Without doing an image search, how many of you dorks can spot

>>744757535
Both suck

File: wrong.png (164KB, 297x295px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 297x295px

>>744757726

Both suck.

File: niggerboxer.png (809KB, 657x517px) Image search: [Google]

809KB, 657x517px

>>744758181

>>744757535
Both suck

B-Both are g-g-great in their own way ?

File: gasthekikes.jpg (58KB, 630x456px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 630x456px

>>744758662

Left is worth allot right is pure crap

>>744759293
How can you tell?

>>744757884
No, you're wrong. They both suck.

>>744759395
By the pixels

File: hitlerdideverythingright.jpg (37KB, 640x522px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 640x522px

>>744759557

>>744757535
i wouldn't pay $10 for either painting

>>744759581
What makes it better tho?

>>744757535
Is the one on the right really minimalist art? I see a lot going on there, like viewing a foggy landscape. You can make out details, something but not exactly sure what.

File: pineapple.png (197KB, 683x467px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 683x467px

>>744757535
>implying that modern art isn't all garbage

Students managed to pass off a pineapple they bought for £1 at a supermarket as a work of art, after leaving it in the middle of an exhibition at their university,

Ruairi Gray, a business information technology student at Robert Gordon University in Scotland, and his friend Lloyd Jack, reportedly left the fruit at the Look Again exhibition at RGU's Sir Ian Wood building, hoping that it might be mistaken for art.

When they returned four days later he found that the pineapple had been put inside its own glass display case at the event.

>>744759699
you just passed by a multi million dollar craigslist flip! you got AIDS son...

>>744759761
The pixels

>>744759801

That makes it art. Really interesting stuff, actually. How adding or removing something changes ones perspective. I imagine there are very few cases similar to this. It was the right time for that specific work.

It is the neat thing about art. A lot of art comes from inspiration and is completed more quickly than many other pieces.

>>744757535

Is the right really on etsy?

I like it. I'd buy it, especially considering the price is reasonable. Link me.

>>744760104
yup

>>744760104
That's why art rhetoric is dismissable.
Someone shits on the floor, and artfags can defend it as bold new art.
No need to take that bullshit seriously. Art officially died when Duchamp's Fountain was read as serious art a hundred years ago.

modern art is a meme.

>>744757535
I could take a shit on a piece of paper and it would me more interesting to look at. Minimalist art is fucking retarded

>>744760450
There will always be a strand of abject/anti art. It's just one tiny genre as with music and many other things. but I will tell you one of these paintings is definitely not that.

>>744757535
>can spot the difference between good and bad minimalist art
Art is subjective, no matter the price or precieved quality

>>744760450

It isn't so much about taking something seriously or not. I can appreciate try-hard art if it gives me a different perspective, or a new thought. I find that, often, the modern artists' intention is less important than what happens when the viewer views the piece.

Duchamp is a great example of this, partly and explicitly because of the anti-art movement of the time. He took something mundane and put it in the position to become a vehicle for a changed perspective.

>>744757535

It’s gotta be the right one. It has context and a subject. Left is just being like, there’s like nothing at all man and that’s what we are and the universe is just big and this is a depiction of that using white noise.

Also

>Implying the artist in questions name doesn’t have any effect on the value.

>>744760866
You misunderstand me. I don't accept artfag rhetoric about art as anything to take seriously. The art world is retarded from top to bottom. It's not worth treating seriously. One should assume when an artfag says 'this image, which looks like a toddler made a mess to the untrained eye, is actually quality art,' that the artfag is either mendacious or gullible as fuck.
The art world is worse than the worst abuses of the worst religion when it comes to absolute horseshit being treated as sacred or important.

Art isnt simply about which is better, good or bad. IF one of these is selling for millions its because it came in a time where it did something new, or broke some previously established rules. Pretty much it did something no one else thought of. Not because its "good" per se

Youd have to know something about art history.

Da left one mannnneee

>>744760957
Yes, the changed perspective was this: no thinking person should take the art world seriously anymore.

>>744759801
sounds like art to me man

The one on the left is worth alot, its called the bridge most people don't realise but there's a lot of shades of white and when you take a closer look at the bridge it's actually really cool.

>>744757535
No idea, don't care. I have zero interest in art.

>>744760470
kind of yeah. it's a hell of a thing that in 2017 a minimalist painting thread can get as many replys on /b/ as naked girlfriends

>>744761124
>One should assume when an artfag says 'this image, which looks like a toddler made a mess to the untrained eye, is actually quality art,' that the artfag is either mendacious or gullible as fuck.

Yes and no, check out the work of Jean Michel Basquiat. On the surface it looks like a toddlers work but then you start seeing the layering of images

>>744761194

It's funny, because that was the immediate response at the time from the gallery it was submitted to.

There are two people that are a part of every piece of art: the creator and the viewer. Different viewers will get different things from different creations. A changed perspective, a new thought, is a gift; art is the best vehicle for that.

Judging value in the way you are says more about you than it does the viewer.

>>744757535
/thread

https://youtu.be/YMcj1aal0k8

>>744761194
Watch "exit through the gift shop" then you'll def hate the art world

>>744757535

the right one is art, the left one is autism

>>744761326
Frankly this is a far more interesting thread than "Pics you shouldn't share #45287"

Priced milions doesnt mean it have real value, just seller knows guy who made up price for some richfag to buy wrothless piece of shit.

File: 2point2million.jpg (64KB, 640x512px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 640x512px

>>744761178
Wrong.
Modern art that sells for millions is a symptom of the stupidity of art buyers. Pic related.
Now don't get me wrong, I am aware that someone can pretend that this childish scrawl is somehow magnificently original. (I've seen hundreds of magnificently original artworks at my son's kindergarten.) And some shitforbrains paid millions for it. There is literally no defense for that, though. It would be no different than holding out a Kardashian as a great philosopher. Can people abuse language to make the case? Of course.

>>744761472
This 100%

>>744761451
lol, true
>>744761363
any viewer who says a toilet is art is a retard

>>744761178
that's not the case with this one. this genre of painting was nothing new. he just did it in such a spectacularly amazing way that it got him famous.

>>744761508
Please check out Basquiat

http://basquiat.com/

File: 1496486785950.jpg (172KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 800x600px

>>744759395

what do you feel when you look at them. does it elicit an emotion or a thought? did it change you way of looking at things? how lasting was the impression? do you want to experience it again? in some cases a work of art can change your life.

>>744761572

This is the level of argument I expect from an autist.

Hurrrrrrr if I don't get it, and if I am incapable of getting something from it, then it's not art hurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

>>744761194
your not allowed to experiment with what art is, or how to define art in this day and age?

I appreciate things that I can originally dismiss as stupid art fag bullshit, maybe sometimes it is, but it pushes you to think about art in different and alternative ways.

Ever think these people that have devoted their lives to their craft, might have a better understanding of their work and art in general than you?

>>744761572
I hated mr brain wash so much but he was absolutely right

File: 5mill.jpg (41KB, 640x960px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 640x960px

I will say, I like pic related. It sold for 5 million, and the buyer will look at it and think it's art. It's kind of brilliant, although not really art.

>>744761384
This

>>744761633
>http://basquiat.com/
I've seen plenty of his garbage before.
But he was black and gay and a junkie, so the art world adored him.

I recently went to MOMA with my gf. While i do like modern art and minimalism some of the stuff there was retarded. How are you going to put starry night up and then one room over have a cardboard box with some nails in it by some bourgeoisie new york weirdo.

Worthless garbage.

>>744761664
That doesn't work on me. There is nothing to "get" about a toilet other than that you shit and piss in it.
Your artfag rhetoric only works on people who lack confidence. "Oh, maybe I just don't get what a toilet signifies! I should shut up or play along..."
Fuck you.

>>744761508
seriously tell me how much you have researched this piece, and how much you are actually educated in art.

it baffles me how people who know nothing about a subject can have such a strong opinion.

>>744757535
Etsy on the right. It looks like something you can buy at TJ Maxx or Gordon's for $13.99

>>744761673
You shouldn't put words in my mouth, anon. I am fine with experimental art. But no, I don't assume the contemporary art world knows what art is. It is a debased institution.

>>744761917
Warhol made him famous. Kild that poor nigger

>>744762022
>>744762040

>>744761917
For sure, you like what you like anon. The coolest part about art is it's subjective. To me it takes more creativity to make his work than say the portrait of some Renaissance dude. Both take a skill to do. Basquiat was known for painting over paintings layering them and only leaving bit and pieces of layers viewable. That's a lot more interesting than like Hopper's nighthawks IMO

>>744762040
Why would one need to research a piece of visual art to evaluate it as a piece of visual art?
"Oh, I read here that this isn't merely a childish scrawl. I guess it isn't."
LOL
BTW, as a fan of renaissance art, like Bellini's sculpture, I am not the audience for it. You would find more receptive appreciation in someone who thinks "I like art works that can be knocked out in ten minutes by a drunken toddler."

>>744761992
same reason you can find beethoven and rap at the same music store

>>744762339
>Why would one need to research a piece of visual art to evaluate it as a piece of visual art?

I mean that kinda proves your ignorance. Almost every good contemporary piece of art is conceptual is some sort of way.

And even if it purely visual who are you to decide peoples tastes? I prefer the painting you posted aesthetically to the majority of renaissance pieces.

>>744762310
That's probably where we differ, to a degree. I am not a relativist nor a pure subjectivist. I think you can make value judgments about art that are true, not merely personal opinion. So I don't arrive at a conclusion like "she says The Hannah Montana Movie is the best movie of the 21st century, and he says it's There Will Be Blood, and art is subjective so they're both equally right." I would say his view on cinema is more true than hers. So, I would say, for example, that Jacob Lawrence's Hiroshima paintings are better art than Barnett Newman's color splotches.

>>744762060
How is it you can tell the difference? Help these normies out.

>>744762617
It's not ignorance at all. The fact that the value of a work of visual art lies outside its visual affect and in some textual concept I have to research only proves to me that it's shitty art.

>>744757535
The one on the right looks nice, the one on the left looks like clip art. I don't care which one is sponsored by some rich cuck and which one is easy to find on the internet.

My taste is mine, and some feckless wet-wipe who thinks not having his own opinion in exchange for licking the boots of someone else who told him how to think and feel isn't going to impress me.

>>744762339
>Why would one need to research a piece of visual art to evaluate it as a piece of visual art?

I used to look at sol lewitt art pieces and thought they were shitty boring. Until i did some research about sol lewitt and learned he was doing some pretty interesting stuff. idk, still ugly but kinda cool

>>744762866
so your saying you don't like conceptual art? Its as easy as that man. Different strokes for different folks.

>the value of a work of visual art lies outside its visual affect
to me that sounds awesome, and really interesting.

File: essayimageshapes.gif (672KB, 1562x1015px) Image search: [Google]

672KB, 1562x1015px

>>744762922
so you are saying that you could look at his art and not find it interesting at all, but then when someone told you it was interesting, it was interesting
my reply: the text you read was what was interesting, not the so-called art.
I look at this and think there's no there there

>>744763123
you like reading
that's good
it's where shitty art becomes interesting, because the writing is what is interesting

>>744763123
I'm just saying there's a lot of hoighty-toighty types who think anyone who doesn't share their definition of "high art" is some uncultured swine. You can like the box on the left, I can disagree, which I do. But the minute one of us thinks the other is wrong for having that opinion, they're a fuckup.

File: 1504752396902.png (590KB, 741x724px) Image search: [Google]

590KB, 741x724px

>>744762339
>Why would one need to research a piece of visual art to evaluate it as a piece of visual art?
Because while the brain is just a group of cells floating in a calcium bowel. I believe a soul dictates how the brain behaves, a broken or damaged soul will lead to chemical imbalance, an old soul will lead to a person being great and kind, a new soul is learning. Everything with a brain has a soul. So single cell organisms don't have souls or things like trees. But bugs and spiders have souls. But not like larger animals. Souls have size limits you cannot go too small or too big but a soul can get stuck in another species (however rare)

What else do you want to know? Want me to explain anything better or in more details? I'm trying to give a broad answer here to just give a better idea on what I believe.

>>744763225
i wasn't told that it was interesting, i read his story and it was interesting. He was just a dude in my local museum i did a college report on. Idk if it makes it good art, but i think there is something else to enjoy about it.

im not trying to fight you, i just shared a personal experience. cool down hot head

>>744757535
Sorry, but there's no objective or subjective way of answering your question. Great art is chosen, not made. It's a racket. Read The Painted Bird by T. Wolfe.

File: birth-of-venus.jpg (78KB, 750x428px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 750x428px

>>744760957
Look at it this way, bud.
The art is something that you makes think. So this is an idea, but presented in skillful way. The way you can understand. Someone, who can carry the ideas skillfully through his creations is called an artist.
Now having in mind, thath we assumed, that art has two components, idea and skillfull representation, we understand why some, let's say 'pre-modern art' (classics) are praised. Great techniques, lots of meanings. And to carry the ideas, they often used symbols, size changes, composition and other means of making some pieces of their work more important or less.

And now look at modern art. It is despised because art represents only the idea, not the skills. And when you have to write an essay to really unveil the idea of your work it clearly states that you failed to be an artist; you failed to carry your ideas through work of your hands. If you have words to describe true meaning, be writer then, the artist of words.

The same is about kitschy artworks, which can be bought in home improvement stores or on the street sometimes. It represents only skills, but has no meaning. No idea behind image. Just looks nice. It is not original, it do not represents the artist's views.

And this is a problem of modern art. It is art reduced just to idea.
And this is, why they aren't worth, the ideas are free. Prices are just artificially balooned to speculation, because there are profitable.

>>744763502
You could answer the question of why a visual art piece that fails on the visual level somehow succeeds otherwise?

>>744763513
we're allowed to disagree
I'm not hot about it tho
I find it interesting is all

>>744763785
>art reduced just to idea
well put
in many ways, most contemporary art seems to be propaganda

>>744763785

Trying to draw or sculpt something that looks like a photograph became less art than shit on a canvas when photography came about.

All that old art you love so much? Commissioned by the church, or the rich, to represent their family or their mistress. Because they couldn't keep photographs.

If all you can appreciate is the literal, it's because you lack the mental capacity to appreciate anything but.

>>744763785
the best thing about this is ideas have no monetary value, you can understand their beauty just from hearing about it. You don't have to go to an high brow museum, buy expensive artworks, and just partake in the overly capitalistic art world.

Decomdification of art. Idk how well it worked, but i don't mind it personally.

>>744763355
no for sure

art is subjective.

>>744763355
>But the minute one of us thinks the other is wrong for having that opinion, they're a fuckup.

Nah, fuck that cheap relativism. They both suck and anyone who thinks otherwise is simply unenlightened.

>>744763355

>my ignorance is just as valuable as their knowledge

It isn't, which is why people look down on you.

>>744763902
Because while art is just a group of lines floating in a fabric canvas. I believe a visual dictates how the brain beholds it, a broken or damaged piece of art will lead to visual level imbalance, an old art form will lead to a spectator at the visual level feeling great and kind, a new art form is learning. Everything with art has a visual. So simple art visual forms don't have good visuals or things like trees. But abstracts and cubists have souls. But not like higher forms of art. Art has size limits you cannot go too small or too big but a visual art piece can get stuck in another form of art (however rare)

What else do you want to know? Want me to explain anything better or in more details? I'm trying to give a broad answer here to just give a better idea on what I believe.

>>744764117
>Trying to draw or sculpt something that looks like a photograph became less art than shit on a canvas when photography came about.

Nice assertion.

>All that old art you love so much? Commissioned by the church, or the rich, to represent their family or their mistress. Because they couldn't keep photographs

Generalization, simplification. Looks like reality and thoughts are hard for you.

>If all you can appreciate is the literal, it's because you lack the mental capacity to appreciate anything but.

The irony.

>>744764427
yeah, sure, explain how this
>>744764110
is more than just scribbles and why the contemporary art world values it at close to 70 million dollars

>>744764612
>is more than just scribbles and why the contemporary art world values it at close to 70 million dollars

No, the emperor is not wearing any clothes.

File: ECOLE-BOSCH-Vision-de-Tondal2.jpg (133KB, 1025x779px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 1025x779px

>>744764117
>renaissance art is literalist
okay, perfesser

>>744763785
>when you have to write an essay to really unveil the idea of your work it clearly states that you failed to be an artist
THIS

>>744764789
kek
so true

>>744764612
I believe that post was defending older art visual forms, praising them, and calling out how immature new art visuals are. Also explaining how less smart brains behold modern art as something aesthetically beautiful despite being trash.

>>744764117
You fucking idiot.
Commissioned by the wealthy, but have you ever tried sculpt something from clay, for instance? It is not easy.
But when you have fucking marble, not easy to work with, expensive to buy, to transport (no cars then) and risk of destroying the material you understand why the work of an artist in old times were super expensive. There was no art-shops, you often had to make your own tools, paints, other mediums etc. Often it took months, if not years, to finish the art piece.

And photography-like art, whose purpose declined with invention of camera, is no longer considered a real art - check photorealism on google - it is used rather to show the artist's skills rather than complete piece of art.
You do not paint your relatives to hang their pictures on wall, you take the camera and make a photo.
Thank to supply of art tools and medias nowadays, you can commision an internet
artist to make everything, even R34 on you. Super-cheap. 10, 20 bucks and you are done.
Stop making every issue a right-left problem.

>>744765346
Your point?

>>744765946
that it was commissioned by wealthy because they were only people that could afford it, and thats why the classic art reflect their tastes.

But it is worthy to point that there were ways to weave artist's ideas into the painting and knowing their codes we know more from the artworks, and there were also painters painting to themselves, as 19th century painter for instance. Not to mention, that was century, where painting were affordable for many more people, than wealthies from earlier days.

>>744766496
Ooo..... K?
Go on. You have my attention.

>>744766873
this

File: venus.jpg (27KB, 480x345px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 480x345px

>>744766873
For instance, this Tizian's Venus pic related.

Some of women depictions were comissioned to hang in bedrooms or interiors, not to public view. So they can conveyed more personal look, not censored by public taste such much as public epictions in churches for instance.
In this case, it was a wedding gift to 14yr old soon-to wife, more like an ideal how wife should be for his husband. Kind of manual - you know, illiteracy were super common till about 17th century.
In quotes classic antique art (as Venus was a goddess in antic Rome). She is covering her cunt because she shows that women should be modest, but wathc the viewer more lusciously - as wife should be to her husband.
there is also some subtlety in decorations ans symbolic use - look at her naked body - it shows that there should be nothing covered between spouses, honesty. The dog symbolises faith in marriage. Two servants with chest - probably invitation to reasonable managing of her possesions - because now it belongs to family, to marriage.

It was later quoted by many artists, and often was showing changing morals and views of public.