the worth of art is fundamental accuracy and its appliance to create objective beauty,"originality" and "messages" are completely secondary, if your art has no foundation (a.k.a "skill") it has no value.
This is why some people like avant garbage, they know nothing of art as a craft nor as a vehicle of beauty, they haven't experienced the act of intelligent creation,they are not artists, and as such, they see artistic value where there is actually none.
Unless you become an artist and get yourself deeply involved in the act of creating real art, these bullshitters will run circles around you, because their entire views are built over the kind of relativism ignorant people use to justify their ignorance.
No.4349
>>1859
>Joos
Initially, CIA.
mfw CIA funded "modern" artists to prove that western society and culture was more progressive than the USSR with its social realism
mfw cheaply and quickly made pieces created by marketed art-celebs flood the market to this day
mfw CIA also tried to train dolphins to act as service dogs but in water, by giving them LSD and trying to make them understand human language
mfw KGB scoured cities for mystics and espers, and did tons of research into mind control and ESP before figuring out it was a waste of time and money
mfw during the First Chechen there was some military guy on the telly, talking about how his experts read the mind of some US senator, and how that senator wanted Siberia to go as international real estate
mfw I have no face at how retarded fringe research was during the cold war
No.4392
>>4296
You are an imbecile, Bouguereau would laugh in your pompous arrogant face, and you couldn't determine the value of a box of detergent.
No.4394
I feel bad for the people who can't enjoy and/or see the merits of both modern and traditional art. Both are wonderful, but if you have to dismiss one or another, then it probably means you have some unresolved insecurities.
So, to make this thread a little bit better:
What's your favorite traditional and modern artwork? Feel free to add as many favorites as you want from as many art forms you want.
No.4401
>>4393
Anyone who believes the judging of figure skating is objective is delusional.
No.4404
>>4394
I feel bad for the people who have been brainwashed into thinking that modern art has merits.
No.4405
>>4404
It doesn't?
It's pure visual art and nonrepresentational art. That's a merit on itself.
No.4407
>>4404
>he can't enjoy and/or see the merits of this piece of modern art
Then it probably means you have some unresolved insecurities.
No.4422
>>4407
>ITS NUFFFINGG MOBERN ART IS NUFFING SEE I SAW ONE ONCE AND IT WUH JUST THE WHITE BLANK!!! I COULD DONE THAT!!!
You're a genuine moron.
No.4423
>>4422
You're a genuine moron if you think it isn't modern art.
No.4426
>>4423
You're a genuine moron if you think that's the only thing modern art is about.
No.4429
>>4426
Don't even get me started on mutated child, Contemporary Art.
No.4430
File: 1446860372305.jpg (492.68 KB, 1104x945, 368:315, >people are paying over $1….jpg)
No.4431
>>4407
>>4422
>>4426
Remove the green dot and you have... a Master Piece.
No.4432
One of these is an actual piece of Modern Art, the other is a Bucket Fill in Paint, can you tell?
No.4433
>>2354
Where did it all go wrong...
No.4435
>>4430
>nobody really knows if there is shit in the cans
>the only time someone opened one of them, there was a smaller can inside
Goddamn, I don't know, cans of shit may be art, but the events and circumstances surrounding them are definitely entertaining
No.4436
>>4435
>cans of shit may NOT be art
No.4438
>>4435
>>the only time someone opened one of them, there was a smaller can inside
But what was in the smaller can?
>you will never know if there was really shit in the can
No.4439
>>4438
No shit in the smaller can, just a note that reads, "Ur a faggot".
No.4442
>>4392
>look mom, i called him a bad word and told him an old master would laugh at him just because
What a cunt destroyer, you totally swayed everyone with your hot opinions, I bet you have unresolved unsecurities :^)
No.4443
>>4433
Cold war antics as anon here said >>4349
also, jews infiltrating the art world and manipulating markets to make the piss-easy to produce bullshit get valued in millions.
No.4447
These Pollock jock-sniffers have ruined art, and art education, for all time. Fuck 'em.
No.4449
i forgot about this thread, sorry m8s
>>4296
and you set the objetive standard?
>>4428
>picasso and duchamp is bad meme
>>4394
as far as traditional. ehm, maybe El Greco?
as for modern i definitely have to go with Francis Bacon, that man is a genius.
and yours?
No.4451
>>4449
>El Greco
What's so special about him?
>and yours?
Salvador Dali and Ellsworth Kelly
No.4453
>>4451
I dont know, many things. The way that he kept it "classic" but so different. the mannerism, the bizarre coloring, the 'liquidness' of his work. Like an ancient chagall.
The characters looks in so much tension, like its hard for them to even remain standing.
>Ellsworth
interesting choice. What you like about him?
>Dali
hes a genius, no doubt about this.
No.4454
>>4451
I dont know, many things. Like for example, he kept it "classic" but at the same time he challenged almost all of the traditional school.
The perspective, bizarre colors, the fluidity.
Theres so much tension in his work, its like its even hard for the characters to remain standing. So much weight.
>Ellsworth
Interesting choice. What you like so much about him>
>Dali
His a genius, no doubt about that.
No.4455
>>4454
>>4453
oops, sorry for the double post, I posted the first one and it didnt showed up for me till i posted the second one.
No.4459
>>4449
>and you set the objetive standard?
Nice try faggot, but it's not me nor anyone, it's fundamental knowledge, depending how art follows said principles you can safely assert if it is objectively good or bad, period.
No.4460
File: 1447268002943.jpg (210.62 KB, 2484x1908, 69:53, 2wtBKx9BRiGNyCa7aX0j_Kelly….JPG)
Why is it that liberals and liberal minded people always minimize everything into personal outcomes?
>hurr ur jelous, uneducated, pretentious, insecure, afraid *anything that undermines your character*
No you fucking dipshits, assesing factual information is what makes intelligent people disagree with your ridiculous views, not individual qualities.
No matter how much you try to erode the dissenters's character or imply that their opinions are as subjective (and therefore valid) as yours, pic related and similar examples will always be money laundering garbage.
No.4461
>>4460
>pic related and similar examples will always be money laundering garbage.
Yes, that's true. But that doesn't stop it from being good or bad art.
No.4462
>>4449
>"taking credit for my dad's work and propelling my carreer by fucking a jew" Picasso and "look at my urinal and give me moneyes" duchamp
>not shitty memes
No.4463
>>4461
Moving the goalpost I see, regardless if you want to think unsubstantial minute garbage is art, by subjecting it to the fundamental standard it fails on all the levels, calling it "art" is a massive stretch but if it let's you sleep at night be my guest.
No.4465
>>4463
>Moving the goalpost I see
This is my first time posting here. I'm not moving any goalposts.
>if you want to think unsubstantial minute garbage is art
Why is it that people think that for something to be art it has to be good?
There is a reason why we distinguish from good and bad art.
No.4467
>>4465
It's the same reason why we distinguish between art and anything else
>WHAT!? so you think stuff needs to meet certain standards to be labeled art!?
Yes, otherwise the label is meaningless.
Here's an example, sargent is good art, el greco is bad art, rothko, ellsworth, pollock and any other color-field-random shapes bullshit is not art.
No.4473
>>4467
Define art then.
As I define art, it's creative expression.
No.4476
>>4473
Art is the emulation and idealization of reality, its ultimate goal is the creation of reality, or the depiction of an envisioned reality to be prescise.
The only way to achieve this is through fundamental knowledge and its mastery, that's why it is imperative for something to follow these principles in order to be labelled art.
No.4477
>>4459
so, its realism your standard?
>>4476
top kek, you cant seriously believe this.
what about music? its not despicting anything from reality, just feelings and thoughts.
I bet youre one of those that consider music that have "real stuff" like pots as instruments are not real music.
Then why can art painti just express a feeling ?
>>4460
its the opposite tbh
Someone like me appreciate both classical and modern art.
Its you the one who is elitist about it tbh
No.4479
No.4480
>>4476
>Art is the emulation and idealization of reality
Okay.
In that case, what is modern art? Can you give a definition of it without being dismissive about it?
>>4479
Is ugly beauty?
>>4477
>Someone like me appreciate both classical and modern art.
>Its you the one who is elitist about it tbh
This.
No.4482
>>4477
>Implying music follows the same knowledge as visual arts
Nice one, but we are not talking about music, even if we were, music follows the same standard as rigurously if not more, foundation is to be followed at all times, otherwise it's not music, but noise.
Rothko and his color-field butt buddies are not expressing any feelings *(feelings are completely secondary btw)**, just visual noise.
>>4480
That's the entire point of the post, modernt "art" is not art.
No.4483
>>4482
>That's the entire point of the post, modernt "art" is not art.
I didn't ask for what isn't modern art, I'm asking for what modern art is.
>Nice one, but we are not talking about music, even if we were, music follows the same standard as rigurously if not more, foundation is to be followed at all times, otherwise it's not music, but noise.
It's contradicting your definition of art right here though.
>Art is the emulation and idealization of reality
You might want to change your definition.
No.4484
>>4477
Realism is not my standard you dense fuck, realism is THE standard, everything stems from reality, even if you pull the "feelings" card, emotions are deeply grounded in reality.
Also
>music is the same as painting and drawing
Yeah ok.
No.4485
>>4477
tbh I believe you don't understand >>4460
Tbh I think it's time to stop posting tbh.
>>4483
Modern "art" just is, shapes are shapes, colors are colors smears of paint are just that, it's when you equate these visual elements to actual art and try to attribute them the same weight and validity when you come to the conclusion that it's garbage.
Anyhow, this is a board for visual arts, not music, the definition clearly corresponds to visual art only, it's not the first time people come up with the "WHAT ABOUT MUSIC, THAT'S ABSTRACT!" argument though, so let me tell you, music does not follow the same fundamental principles nor goals as visual art, therefore it's not equivalent.
No.4486
>>4485
>Anyhow, this is a board for visual arts, not music, the definition clearly corresponds to visual art only, it's not the first time people come up with the "WHAT ABOUT MUSIC, THAT'S ABSTRACT!" argument though, so let me tell you, music does not follow the same fundamental principles nor goals as visual art, therefore it's not equivalent.
But both are art, right? So there should be a definition that encompasses both. Otherwise, art would be a meaningless term (because it can't be defined), or visual arts or music are not art.
No.4487
>>4485
Even then, music is not abstract, whatever emotions or concepts it might try to convey don't take away from the fact that music depends on our objective perception of reality, there is nothing abstract about dissonances, cadences, counter points or note lenghts, even about music itself, people can identify "sad", "happy", "lively" or "dreadful" tunes as what they are supposed to be, everything sounds the same to everyone and that's why we can notate and compose music in the first place, because it is a shared auditive experience bound by reality.
No.4488
File: 1447288521319.jpg (636.81 KB, 1100x731, 1100:731, jaime_jones_checkpointlr.jpg)
>>4486
Cooking, writing, making clothes or stuffed animals, mathematics, architecture, all of them and pretty much everything can be reached under the label of "creative expression", more over, all activities that involve creation and/or skill have been reffered as art in one way or the other("martial arts", "the art of cleaning"), doesn't mean each an all share the same qualities and goals as to be encompassed under one term, neither that said term is meaningless, it just means that "art" doesn't exist purely as one thing, just that there are different types of "art".
>But ur contradicting urself because u said modern art is effectively not art!
Pretend that I said "visual art" in all those instances
>But then that means modern art is also art, just a different type of!
I believe the merit of modern art relies on its capacity to fool people into believing smears of paint carry the same merit, qualites and value as visual art (if not more!), so in that vein of thought, then yeah, modern art is the art of bullshit.
No.4498
>>4484
I disagree entirely.
Its not my standard.
Restricting visual expression to just what it looks more real its ridiculous. Its noncreative at best.
>music is totally different
Its expression too.
To those who then argue that theres too an standard in music, I must say that that such standard, just like in painting, have been challenged throughout history, and many of the ones you call masters did challenged them.
To those who consider that the standard is realism, then its Goya bad? Its a Raphael, Michelangelo, Bosch, and virtually all Masters less than Bouguereau?
No.4503
>>4498
Look at these pieces, do they look like reality? No? It's because you don't have to be an edgy twat and disregard fundamentals to be creative or imaginative.
Reality is the source of everything and the first step to take into account on the ladder of creation, taking it out of the equation under the pretense that it's more original or something is completely retarded and will
only make you regress into making vapid awful shit like pollock or picasso.
Get some reading comprehension too, nobody said bouguereau was the end of all artistic mastery, and reality is not "realism", stop mistaking it as such; if you must know though, goya is mediocre, raphael is overall good, michelangelo is good as a sculptor but lacking as a painter, bosch is bad, maybe if you could evaluate their work objectively you could come up with these conclusions instead of simply saying "hurr dey r all mastesr"
No.4504
>>4498
>Challenging the standard means anything
Kek, I don't think you understand how this works, nor what is being discussed.
Challenging the orthodoxy doesn't make everyone simply forget about it and make way for the challenger, it just recognizes the challenger's existence.
Countless of "So unique" faggots have paraded themselves as the new hot thing around trying to blow everyone's mind with how much they can ignore pre established knowledge and common sene, only to be placed in the shelve of history as something that merely happened.
The thing is that, if any of those shitters had really "revolutionized" anything, everyone would have changed to the beat of their drums, yet the orthodoxy they so eagerly have tried to destroy through relativistic nonsense remains as paramount for any real development in the craft, in other words, humanity hasn't found a better or way to paint or compose in centuries, that's why all honest education and creation invoves the teaching and use of foundation, regardless of how many idiots propell paint from their holes or sit in silence in front of a piano.
No.4505
No.4506
File: 1447445119837.jpg (216.63 KB, 1401x1594, 1401:1594, RossanoGospelsFolio007vGoo….jpg)
>>4504
>>4503
You said realism, you're the one changing terms and their meaning.
I only mentioned WAB as an example of great realism. Or do you disagree?
Are those painting you posted there better than WAB in your eyes?
If the masters I posted are bad, who are your top 5? Just wanna know.
>>450 it4
You have never read any art history book havent you?
What about pic related. Its not high on realism, is it bad? Is it worse than the painter you posted?
No.4508
>>4506
>everything stems from reality
Learn to read, and stop with the name dropping, it's not a fucking competition.
and that image is pretty fucking bad too, medieval illustrators didn't had the knowledge to produce something better
No.4833
To me, visual art should always evoke some genuine interest in the world presented by the artist. It should tell viewer a story, or give at least a glimpse ot it. For me comics and animation are the best way to express it, connecting visual art with story telling. If someone can seriously achive something like that drawing basic forms, well bravo! But if you need to add few-pages long description to your art just to be sure that anyone get an idea of what you have to say, it is just a scam.
No.4836
Some of it can have a raw, aesthetic appeal and I can appreciate it to that end, but to say that there's some deep meaning to it is some Salem Witch Trial-style delusional hysteria and I refuse to engage in it. I also don't like what it's done to the art education system. For-profit "non-representational" art schools ruin the lives of thousands of impressionable young people annually and leave them in incredible debt without the credentials to run the front counter at a fast food restaurant.
No.4837
That text from Animator's Survival Kit basically ends discussion for me. What any modern art enthusiast can say about it? It just cuts too deep.
Adding to my last post, I also think that games are also great for artistic expression. And there you really can see the need for gaining knowledge before actually creating art. Good luck programming only with your feelings about stuff!
Also can anyone recommend a book explaining the rise of "modern art"?
No.4846
holy shit the abstract art IDF is out in force in this thread
No.4848
I've always considered this contemporary art bullshit the "women's study" degree of the art world. It's an easy way to call yourself an artist and get out of climbing the mountain.
Though I guess I am a massive faggot then, because I have a soft spot for Rothko. I find his paintings moving and that just pisses me off. Pic related.
For real though. I bet my left and right testicle, that every "art grad" that graduates on this crap secretly wishes they could Sargent and would switch from their "style" if they could.
No.4856
I guess it may be perfectly fine to like abstract art if you really are not interested in having a story in your art, just an athmosphere created by abstract forms and colours. It isn't like I don't find an appeal in the picture posted above. It is nice, but why it is supposed to be "high" art compared to many digital artists, comic book artists or animators work? This is just an unfair situation.
No.4857
>>4856
Essentially this.
How can someone compare the works of Sargent to someone that tapes fruit to their head, or splatters paint somewhere?
No.4860
>>4857
I bet Sargent could have manufactured paintings like Rothko if he had felt like it, but not so sure it being so the other way around. But as I think about this issues, I really start to feel like there is one thing which we can learn from modern art at its best: simplicity. Like in modern digital art world so much work goes into rendering and maybe some people feel like it is the only way to find an appeal in art.
No.4878
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>1840
A load of shit (quite literally).
No.4885
>>4878
I dare to copy here very good comment from Bryan Day posted under that the youtube video:
"To me, modern art is a symptom of unconscious or suppressed pain and dissatisfaction with modernity's inability to provide for basic human needs. Pointless art reflects the lack of purpose, and empty meaning, in today's world, no matter what the artist may claim to the contrary. The art is shit because the culture itself is shit. I think that's a valid purpose. But people aren't talking about it that way".
No.4969
Modern art = pieces of uncultured shit that anyone could do in 5 minutes
No.4971
>1 million dollars
>Art Historians Find Racist Joke Hidden Under Malevich’s “Black Square”
>After examining “Black Square” under a microscope, researchers from Russia’s State Tretyakov Gallery, which houses one of three versions of the Suprematist composition, found a handwritten inscription under a topcoat of black paint. They believe it reads “Battle of negroes in a dark cave.”
No.5023
>>4837
>Good luck programming only with your feelings about stuff!
Holy shit, so underrated.
>Also can anyone recommend a book explaining the rise of "modern art"?
I'm really not very well versed on it's history beyond the fact that it was used as a social engineering project by the CIA; but to my understanding, it stems from three things, money laundering (make cheap shit in 5 minutes, sell it in millions, effortlessly repeat), cultural marxism/liberalism (create the future by destroying the past, "progress" that obviously includes knowledge) and, the last one, and feel free to ignore me on this /pol/ shitpost, but, it is no secret that the main proponents of modern art, and cultural marxism are jews, sure, both tie in to reach that goal of destroying everything goyim that has a glimmer of virtue in it, but I believe it goes deeper than that, it also has to do with race.
This theory of mine is supported only by empiric evidence, but I've come to the conclusion that jews have little to no spatial imagination, they simply can't "think in 3D", a skill necessary for artists to grasp fundamental knowledge like perspective or form.
Of course I'm not talking about all of them, but go ahead, google "jewish art", you'll find that there's actually very FEW fundamentally sound works, mostly everything is abstract, and the things that try to be representational are almost always sub par, as opposed to googling "european" or "chinese" art for example.
What am I getting at with all this? Imagine being a spoiled rich kid, someday you want to learn to draw and paint, but you just can't or it's extremely hard for you to accomplish, what do you do then? try as hard as you can until you make some progress? Or buy your place at prestigious galleries and schools? You're a spoiled rich kid after all.
Doing the later turns you into a "standard" in the eyes of laymen, a.k.a. society at large. People will see your work and think "this isn't good, but he's in this gallery alongside the masters, and he went to that reputable school, there must be something about his work that I'm not getting, I'm no artist anyway", effectively warping perception and going down the path of history as a "master" without actually mastering anything, paving the path of young striving artists with missleading impressions of what they should do or think to become masters themselves. Now apply this on a global scale and link it with the other two factors.