I don't think I need to pose a question to generate discussion, sadly the inevitable spammed macros and youtube minor celebrities dressing their opinions up as fact will do this for me.
If you want to avoid the macros and memes, post contemporary art with merit. If it's not all women plopping paint eggs onto canvas or canning literal shit, prove it.
Very easy way to prove everyone wrong.
How do you define "merit"?
>Claim or title to commendation or esteem; excellence, worth.
>A commendable quality, an excellence
How would you convert such vague wishy-washy subjectivity to an objective classification to apply to something as subjective as peoples' highly individualistic tastes in visual art?
Prove what, that people have differing tastes in visual arts? Are you serious? Just look at film, or literature, or music...
If you are proposing that the visual arts should somehow be different I'd suggest that is an outlandish claim and that the burden of proof lies with you.
>Just realized the mandalorian mural was based on Guernica.
How in fuck did I miss that?
1920s Soviets when the Avant Garde flourished before the backlash and Stalin enforcing realism was so fucking aesthetic holy shit.
Constructivism was pretty dope, had a huge influence on Bauhaus and Modernism in the west.
Proof that people have vastly differing and conflicting tastes in music, literature, film. Extrapolate to visual arts.
I won't indulge you by digging further.
if your worldview is so shaped by your autism that you perform mental gymnastics to think people that like what you don't are only pretending, then good luck when your parents inevitably succumb to old age or suicide and you have to stumble out into the real world.
pretty interesting short vid
a bit of context, Tracy Emin made pic related
The Stuckists were/are a figurative movement founded by people fed up with such conceptual art. Often though their own work was heavily conceptual, and many of the figurative artists in the movement are unironically shitty.
didnt knew this jeffrey smart
I noticed other anons posting Bacon and Lucien Freud, so I thought I would contribute with Paula Rego
While it was a huge influence of Bauhaus its sad Constructivism itself never got its time of day in the west because of it's Communist origins and theory.
thats what I meant, I know constructivism influenced Bauhaus, I'm a fan of both.
I'm just sad constructivism itself didn't get its time in the spotlight in the west.
art is just a meme now
pretty sure this was another kid's science project in middle school except with bits of plastic instead of gold
people only think it is art because of the pseudointellectual analysis
just a novelty
>a very basic introduction
>a very straightforward explanation of Rothko's techniques
I completely understand the psychological mind games that someone needs to be indoctrinated with in order to appreciate this kind of art. It is a nice meme, but I would feel like a cuckold pretending that because Rothko's rectangles are fuzzy round the edges and use different layers of colors that somehow magically this is an expression of emotion.
It is only a meme.
I can't force myself to believe otherwise. It is no different from conspiracy theorists claiming you need to watch 2 hour long youtube videos and buy books by some shill in order to see how right they are. Compare this to scientists trying to prove something complicated that takes hours of study, I may never fully understand, but I can at least see the basics make sense or the scientists can demonstrate their ideas work with an experiment, whereas if I see flaws in the basics and they can only counter with "you are questioning it therefore you are anti-intellectual", what am I supposed to think?
If I wanted to make believe something in order to trigger emotions, why would I do it for this? I'm not a hater, this is actually why I took the time to categorize all this art. I am looking for something that can move me to tears. The rectangles were a nice experiment, maybe artists could use those same techniques to create some giant flowing fractal-like masterpiece to the same quality as the work of Michaelangelo. There are 7 billion people in the world, there must be a genius somewhere.
pic related, another meme, someone claimed this photo was altered to trigger primal fear and terror in your brain and while I was drunk and tired for a whole I believed it and couldn't look at it for more than a few seconds, then later I came across this picture again and thought nothing of it
>Rothko's rectangles are fuzzy round the edges and use different layers of colors that somehow magically this is an expression of emotion.
Rothko was said to have hoped to move people to tears, the presenter was suspicious of the ability of painting to do so. As near as he ever got to mentioning an emotion was calling the painting sombre. I think you are the one that is playing "mind games" (actively or subconsciously) as evidenced by you hearing what isn't there in the presentation you reference and by your assertion that people can't genuinely like what you don't, they must be "indoctrinated".
It's rough seeing all the constructivist building concepts that never got built because Stalin and no money - it was too future for its time
Check out Iakov Chernikov
I don't like that at all, it looks kitsch to the point where I wouldn't be surprised had the filename read beethovenkoontz.jpg
The unrestrained use of materials and outright deification of Beethoven really turns me off.
That's probably because the social and political structure that supported this style has been completely demolished. The reason you dislike it is also exactly the reason you're supposed to like it.
memes aside, warhol is pretty interesting
Thirteen Most Wanted Men was a large mural created by Andy Warhol for the New York State Pavilion at the 1964 World's Fair at Flushing Meadows, New York. The mural was painted over with silver paint before the fair opened, probably due to official objections, but other reasons have been suggested.
Warhol and nine (originally ten) other artists were commissioned in 1962 to create works to decorate 20 feet (6.1 m) square spaces at the New York State Pavilion. The nine others were Peter Agostini, John Chamberlain, Robert Indiana, Ellsworth Kelly, Roy Lichtenstein, Alexander Liberman, Robert Mallary, Robert Rauschenberg, James Rosenquist; the eleventh was Claes Oldenburg.
Warhol's large mural was intended to hang on the outside of the Theaterama, a circular cinema 100 feet (30 m) in diameter. Intending to depict "something to do with New York", and taking inspiration from Marcel Duchamp's 1923 work Wanted, $2,000 Reward (in which Duchamp put his own photograph in a wanted poster), Warhol decided to print large-scale copies of images from a booklet published on 1 February 1962 by the New York Police Department, entitled "The Thirteen Most Wanted", showing 22 head-and-shoulder mug shots of the wanted men.
looks like he's about to do a nixon impression. a weak version of this
It's shit. It's imitations of Greek art with "eagles n stuff". Utter shit.
Pic related, actual art.
fucking art fags you mean
no need to bring your ebin /int/posting here Pierre
>Particular points that have been seen as marking a change in art styles include the end of World War II and the 1960s. There has perhaps been a lack of natural break points since the 1960s, and definitions of what constitutes "contemporary art" in the 2010s vary, and are mostly imprecise. Art from the past 20 years is very likely to be included, and definitions often include art going back to about 1970; "the art of the late 20th and early 21st century"; "the art of the late 20th cent. and early 21st cent., both an outgrowth and a rejection of modern art"; "Strictly speaking, the term "contemporary art" refers to art made and produced by artists living today"; "Art from the 1960's or 70's up until this very minute"; and sometimes further, especially in museum contexts, as museums which form a permanent collection of contemporary art inevitably find this aging. Many use the formulation "Modern and Contemporary Art", which avoids this problem. Smaller commercial galleries, magazines and other sources may use stricter definitions, perhaps restricting the "contemporary" to work from 2000 onwards. Artists who are still productive after a long career, and ongoing art movements, may present a particular issue; galleries and critics are often reluctant to divide their work between the contemporary and non-contemporary.
I should have put something like Malevich or Rothko in the OP, thread is very slow without waves of autistics trying to claim that their personal taste is objective.
What distinguishes art from nonart?
You can apply pseudointellectual babble to toddler art, so it can't be that.
It is the emotions. The build up, walking into the modern art museum, all the people telling you you are edgy if you can get into it, the babble directed at that particular painting.
>people posting all this modern art shit
Pic related. Real fucking art.
This Italian and Russian Constructivism, Italian Futurism and Bauhaus are the best art movements ever imho.
>le photorealism, rednecks and ideology in an aesthetics thread
Wow, how does it feel to be retarded.
I do agree that Don Troiani is a master at his craft though, I have several of his books and the amount of autistic detail he's ready to go in for the sake of authenticity is amazing.
This painting makes me feel way more patriotic than any still picture of people being blown to bits.
so portraits aren't art? religious icons aren't art? emotion has very little to do with art. that's a romanticist intervention from 200 years ago. rothko not expressing emotion in a work isn't 'pseudointellectual' it's just not what he was trying to achieve because he didn't have to
The death of the painter Andrew Wyeth provides a example of an artist who used the tools and techniques of his art, and put them into service to make art. A good example is one of Wyeth’s most famous paintings, Christina's World. Look at the lower right quadrant of the painting. Now, visually expand that quadrant into a whole canvas. Now, look at this painting by Ab Ex bad boy Jackson Pollock, called Autumn Rhythm. Now, imagine the colors in the Pollock a bit more tan and rusty, and the Pollock becomes a pretty good analogue for the lower right quadrant of the Wyeth. Yes, some of the drips lean another way, but, color match the pieces, and put the Pollock in as the lower left quadrant of the Wyeth, and what one sees is that Wyeth was using Ab Ex techniques, but in service to something deeper and larger. Whereas the Pollock’s narrative consists of drips go this way or that, the Wyeth painting, seen in bits, can potentially tell many narratives, as well as the grander narrative of the possibly crippled girl gazing toward salvation or rescue, or perhaps just longing? The Wyeth painting is the far greater work of art because a) it shows a far greater technical mastery of the art, b) it tells multiple tales on multiple levels, and c) its quality and narratives are objectively defensible, whereas the Ab Ex painting is all subjective, all based upon whatever the viewer sees, thus actually removing the main act of creation from the artist to the viewer, in an attempt to insulate the art from criticism, lest one denigrate any individual’s feelings for their imbuements. Wyeth’s art is in service to a larger ideal and displays technical mastery, whereas Ab Ex paintings are infinitely malleable and show no technical mastery, lest would not be so easy that children nor animals could produce works equal to or exceeding that of the so-called masters
In many ways, the art of Francis Bacon was merely the technical side of a far deeper movement, probably in development ever since the first human beings decide to ‘create’ something — anything, really — and wondered of their own compulsion. This is the idea (from the 1800s onward) that art is not there to simply ‘look good,’ or to edify didactically, or to praise God, reject God, be social, be political, or any other singular thing that would get so often demanded of it. Instead, the idea was that art is here to communicate, which is really the most expansive definition of all, incorporating many of the old, bias-ridden requirements all the while forging wholly new ones. Van Gogh was already doing this in his landscapes, given, as they were, to colors and techniques that were less beautiful than evocative; Walt Whitman was busy opening up poetry in the same direction, being full of seemingly ‘rough’ declaratives that must have sounded quite alarming to classically-trained ears; and Pablo Picasso hyper-developed the idea well into the 20th century, to the point that it became abused by AbEx painters who’d confuse ‘communication’ with literally an infinity (as opposed to a multiplicity) of meanings. Yet if Picasso’s a little too tough for beginners to always get, the art of Francis Bacon is still here, sans much of the depth that can otherwise occlude Piccaso’s meanings. This is not so much a knock on either, as it is an admission of the fact that, great or not, not every truly great painter is instructive; and, of course, not ever instructive artist will be great.
>The Wyeth painting is the far greater work of art because a) it shows a far greater technical mastery of the art, b) it tells multiple tales on multiple levels, and c) its quality and narratives are objectively defensible, whereas the Ab Ex painting is all subjective, all based upon whatever the viewer sees, thus actually removing the main act of creation from the artist to the viewer, in an attempt to insulate the art from criticism, lest one denigrate any individual’s feelings for their imbuements. Wyeth’s art is in service to a larger ideal and displays technical mastery, whereas Ab Ex paintings are infinitely malleable and show no technical mastery, lest would not be so easy that children nor animals could produce works equal to or exceeding that of the so-called masters
what the hell lol
1. The pollock is as much about the method as it is about the results.
>it shows a far greater technical mastery of the art
I literally don't give a fuck and see no reason why this would make it a greater work. It's arbitrary.
You see anon, there is such a thing as being "wrong". I know, hard to comprehend, but it is what differentiates a fingerpainting from a masterpiece, but the term has been coopted by talentless hacks and used as a front for money laundering. /r/ing /pol/ screencap where anon illustrates the basic process of such.
In the meantime, please observe:
and consider that personal opinion is not the alpha and omega of reality.
>but the term has been coopted by talentless hacks and used as a front for money laundering. /r/ing /pol/ screencap where anon illustrates the basic process of such.
Are you seriously requesting a /pol/ screencap, as if that is in any way hard evidence? Let me guess; some anon, without any proof, claims to be an industry insider and blows the whole sham wide open in half a dozen lines of greentext in a way that police agencies and tax offices just can't do themselves. And in any case, what do corrupt elements in the business side of the industry prove? Somebody burns down their house as an insurance scam: Does that make timber truss homes Entartete Häuser (with apologies to any German speakers) and we should all go back to stone dwellings?
If you are going to reply to me and tell me I'm wrong at least have the decency to outline why, instead of directing me to an hour of Roger Scruton speaking a laboured 40 words per minute, and a piece for Prager """University""" which advocates for "universal standards" but conveniently never attempts to outline any; all smug, no substance, just like your post.
there are masterpieces in all different genres of art. one can't apply the same standards of a 1700 masterpiece history painting to a 1700 masterpiece still life. they're two completely different types of art. the same is said of a masterpiece in 1700 and a masterpiece of 1900. the term was never co-opted but it always referred to the point of the work -- the point of modern art onwards being far different from traditional art.
what do you think is more important in art, colour or design?
>opened thread to perv at contemporary art
Excellent taste, /his/. Say, are there any good websites for listed art value appraisals that you don't need to pay a subscription for?
any good sites for contemporary art? I used to browse through artsy, artnet, and e-flux but they are too much "___ won this prize come to ____ gallery and pay ____ also here's a 50-page artist statement" and not enough pictures of fucking art
Galacidalacidesoxyribonucleicacid by Salvador Dali
I've been posting these last bundle of images; if you've noticed, there's a definite trend in contemporary art going on right now (though to be fair I mixed in some stuff from the 1980's), a sort of fixation on the fantastical - a real escapist sort of vibe.
Lots of vibrancy, high contrast, mixed media and digital works. But the unifying, underlying concepts are those of impossible beings that either transcend man or act as highly-charged caricatures for specific emotions.
I'm not sure if it's a reaction to the current state of the world, or influence from pop culture sources like comic books and anime and science fiction and video games, or some combination thereof, but it's noticeable.
Historically, the high art of a culture has been created to cater to the artistic tastes of the ruling elite.
What does the dismal state of contemporary art say about the artistic tastes of the ruling elite of western society? What do these artistic tastes say about the character and morals of the ruling super wealthy elites who hold them?
This, of all things, is worth an obscenity trial in Japan.
It's better than ever before. Just look at this fucking painting.
It's not as simple as that. The rebellion problem is a big issue in artistic discourse today, and the main issue at hand is the fact that all respected artists, rebel or not, have at least some acquaintance with the elite. Hot subjects of debate include:
>Do artists they have a right to rebel ?
>Is rebellion through art self-serving ? Do rebel art help anyone but the artist ?
>Isn't rebel art a form of coping and dissolving rebellion ?
> If yes, Does rebel art indirectly serve the elite ?
>If yes, then is art a form of oppression ?
etc...it's an interesting subject of discussion.
Interesting, other anons have already posted everything I needed.
Although the three above Bacon images are not the one I'm going to talk about right now, their overall composition is basically the same thing: three figures in triptych with orange bg. Bacon did another such piece called "three studies for figures at the base of a crucifixion", which is well known. And the swiss artist HR Giger is on record as claiming that his treatment of the chestburster for the original Alien movie derives from that particular work.
Furthermore, before working on Alien during 1978, Giger had done an "homage to Bocklin" in is usual style in 1977, copying Bocklin's "Isle of the Dead". In other words, Giger had the picture running around in his head while doing creative work for Alien. It bears mentioning that Bocklin did multiple versions of the same image (always with the same basic composition, just tweaked slightly); it was a famous image in German-speaking culture of the period, and Hitler was a Bocklin fan.
Anyway, although I don't know this for a fact, the train of though is obvious enough to make the claim: Giger based the "derelict" spacecraft on Bocklin's aisle. It also happens (funnily, though this may not have been Giger's intent) that both the painting and the events of the movie show three figures (one in a coffin) slowly approaching the rear-center of the object, which in Alien's case is a vulva. It is not difficult to retcon Bocklin's island as a snatch, once you go back and take another look.