/highculture/ - High Culture

I might be too idealistic, but I think high culture is not dead, merely not represented in the media.

Pic related, made by Bobbie Carlyle. And the video serie by Scott Burdick among other things (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL619ED61282CD714E)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZ43nlWmoeA

>>33

I don't see the appeal of it.

I'm picky with contemporary art. It's maybe 15% good, 15% meh, and 70% utter shit

Mostly I just hate abstract expressionism, which more or less consists of pseudointellectual hipster jerkoffs throwing paint at a canvas and bullshitting some deep meaning behind it. IMO contemporary art can be okay if they just focus on making it look balanced rather than making up some sophistic garbage to justify it. It can be good if they focus on craftmenship, composition, etc.

As much as /pol/ hates Marcel Duchamp, I don't mind him because the whole "readymade" gimmick was intentional trolling (and it worked)

>>39

I agree that contemprary art have gone too far many times. But why art cant have some deep meaing behind it?

Duchamp have a lot a good artworks, he even was a pioneer in cubism,

>>48

absolutely this,

The whole anti art artworks was basically saying "i dont need 20 years of traing to be able to paint and to express something" which was a protest against elitism and the 2deep4me of that time, but then people took it that as the new 2deep4me cluck

>>49

Exactly. I think both sides of the arts are valid, and even needed. It doesn't matter how far one of them goes: it's necessary. It could even be considered a logical step in the evolution of arts. It can be very interesting on a creative level too (and even serve as inspiration to "non-modern" artists).

>>48

>I have never seen anyone looking for the meaning of an abstract impressionism work

Expressionism isn't impressionism

>>48

>>49

>>50

>It's actually the opposite. Modern art shouldn't need a lot of craftsmanship, and instead should focus more in the ideas behind the work.

>The whole anti art artworks was basically saying "i dont need 20 years of traing to be able to paint and to express something" which was a protest against elitism and the 2deep4me of that time, but then people took it that as the new 2deep4me cluck

Shock art had it's time and it's place, namely in the early 20th century when there was still an actual establishment to overthrow. Now that Fountain is in art history books, there's not much reverence for tradition to revolt against. I'm fine with abstract art having a meaning or a message, but when the artist focuses solely on edgy social critique to the utter neglect of craftsmanship and aesthetics, his art generally suffers in quality.

I actually agree with you that both views are valid, I'm only saying that many contemporary artists (and generally postmodernists at that) aren't bringing anything new to the table; instead they're just rehashing modernism albeit with some sort of snide rant printed on the artist's statement plaque.

In short, I'm annoyed with postmodern rhetoric being shoehorned into the art scene where it isn't needed, and although many contemporary art prices are designed either to goad reactions out of viewers or prompt viewers to project their own meaning onto the art (both which are fine), all too much of it seems to be chasing after the now lost avant-garde spirit of the early 20th century. And that sort of behavior gives the current art scene a bad public image.

On an unrelated note, it seems to me that most of the real innovation in contemporary art is coming from the field of installation art, where there is still plenty of new territory to explore

>>53

>Expressionism isn't impressionism

Sorry, meant abstract expressionism.

>Shock art had it's time and it's place, namely in the early 20th century when there was still an actual establishment to overthrow. Now that Fountain is in art history books, there's not much reverence for tradition to revolt against.

Shock art could still have some potential left, there's no way to know if it's already over.

Still, I'm pretty sure there are some things left to rebel.

>I'm fine with abstract art having a meaning or a message, but when the artist focuses solely on edgy social critique to the utter neglect of craftsmanship and aesthetics, his art generally suffers in quality.

I agree with this. Modern art should always be creative and original. If it fails to do so (by coping already existing works, for example), then it could be considered low quality art.

>I actually agree with you that both views are valid, I'm only saying that many contemporary artists (and generally postmodernists at that) aren't bringing anything new to the table;

Exactly! That's the thing I dislike the most about modern art, but even then, I'm pretty sure there's a lot of groundbreaking stuff going on right now, I just haven't found those yet.

>In short, I'm annoyed with postmodern rhetoric being shoehorned into the art scene where it isn't needed

Yup

>and although many contemporary art prices are designed either to goad reactions out of viewers or prompt viewers to project their own meaning onto the art (both which are fine), all too much of it seems to be chasing after the now lost avant-garde spirit of the early 20th century. And that sort of behavior gives the current art scene a bad public image.

Yeah. I think a new source of inspiration is needed to revitalize the spirit of modern art.

>On an unrelated note, it seems to me that most of the real innovation in contemporary art is coming from the field of installation art, where there is still plenty of new territory to explore

Do you know where I can learn more about the current innovations from that field?

>>50

agree

>>53

>I'm only saying that many contemporary artists (and generally postmodernists at that) aren't bringing anything new to the table; instead they're just rehashing modernism albeit with some sort of snide rant printed on the artist's statement plaque.

I agree, but the first thought that pops im my mind to ask you is: like who?

>On an unrelated note, it seems to me that most of the real innovation in contemporary art is coming from the field of installation art, where there is still plenty of new territory to explore

Not quite sure, probably the one that pops in the news the more for sure, like the matress girl. Im not a fan of edgy installation art, but you gotta understand that even the edgy shit is just edgy shit, they want to be edgy on porpuse to express edginess.

>>54

dang, its like a Giacometti.

Im reading this book, bretty cool. it can get a bit sjw but the author is pretty good at explaining things. The vry first chaper is Beauty, in which she introduces the idea that art doesnt have to be beautiful, and names painters like George Condo or Otto Dix.

That chapter alone shattered my ideas of art on sight.

>>55

>she introduces the idea that art doesnt have to be beautiful

I wish more people had that mentality.

I will try to read it as soon as I can, thanks for sharing.

>>56

You might like this little collection then.

Don't crucify me.

I am of the mind that sculpture goes to the dogs after Rodin; poetry after Pound; music after Stravinsky; and painting after Annigoni.

You do get today imbeciles like the classical realists. But a quick comparison with their attempts and the attempts of say Degas or Ingres shows their incompetence. The art of painting is for the most part lost.

You get also sometimes a Lennart Anderson, but he is only one.

>>54

P.S. I don't consider installation art to be art in the same way that poetry, music, sculpture etc. are arts. I think this because all of the aforementioned work directly with the materials themselves (a sculptor with marble, a painter with paint, a musician with sound etc.), and their art is a result of their manipulation of them. The sculptor looks at the relationship between light and form, the painter between shape and line. The installation artist has no medium per se, and thus there are no aesthetic qualities (form and light, for example) to manipulate and which are unique to his "discipline". His "art" consists in the ordering of objects within a space to get some sort of intellectual or emotional response from the viewer. You can appreciate individual ASPECTS of the art (such as the composition of some or other object within) but in such case you are only appreciating the sculpture, say, within the installation. But because the focus of the work is never on objects individually, you never get what is good in the respective media which are used. The result is generally mediocrity. I think two of the best pieces of "installation art" are the Trevi Fountain in Rome and the arrangement of sculptures in Piazza Della Signoria in Florence. Most modern examples are simply bad sculpture, bad music, bad painting etc.

Fruit Spaghetti <3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nPMLNaBWNI