Whomp!/Ronnie

>>88900703
I hate it. I hate all modern art and modern artists. I can't even begin to convey how much every single cell in my fucking body ignites with pure unadulterated hatred for the modern fucking art crowd and their horseshit philosophical bullshit. I was fucking in ecstasy when that warehouse in Oakland burned down and killed 30+ people, because they all represent the most loathsome inhuman scum, modern artists, that I'm capable of imagining in my worst fever-pitched nightmares.

I don't like it, is what I'm saying.

>>88900703
The background colors reflect emotion and the "smoothness" of it reflects the intensity.

>>88900703
Surrealism was the last good art movement

>>88900814
Huh, so you are like the old fogeys that hated Picasso's shit and tried to desperately control what art could be to people.

Shit tastes for a shit person, I guess.

>>88900814
>I was fucking in ecstasy when that warehouse in Oakland burned down and killed 30+ people, because they all represent the most loathsome inhuman scum, modern artists, that I'm capable of imagining in my worst fever-pitched nightmares.

You know a lot of the stuff that subculture makes is actual art, right? They're drawing actual things, not abstract cubism or period blood or whatever pisses you off. Also, you sound autistic.

>>88900814
I'm with you buddy. Modern art is cancer.

>>88900867
>>88900924
No, I think the Renaissance was the best possible time for art, and it has never been better since then. Art is a fucking business. It's about skill and talent and experience and practice. It's about being someone who studies and trains and expands upon techniques and ideas. It's about delivering a high-quality product to people who demand it and, most importantly, pay for it. Fuck your feelings and fuck your emotions. They don't mean god damned shit and nobody fucking cares.

The greatest art in human history was all delivered by a business-like professional who was fulfilling a request and earning a paycheck. That's how all great human endeavors should work.

>>88900867
Not him, but I hate art that looks like it had little to no effort put into it.

When it looks like something that I could paint in under twenty minutes, then it's shit. The only art that's being performed here is the art of illusion and false grandeur by convincing people that something incredibly simple is much more deep than it actually is.

I hate the postmodern stuff Ronnie is talking about that people tend to mislabel as modern art, but generally like actual modern art. Although I don't blame people for confusing the two since contemporary art hasn't been modern art for nearly 40 years.

>>88901008
I think the problem may be in the actual term itself. Every lay person is going to assume that something labeled modern art is contemporary with themselves. I understand that art deco is modern art, but no one outside of scholars would define it as such.

>>88900994
Hmmm so your problem is you just don't get it. You do realize a good majority of that sort of art originated out of protest to the big wigs who tried to control what art should be. So they broke the norm.

Sometimes there is truth to simplicity. Granted maybe it has been oversaturated since, but the primary point at first was to prove something about the world of art.

>>88901065
Yeah, Andy Warhol made some kind of a point, and nobody who came after him got the fucking point and just figured that a lack of effort and shit delivery was the goal.

There is no such thing as art.

>>88901170
I'm curious as to your reasoning behind that statement.

>>88901065
>So they broke the norm.
They broke the norm and started creating garbage. Great.

>>88900703
I feel it has its place, and I would like to see more of a focus put on modern art that has actual craftsmanship to it, but it often just seems to be a money laundering operation where people can spin out piles of junk, brand them as "art" and insist people simply don't get it if they criticise it.

What I do think is retarded about modern art is how they think they are all so "rebellious" as if an unmade bed is telling the "art establishment" to go fuck itself and patting themselves on the back for it, when in reality, they ARE the artistic establishment, making toothless comments about themselves if anything, a true artistic rebellion in modern day would be a return to traditional methods.

>>88901044
Unquestionably. I've long ago given up on the expectation for terms and genre labels outside of the most broad and well-established to convey any sort of consistent meaning. I've accepted that the in most cases the best option is to display a not-quite-deserved sense of smug superiority in my knowledge of the "correct" terminology even if it's worthless when no one else uses it in that manner.

Art has never ever been about art itself

It has always been about the ability to convince something is art. Does a piece convince you it is art through a show of technical prowess? Then it is art. Does a piece convince you it is art through some sort of elicitation of feeling? Then it is art. Something is only ever not art when a group of people, despite all attempts, feel absolutely nothing to a piece. It literally can't be art because it's nothing. It's a painting sold by Walmart. It's a wall decoration. No one gave it a single thought as to promoting it as art from conception to production to market.

You can't say something isn't art when someone else says its art. Because that's literally what the definition is, a work that is something more than just its existence.

>>88901291
as a small addition to this, the true problem people have with modern art isn't the classification of art but the valuation of art

File: Dawson creaks.png (1MB, 891x1009px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 891x1009px

>>88900703
This comic reminds me of me.

>>88901260
That's fair, but I think the best solution is to simply change how things are defined in order to match the common usage. We really should come up with a term to define the actual "modern" art of the early 20th century that will stand on it's own so people can identify it. And moving forward, everything is "modern" art so long as we can commonly define a period of art that is contemporary with ourselves. Once that passes, we just choose a term that best defines that period for historical posterity. I don't think this is a weird way to look at things. We've already done it for the past century with pop-culture, with everyone having a fairly well understood definition of cultural norms being defined by decades that we don't even fully identify until well over 10 years after they've passed. We all understand what it means to be '70s, '80s, and '90s, but we're still defining the '00s as we progress through the '10s.

>>88901191
Art is just an opinion label that declares that the is "art". Meaning that anything from a blank room to someones hard work of 10 years on a project hold the same merit, being "art".

>>88900814

>t. Hitler

>>88901065
>Hmmm so your problem is you just don't get it.
If you're going to act like a tool you can at least try to be convincing.

>>88901417
>Meaning that anything from a blank room to someones hard work of 10 years on a project hold the same merit, being "art".
why does this bother anyone?

The same can be said of entertainment. The hot knife videos are monetarily valued the same as some short films with big budgets. It's all and only about what people derive from it.

>>88900703
so how long before the obligatory Loss edit.

>>88901209
>What I do think is retarded about modern art is how they think they are all so "rebellious" as if an unmade bed is telling the "art establishment" to go fuck itself and patting themselves on the back for it,
That's not just modern art. At some point people started believing desctruction and breaking norms is good by default.

>>88900983
You do realize this isn't /ic/, right?

>>88901291
I disagree. I feel far more moved and in touch with the broader concepts of humanity by $5 bathroom decorations sold at WalMart than anything by Jackson Pollock. I mean that sincerely and I will back that up using horseshit emotional bullshit I've read supporting Jackson Pollock.

Something we can buy at WalMart needed to go through a design process. A single creator worked on the piece and built it for mass appeal, but the ultimate design was decided upon by committee. It took hundreds of people providing feedback to this nameless artist, each plopping in a thought to the chamberpot of "art" that was this design-by-committee aesthetic that ultimately provided the final design. It's development represents the ultimate globalization of all humanity, where no single person exists in a vacuum and no one person even matters in the ultimate scheme of things. We're all connected through technology and development. There is no room for the single artist. And afterwards, this design is digitally sent to several nations for mass production, to be replicated ad infinitum for the masses who all equally decided upon the look and then decided to pay for its endless duplication. Thus the WalMart bathroom painting tells the full story about our place in modern society.

>>88900814
>horseshit
>bullshit
Whoa! Doubleshit. Modern art is shit confirmed. Its so fucking sad that the school of impressionism reached this point. It was originally a bunch of painters rebelling against the overly political and conformist high art society. Which ironically the modern art scene resembles.

>>88900867
Picasso's works are pieces of shit. It only got popularity due to the rise of the "different its good, muh symbolism" crowd that disregards the skill technical aspects of art that they couldn't understand.

>>88901567
>I feel
and other people feel too

>>88900814
>>88900867
>>88900945
You're thinking of post-modern art.

It's a weird distinction because it has a parallel but not exact time period with modern and post-modern philosophy (keep in mind that thematically they don't have to relate but just so happen to correspond to time periods)

reminder that pretending to understand is in itself an understanding

>>88901513
I'm saying we have reached that stage now, we have art that people claim to enjoy because it is "daring for going against artistic norms" or whatever, there isn't a room of stuffy art professors who become shocked and have their monocles dropped into glasses of champagne by this artwork, it's just artists who claim their art is great and daring and rebellious seemingly unaware that they themselves have become the establishment.

It's either just so above my head it simply appears to be piles of ugly junk to me, for I am nothing but an uneducated philistine who could never truly understand art or these artists are running an "emporer's clothes" style scam on people.

>>88901637
Its a misunderstanding if you don't actually understand anything. Unless the subject is abstract you can be right or wrong.

File: 1482978112646.jpg (1MB, 1752x5426px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1752x5426px

Modern art and everything to do with it is hideous. Everything contained within that echo chamber of stupidity and self-congratulation is a festering blight that is going to hobble the creative industry for years to come. Why strive to improve yourself or apply personal effort and drive to accomplish something when you can just buy your way through life and everyone tells you you dun good?

Go over to /v/ right now and find one of the Mass Effect threads. Find the webm of the gun snatching animation. And remember that someone paid someone money for that shit.

File: 1483054633795.png (52KB, 246x270px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 246x270px

people around here are too plebby for it
like that one board likes to make faces and pretend to yell about brutalist architecture and yet they're probably a-okay with vynil siding and decorative window shutters because it reminds them of Leave It to Beaver

Why is anyone here btohering to argue about this? Art is one of those horrifically pretentious fields where sophism, absurd leaps of logic and appeals to emotion are encouraged, so there is literally no logical way to argue what is and isn't art, the water is simply way too muddied.

For myself, I hate modern art because it mostly looks like shit.

I came in here expecting a loss edit.

Where is the loss edit.

>>88901617
Yeah. I guess that was my fucking point in far fewer words. What I was ultimately trying to say is that feelings don't mean anything, and they don't define art. Anyone can bullshit their feelings into something.

>>88901766
It's in your mind. Release the artist inside you and show it to the rest of the world!

File: evans.jpg (96KB, 800x437px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 800x437px

>>88901741
>He can't appreciate vinyl siding and decorative window shutters
>He can't even spell vinyl
>He calls others plebs

>>88901750
Because fuck you! That's why.

>someone creates something they say is art
>"I don't like it, it's not art"
>someone else other than the creator considers it art
>"I don't like it, it's not art"
>the piece is hosted in galleries that have housed other pieces you do consider is art
>"I don't like it, it's not art"
>the piece is monetarily valued as art
>"I don't like it, it's not art"

At what point can you consider something to not be art or art?

File: 123151734748.jpg (150KB, 880x625px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 880x625px

>>88901065
Do not try to speak for myself over whether or not I understand the concept of modern art. If I did not "get it", I wouldn't have posted.

The majority of modern art do not seek the same protesting message that you claim, or to prove a point other than that there are plenty of people willing to overvalue the price of a incredibly lackluster piece of work. They're not there to fight against anything, but to make money or gain recognition with as little effort as possible.

It's the same as claiming that a 3 year old's crayon-scribbled mess is on equal standings with other grand, actual exemplary pieces of modern art. And that stating otherwise means that you're too "simple minded" to understand the meaning behind it and how it fights against modern art trends and rules.

Even then if an artpiece was to have its message be as what you stated 100% without any ulterior motives, the message is tired and seen as a joke due to the oversaturation of pitiful art pieces. It was a rightful message then, but it opened the floodgates to many artists who copied and copied and copied and copied and copied and copied and copied and copied and copied the same idea repeatedly until it's become the joke that it is today.

>>88901809
When I like it.

>>88901809
When I can't make it myself.

File: house.jpg (42KB, 550x274px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 550x274px

>>88901783
u're rite this looks rly good bb soz

>>88901750
>Why is anyone here bothering to argue about this?
because you can only hear "you just don't get it" so many times
You just explained it yourself. Art is one of those fields where "muh feelings" is far more important than anything else, it's a lost battle.

>>88901809
So if someone else thinks something is art, then you must think its art?
I'm sure someone out there considers really expensive headsets to be works of art, along with matchboxes and really nice looking candy. In this world where all you need is for someone in the world to consider something art for it to actually be art, what wouldn't be art?

>>88901703
What if the author is intentionally misleading?

Godot is one of the seminal works of the last century and the author basically admits to fucking with people in several interviews.

File: It is.jpg (25KB, 598x482px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 598x482px

>>88901766

>>88900983
>Art is a fucking business
Well that was easy. Now just put on a trip so I can filter your stupid ass

>>88901882
>admits to fucking with people in several interviews
Wait. What?

File: tilePatternFetish.png (498KB, 1320x1015px) Image search: [Google]

498KB, 1320x1015px

>>88901876
Nothing. Everything is art. And we can fucking prove this as a fact due to us already proving the corollary that everything, literally everything, is porn to at least one person.

>>88901911
Tell me how I'm wrong.

I am genuinely fucking eager to hear this explanation.

>>88901924
Then congratulations, the term is completely and utterly meaningless.

>>88900814
>I was fucking in ecstasy when that warehouse in Oakland burned down and killed 30+ people, because they all represent the most loathsome inhuman scum, modern artists, that I'm capable of imagining in my worst fever-pitched nightmares.

Holy shit it wasn't just me lol. I remember reading the descriptions of the people and what went on there and it seemed like the most hipster shit.

>>88901979
It really is.

>>88901513
By that reasoning, there ought to be people deliberately enforcing easy to rebel against norms for pay, in order to fuel the industries that exploit these "artists".

>it's an autists don't understand art thread

>>88901979
Yeah. But I don't think I'm not the guy you're arguing with. I agree with you. Art is meaningless by this definition. It really should mean something more.

Art as a term has become completely meaningless.

>>88902006
>"you just don't get it"
Ah yes, there it is

File: ART.jpg (310KB, 600x1125px) Image search: [Google]

310KB, 600x1125px

>>88901890
>>88901781
I summoned the artist within me to produce this work for all.

>>88901987
I'm surprised it took this long for someone else to even comment on it. But yeah, listening to the survivors talk, I finally understand /pol/. And that fucking terrifies me.

>>88902025
Thank you.

>>88902010
It used to have more meaning before modern artists came and decided to ruin it.

>>88902053
Again, I absolutely agree.

I'm hoping we'll eventually see a reversal of this shit in our lifetimes, but I'm not confident it'll happen until a decade from now.

>>88902022
>autist acts smug to prove himself a more higher person

Can't have an art thread without one of you types

>>88902025
I don't like it.

File: jacksonPollock.jpg (349KB, 1100x660px) Image search: [Google]

349KB, 1100x660px

>>88902093
If someone doesn't "get it" then that directly implies that "getting it" is something tangible and it can be explained. So, let's hear it.

Explain Jackson Pollock.

File: badfd0e0a758b063f4b0a1ce96c2c98e-pkrpyy.jpg (104KB, 401x600px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 401x600px

While we're on the subject, what does everyone think of this?

I love it so much I bought a print through DeviantArt.

>>88902178
>filename
That about sums it up.

File: Hirst-Love-Of-God.jpg (30KB, 280x400px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 280x400px

>>88900983

Art is a business right now. It's just where previously art was about decoration and demonstrating power and wealth, now art is all those things plus producing high value unregulated commodities for an international, unregulated speculative market. The better artists get this and approach the job of creating art with all the cynical calculation of an ad exec.

That's the thing that people who complain about modern art and people who strenuously defend it don't seem to get. You're like people who talk about horse racing without mentioning gambling, or who review movies without talking about the box office. You're talking about the superficial by-product of an activity that is ultimately and fundamentally about money.

Pic very much related.

>>88902192
Heh. That's fair.

I really like color: the more intense the better.

Remember when this thread was about a comic? Y'know, that one post.

>>88902262
welcome to Whomp! threads

>>88902262
Shouldn't you be on /qa/ crying to the mods?

>>88902262
Whomp threads have always devolved into inane nonsense. Remember when we spent two days arguing about screen doors?

File: 215499741_EEML7-2100x20000.jpg (1MB, 1948x990px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1948x990px

>>88902143
It's art, man. If you don't like it you must not get it. It's not for you.

>>88902219
I personally can't find a way to argue with your points.

Fine. I'll accept that.

File: picasso-war-painting-2-hd-wallpaper.png (2MB, 1200x774px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1200x774px

>People shiting on picasso of all people
>congratulating time instead of concept

This is like being fan of the fandom and not the show

>>88900814
You remind me of the dude who carved a dragon out of a tree.

>>88901882
Sounds a lot like Scott Adams.

File: 1472200366288.jpg (46KB, 625x585px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 625x585px

>>88902262
I'd like to personally apologize for starting this thread with that question. I didn't consider the consequences.

>>88900703
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEleWfNVifY

File: Modern art.webm (3MB, 720x304px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 720x304px

>>88903457
>mfw this actually more of an artistic expression than anything else in the gallery

>>88904082
Fuck yeah, Mind Game. That movie was seriously a trip.

>>88903011
Asking about opinions on modern art is never a good conversation starter, unless you really want to start a fight.

>>88902619
You know, when I read that post, the first thing I thought was "is this the tree dragon guy?". Glad I wasn't the only one.

Modern art isn't the problem.

Conceptual art is. The idea that anything is art as long as it has a "concept" behind it. Conceptual art is literally the story of the Emperor's New Clothes with art dealers in the role of the tailor, and means they can sell someone a few haphazardly arranged bricks for millions of dollars.

>>88904584
It's not even a problem. It's just art that people put out there to be judged. It's not all good. It doesn't have to be. Who cares if some pretentious twat likes it?

>>88902147
It was all visions of his own death.

>>88901065
>your problem is you just don't get it. You do realize a good majority of that sort of art originated out of protest to the big wigs who tried to control what art should be. So they broke the norm.
this is the worst thing i have read on this website in years.
congratulations.

Boy howdy, I sure hate preformance art. I just learned recently that some bitch is australia is shoving wool up her cunt and then using said wool to knit and calling it art. If there is any form of art I despise in this modern era above all it is performance art.

All it's doing is giving idiots the ability to do mundane tasks, invovle their gentials and then idiots saying "WAKE UP SHEEPLE FEMALE GENITALS SHOULDN'T GROSS YOU OUT FEMINISM" when in reality everyone would also be grossed out if some man painted a recreation of the mona lisa with nothing but his dick.

But yes, I hate that type of modern art worse, abstract isn't too far behind, but I'll be blunt also. When I was a kid, every art piece I made was "abstract" because I knew it took little skill and maybe I'd get lucky and someone might say it was good. So what the fuck does that say?

>>88904584
i agree with this greatly.
i can appreciate more abstract works as long as it has aesthetic and quality.
meaning is nice as long as it is clear, and presented as being set before the design process began, rather than deduced from contemplation on a finished piece.

>>88904633
But at least with non-conceptual modern art, there's still some level of skill required. Someone still has to pick up a paintbrush and think up a composition, even if it is just squares or some shit.

Conceptual art requires no skill at all except coming up with a bullshit "concept" that your urinal you fished out of a dumpster or broken tent represents, and that's why its worth hundereds of thousands of times more than another piece of junk. And that's not artistic, that's just being a shyster.

is abstract/pattern art degenerate?
not directly representing something tangible, but it isn't meant to represent a concept either

>>88904815
So? Who cares?

>>88904486
Thirded here.

>>88901417
You being a low brow idiot != art isn't defined well.
it's wasted on superficial lardasses like you but it's not "not art".

>>88900983
Leonardo Davinci and Michaelangelo were well known for either extending deadlines or never finishing some works. Michaelangelo in particular was known to be difficult to work with (read about him being a shitlord painting the Sistine Chapel) and would frequently deliver a different result than what was asked.

>The scheme proposed by the pope was for twelve large figures of the Apostles to occupy the pendentives. However, Michelangelo negotiated for a grander, much more complex scheme and was finally permitted, in his own words, "to do as I liked".

So much for "business like". You're no better than the new artists you criticize. You're just the other side of the same extremist coin, convinced that you know what art is individually instead of realizing art is a communal effort.

That and all art is useless, so you can't apply the same economics to it like you can a skill or craft or trade that produces something tangible. Art is the craft of rendering a philosophy or ideal to form and figure.

>>88904927
>Michaelangelo is the John K of renaisance art

>>88904770
Do you hate movies? Movies are full of performances, so I'm pretty sure they are considered "performance art".

>When I was a kid, every art piece I made was "abstract" because I knew it took little skill and maybe I'd get lucky and someone might say it was good
I wouldn't say that abstract art is abstract because it takes little skill, but because it is the opposite of "realistic" painting.

>So what the fuck does that say?
Your art was about your yearning for approval but compromised by your lack of skill. It speaks to a common human experience, something that many can relate to. At the end of the day, I'd say most of us just want to be valued and accepted, but we have to prove our worth to gain that admiration.

>>88904827
Call me crazy but I think art should actually require artistic skill, rather than just the skill of being a bullshit salesman.

>tw Ronnies relationship with his father has improved enough to the point they went out to work together on Christmas Eve

Ronnie deserves something nice.

>>88904961
who

cares

people still draw and paint in the style that you like probably, go buy their shit

>>88904770
You know what they call performance art that's actually entertaining?

Drama.

I think that's the idea though. These people are too conceited to make an art house film like Brazil or Eraserhead and instead opt for the lazy "abstractionist" method of media creation.

The problem is that they miss the original intent of illogical farcical and absurd performance art (like that seen in Salvidor Dali and Luis Bunel's Un Chien Andalou) and forget that actions are supposed to have symbolism and representation behind them accessible by the viewer. But they forgo being understandable because it's easier to bullshit your thing being a commentary on multiple abstract ideas than to focus on a single concrete ideal.

>>88900983
>Art is a fucking business.
Yeah, and currently the stuff that sells is the conceptual stuff. So artists try to deliver the type of product the curators of big collections, or the clients with money who actually buy works costing tens of thousands, will be interested in.

If you want to commission beautifully composed photorealistic scenes, by all means go ahead, save the art scene and do so. What, you don't have the money to pay for it? What's that, you don't actually buy any artworks from artists ever? Then don't whine.

>>88900703
>How do you feel about modern art?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjS6bQ5OQ-o

>>88900983
>art is a business
>"well this new art sells to-"
>that doesn't count
lmao

>>88904961
You know, human beings have an innate sense of fairness. They'll go so far as to not be cheated that they'll cut their nose to spite their face just so they won't be cheated on principle.

Maybe that's what's happening here, because otherwise who gives a flying fuck what someone buys?

>>88904956
That first line is just literal sophism.
>Pretend movies are just a form of performance art, even though performance art and movies are different labels with different connotations and aspects
>Thus claim anon must not actually hate performance art if he watches movies, even though they are incredibly different things

Boy, its almost like you really did an arts course!

t. guy who was top of his class in art just because he knew how to make a sentence sound nice when he was applying bullshit meaning to a flower installation.

>>88904815
If I connect with the meaning of a piece of art, why should I care about the level of skill that went into it?

File: celestina.jpg (59KB, 630x781px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 630x781px

>>88901613
>Picasso's works are pieces of shit.
Okay

>>88905004
https://youtu.be/g031x5y4JmA

>>88902147
He rejected the notion of composition and unlike a lot of pseudo-abstractionists was looking for a way to remove any sense of predetermined artistry from painting. His work was interesting because he takes the focus away from a figurative subject that is normally depicted and makes it about literal paint. Also he was a brilliant businessman and always sold his latest painting for more than the last which is why his paintings go for so much. He knew how to fuck with art dealers, so much so that there was a documentary about a lady trying to proove she had a Pollock painting. The biggest reason she can't get it approved is because it would make the art dealing community and art critic community look bad for "losing" it.

tl;dr It's a painting of paint which is kind of a neat idea.

>>88905026
Its not just about what rich people buy, its about what artists are celebrated and 'get a go' in the modern art world. Naturally, if people think skilled artists are shunned and bullshit artists are praised and plastered everywhere, they will be annoyed.

>>88904956
I wouldn't call cinema, preformance art. Most of that is basically telling a story in a live action sense. Shit even an alright portion of indie works often show this same set up, where they try to throw in ideas and things that may be hard to read to the common man that someone else could pick up.

I want to call performance art, those mockeries that end up being about 10 minutes of preformance while doing something stupid. Other things that come to mind that doesn't relate to women doing weird things with thier vagina is this one fat asain woman who stands on a block of butter and intentionally makes herself slip and fall for 10 minutes straight.

But besides that, I really want to say this though. You can paint something that isn't realistic, but when it comes out as a garbled mess like a teleivion station that is between two stations, I don't think that is good. I'm a huge fantasy nerd, and even unrealistic things have a certain quality about them, instead of this garbled image of some new fantasy creature, you can view all the gross oddities about it. Sometimes you should show your skill instead of painting something chaotic because chaos is easy to draw, drawing something clear is something that only a few can do.

>>88904983
>>88905026
I don't care what people buy, but I don't think people should be recognised as "artists" when they posess no traditional artistic skill, and I don't think the piles of trash they dump in art galleries should be considered "art" any more than a pile of trash on the street.

>>88905031
Then what is performance art, if not art that contains performances? Is theater? Is dance?

>>88905035
you can connect with a piece of shit lying on the pavement, that does not make it art
the idea that literally anything can be art is what killed it in the first place

>>88905071
Performance Art:a nontraditional art form often with political or topical themes that typically features a live presentation to an audience or onlookers (as on a street) and draws on such arts as acting, poetry, music, dance, or painting.

Unfortunately for you, words have actual meanings in the real world, and there are a number of reasons why Movies do not fit into it.

>>88905035
Because nothing has any fucking meaning beyond that which you give it.

You just like the meaning somebody else has told you something has. Where is the art?

File: Pablo-Picasso-Science-and-Charity.jpg (57KB, 708x614px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 708x614px

>>88901613
Actually Picasso when he wanted to could paint and do art exactly like the old masters. But he broke from that because he found it stale. He could only break the mould because he understood how the mould worked in the first place.

See this pic? This is how he first started out. You can't even tell if it's from the start or the end of the 1800's. Compare that to where he was in 1901 and it was a world of difference.

But Picasso was multifaceted ad switched easily between sculpture, poetry, painting, and other arts.

>>88901613
Pablo Picasso's flat perspective influenced Jojo's Bizarre Adventure.

And you don't get to talk shit about my Aztec Gods of /fit/.

>>88905121
>Implying his father didn't produce early works for his 'little boy genius' so that he could end up creating rubbish himself without anyone questioning his skill and expertise

>>88905035
Because a lot of people are the same anon. They feel things, experience things, have thoughts and ideas and most of the time everyone has experienced the same thought or feeling as them. Stating something that someone agrees with as an idea shouldn't make it art because you put it on a visual/audible medium for others to see. If that was the case the memes being passed around on facebook/vine/anything else could be considered art. We all know it isn't art though, even if they make a joke that hits close to home and correlate a situation very similar to that.

At some point skill should be a definition of how much something is worth also. Anyone with a low skill cap can do something and make it meaningful, it takes a master to take that meaning and empower it behind something great that not many others can do themselves.

File: f7234cbef03fd2cc34098a0e46e8528b.jpg (297KB, 828x1073px) Image search: [Google]

297KB, 828x1073px

>>88905066
What's funny is that many people feel the same way about Norman Rockwell.

>>88905119
The art is in the meaning you have assigned to it. If it lacks any meaning, it isn't art. If you don't think the piece has meaning, then it isn't art.

>>88905195
If there is no artistic skill behind the piece, why bother to dress it up as art? Write your meaning on a pamphlet and start mailing it around. If the meaning is so important and the artistic skill so meaningless, this would surely be a better way?

>>88905190
Art critics are not to be trusted. Rockwell had more artistic talent in his little finger than most conceptual artists.

>>88905258
Silly Anon, that wouldn't be nearly as profitable.

>>88905258
Perhaps the meaning is best expressed in a way other than the written word.

>>88905305
If the form of expression is important, does it not then stand to reason that those with greater skill in constructing that form would produce greater art?

>>88905195
All art has meaning attached to it while created. I don't think I've met someone who created a piece of art that was just like "eh fuck it, I just felt like it, I don't care."

It's like a book shelf a 13 year old makes in woodshop class. It's a bit rickety, they stripped a few screws and it honestly doesn't look all that good. But to the parents this mess might be valued higher because the meaning is more to them since their child made it. But then take that same bookshelf and sell it to the general public, people will call it shit and an inferior product and buy it for a price way lower than what the parents/creator will value it at.
The point being in this dumbass rant is that the "parents" shouldn't dictate the meaning behind works because they could just be biased to the meaning or other dumb garbage that doesn't show its true value.

>>88902053
>>88902092
I hate this stupid bullshit concept that art used to "mean" something, and that now it's worthless.
Art has and always will be fucking meaningless without proper context, and without the proper mindset. The fucking greatest renaissance paintings ever created are goddamn worthless pieces of shit if the viewer had no idea the kind of skill and effort that went into their creation. It's a completely subjective medium. Art is a physical expression of the mind that is driven by wants, not needs. And since people have different desires, people see art in different ways.

Suppose you bought a watch from a watchmaker, the old-fashioned kind. Would you refer to the watch as art? Maybe some of you, but others might just view at as a tool to tell the time. But to the watchmaker, that watch is a representation of his own life skills and practice, a complete summation of his soul. He sells it like any normal commodity, but because it was born out of his own desire to be a watchmaker, his own passion, it's imbued with much more signifance. It's art of the highest form to him. To others, it's just a watch.

To do a sillier but still relevant example, say there's some sandwich shop owner out there who just fucking loves making sandwiches. Like, that's what he wants to do in life, is to make the best goddamn sandwiches that he can. And so he works on sandwich making, experimenting and figuring out the best possible sandwich composition. And he sells those sandwiches to customers, and though he's selling his creations as commodities to be literally consumed and destroyed, he still puts just as much of his soul into them as the watchmaker does for his watches.

These different examples are all in very different fields with different levels of skill. But they're all art. One could judge each of their worth in relation to the other, but that decision can only be arbitrary. What is and what isn't art is entirely based on each individual person.

>>88905301
There's a difference between illustration and art. Art makes you think, makes you feel. Whether it succeeds or not is irrelevant, it's still (bad) art. It doesn't matter if you think there's skill behind it or not, because that's not the point. There's a reason why elevator music isn't art.

Get over the fuck over it already. Jesus Christ, get the sand out of your dick.

>>88905258
Maybe the artist found it more personally satisfying to express the meaning through the chosen medium.

In general I find arguing about what is and is not art pointless, it's incredibly subjective. Arguing what is GOOD art is a little more concrete, though only slightly.

>>88905328
But why should the general public decide what's good and what isn't? The general public hated van Gogh's work until he died, then they loved it. Did van Gogh's death make his work retroactively become art?

>>88905373
Bullshit. The thing that thinks and feels is you as an individual, and different people think and feel diffdrently about different things. Who the fuck are you to tell someone they don't feel anything, or that they should or shouldn't?

Art is measurable by skill, not by feels.

>>88900814
>>88901987
>>88902037
Congrats on being shit human beings.

There are a select few cases where modern art manages to catch an effect by being pleasing to the eye, the rest is garbage

File: IMG_8319.jpg (37KB, 350x350px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 350x350px

self-depreciating webcomics like these are such unfunny pieces of cancer, how is this guy still successful?

>>88901741
they had a thread about McMansions recently that declared the exact opposite

>>88903011
This is a Whomp! thread. It would have derailed itself eventually.

>>88905742
But son of a bitch did it run off the rails.

>>88905328
Then you obviously don't know any actual artists, who regularly have to do comissions for pieces they don't give a flying fuck about.

Maybe this is just me being a pleb, but I think the quality of art does not correlate to the care or effort with which it was made.

I don't fully subscribe to Death Of The Author, but I do believe that independent observation creates value independent of the intent of the artist.

For example, I once found an @dril post that struck me as so bizarrely poignant, I ended up printing it out and taping it to my mirror to look at it every day. Would that post mean anything to anyone other than me, with my very specific tastes and experiences? Doubtful. It was probably just word salad. Did Dril intend it to by anything more than a spur-of-the-moment shitpost? Extremely doubtful. Does that quality that I ascribed to it make it "true" art? I don't know, but it's valuable to me.

File: Af hverju.jpg (57KB, 816x640px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 816x640px

>Whomp thread
>Some guy posts about how he hates modern art
>All the autists in the thread fall for the bait
>Thread is permanently derailed

I just wanted to laugh at the misery of a fat guy

>>88900814
t. Someone who knows nothing about art

Modern art was a period that ended in the 70s. Picasso is modern art, you're thinking of postmodern stuff like Pollock

>>88906154
Better learn how to laugh at yourself then.

>>88906207
But I'm not fat, just autistic

>>88906154
Your mistake was having expectations.

People here seem to hate modern art, but tell you what, I'd rather go to my local modern art museum which has a lot of pieces that do hilarious experiments with perspective and light on top of all that abstract shapes and colors stuff, than spend time at the classical art museum that is basically five hundred realistic portraits of inbreed douches with some still life thrown in for good measure.

>>88906154
>Some guy posts about how he hates modern art
>Thread is permanently derailed
OP asked how do we feel about modern art, the guy replied. Technically speaking it's not derailed, it's just that Whomp! was never the rails.

>>88900703
Modern art is literally a money laundering scheme.

should art require skill?

>>88906176
I know this motherfucker ain't shitting on Jackson Pollack.

>>88905066
>I don't care
>but I think
It's playdoh time

>second painting isn't Kefka

Post-modern art and its fans are a bunch od status-mongers who have no idea what the hell they're talking about so they create important-sounding words and phrases, drop names like they're hot rocks and are violently afraid of 'not getting it' to the point they try to one-up the other guy by pulling so much 'deep meaning' out of their ass that I'm surprised they still have organs. The entire fandom has become an incestuous circle-jerk of nothing.

File: ART.jpg (325KB, 978x1432px) Image search: [Google]

325KB, 978x1432px

>>88905733
Finally, not a gif-compressed version.

>>88905042
Well, he's right. Art isn't any different from movies, really. Picasso was like the Star Wars of the art world. Popular but empty and completely lacking in meaning and emotion.

>>88907900
To be honest I'd buy the Unction of Coznigance, that looks like a kickass sculpture, straight off a metal album. I dream of a day when the only problem Modern Art has is being "ugly".

File: zdzislaw beksinski.jpg (185KB, 1600x1295px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 1600x1295px

>>88906885
This is exactly the problem, people think it's a dichotomy. Modern art lovers think that people who despise modern art want to go back to still portraits of inbred nobility and cottages, while most people just want to see some skillful paintings of interesting shit instead of someone shoving paint up their asshole and fart splattering it onto a canvas.

>>88900703
Any artist who is talented enough can sell their work for money instead of donating fresh garbage to a museum.

Is this the money laundering thread?

>>88907900
...But honestly an emaciated horse could make for a fucking rad statue. So long as it's for something appropriate, like the tragedy of war or a famine or something.

I mean, things can still be ugly if they're meant to depict something that's ugly, right? Or hold a grim sort of beauty.

>>88900814
ow the edge

>>88904956
>>88904985
Movies and drama/theatre (and dance) are the performING arts

>>88904894
Forthed

>>88901727
>/v/ poster angry that people like art that isn't robots fighting dragons

>>88908009
what about guernica

>>88902010
That's where art becomes retarded.

Art has always been the meaningless in physical form.

>>88905121
>Picasso was multifaceted

Yeah, I'm shit at lots of things as well.

His dad was a pretty good painter.

>>88900703
I don't get most of it but I feel like an absolute plebeian retard for not getting it

File: LOL Art.jpg (108KB, 615x716px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 615x716px

I love having an excuse to post this.

Also, art can be anything, and anything can be art. Personally, my favorite types of art are practical or simply relics from former times, like ornate armors or the skeletons of extinct animals posed for the pleasure of viewers.

>>88900814
You lost me at the end there.

>>88901766
Well, Ronnie seems to have lost his glasses in the last panel. That work for ya?

>>88910946
Fifth