Art Thread

File: blessed virgin mary with lamb.jpg (136KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 1024x768px

>>1640468

File: crucifixion.jpg (692KB, 1168x1000px) Image search: [Google]

692KB, 1168x1000px

>>1640526

File: Danish soldiers return to Copenhagen in 1848.jpg (3MB, 4298x3165px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4298x3165px

>>1640528

File: feszty_honfoglalas.jpg (3MB, 4386x3044px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4386x3044px

>>1640531

File: Lady Godiva.jpg (1MB, 1440x1159px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1440x1159px

>>1640537

Povertychan is too shitty to host this one in full quality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_Speed_(painting)#/media/File:Leighton-God_Speed!.jpg

File: last lesson by alphonse daudet.jpg (314KB, 1280x939px) Image search: [Google]

314KB, 1280x939px

>>1640542

File: Madonna 2.jpg (22KB, 236x352px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 236x352px

>>1640543

File: Madonna 3.jpg (184KB, 1092x1384px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 1092x1384px

>>1640546

File: Madonna.jpg (208KB, 500x643px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 500x643px

>>1640547

File: magna carta.jpg (1MB, 2560x1536px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2560x1536px

>>1640549

File: Meirelles_primeiramissa.jpg (617KB, 800x612px) Image search: [Google]

617KB, 800x612px

>>1640551

File: Miracle at Empel.jpg (2MB, 2723x2000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2723x2000px

>>1640552

>>1640549
Delete this.

>>1641319
Who is this qt?

>>1641335
The person in the painting or the artist?

File: William-Adolphe_Bouguereau_(1825-1905)_-_Sewing_(1898)[1].jpg (632KB, 1391x2291px) Image search: [Google]

632KB, 1391x2291px

one of the best

>>1641913
noh

File: atom.jpg (2MB, 4872x2416px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4872x2416px

>>1641927

Loving it eintartete

Why is it that the over-whelming majority of paintings in these threads are always 19th century european art?

File: Johan_Christian_Dahl_-_Megalith_Grave_in_Winter.jpg (939KB, 2105x1510px) Image search: [Google]

939KB, 2105x1510px

>>1641938
Because everything else sucks.

>>1641938
>implying any other culture can compete with European art

>modern art

disgusting

File: drawing 5.jpg (2MB, 1646x2336px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1646x2336px

>>1641954
>modern art

gusting

>>1641944
>implying its possible to judge the merit of an aspect of a culture outside of the context of that culture

File: Fragonard,_The_Swing.jpg (886KB, 1663x2132px) Image search: [Google]

886KB, 1663x2132px

>>1641943

I'm sorry that you can't see that everything in the west post rococo is literal shit

>>1642013
sexual masturbation

File: download (6).jpg (7KB, 255x198px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 255x198px

>>1641938
>Why is it that the over-whelming majority of paintings in these threads are always 19th century european art?
because it's entry-level shit. It's not bad necessarily (though /his/ doesn't know the difference between good and bad art so a lot of what they post is terrible) but it's basic as fuck, doesn't require any knowledge of art.

Pic related: The fedora in painting form. Good in it's historical context, but ruined by clueless millennials who grasp like a cargo-cult at an aesthetic instead of attempting to understand how art (or fashion) works.

File: Bust_Voltaire.jpg (55KB, 525x375px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 525x375px

>>1641954
>Waaaah modernism sucks
You post-modern faggots are cunts, whether you're self aware about how pomo you are or not.

>>1642277

I gotta agree. My take on it, based on Spengler's idea that the western soul died around 1800, is that the paintings of the 19th century represent when our "civilisation" stage's art was closest to the "cultural" stage's art, and so at it's best in that its closest to having a soul. It is easier for people of this time to understand civilisation period art then cultural because they have been brought up in this period where art with soul is not valued

File: Gestalt.png (1MB, 736x960px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 736x960px

>>1640468

File: Throne of Hell p89.png (4MB, 1400x1800px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 1400x1800px

>>1640468

Neo-Dadist

>>1642277
Your post reminds me of my fencing. Since I never win I just can't convince my non fencing friends how technically excellent I am.

File: vampyric logo.png (622KB, 648x595px) Image search: [Google]

622KB, 648x595px

(((Vampyric Jihad)))

>>1641938
High point of Europe goy.

>>1642097
19th century euro is ocular masturbation and not art

>>1642277
basically, but it's not 'bad art', it's just not art

>>1642318
yeah for the art that isn't photographic illusionism i.e. the beginnings of modern art

File: darfurptg4.jpg (321KB, 720x469px) Image search: [Google]

321KB, 720x469px

>>1642299
>Neo-anything

>>1642331
What's wrong with photographic illusionism?

I can't take photographs of a good many things after all, why are realist scenes of such unphotographical events bad?

File: 1454417543212.jpg (46KB, 375x592px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 375x592px

>>1641941
>>1641942
>>1641946
>>1641973
>>1642277
>>1642295
>>1642298
>>1642299
>>1642306
>>1641913
>>1641934
>>1642325


this is how civilisation fall
cultural marxist out
REEEEEEEEEEE

>>1642348
because after the values of christian art had disappeared, the 'academic' art of photographic illusionism made no attempt to engage with the new fundamentals of art i.e. art in itself, and instead opted to depict the world as it is rather than an autonomous world in itself as painting of the past had done. the lower forms of art had all been based on the mechanical copying of the real world i.e. portrait, landscape, still lives, which were always at the bottom of the hierarchy of genres, but proper 'art' had an intellectual aspect to it; to contend with the 'real world' by attempting to portray the essence of things, whether ideal or divine, etc. high art was constructed, 19th century illusionism was subservient

>>1642351
civilisation falls when people value 'pretty pictures' over art

File: doug-benson-smug-life.jpg (61KB, 580x341px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 580x341px

>>1642351
European civilisation is stronger than it's ever been and will only grow stronger.

>>1642365
no, art school reject, taking a shit on a canvas does NOT constitute art

>>1642383
never said it did

>>1642365
You make a lot of bold claims there, and yet for all you've said you still haven't actually answered my question. Given by how you're very concerned about what other people, not yourself, think about what makes art good it appears to me that you're frankly more concerned with other people thinking you like the "right" art rather than just liking what appeals to you.

Why do you care so much what others think about you? Is feigning enjoying something because others say you should really that important to you?

>>1642383
People like you literally never have any defence. "muh poop on a canvas" is not an argument.

>>1642411
hmm i guess photographic illusionism is good after all

>>1642351
Dumb frogposter.

>>1640526
Who painted this?

The image quality ain't great and I'm trying to find a better version.

Thanks for posting though, the lighting variation is impressive.

>>1642417
Defense against what? It's just the emperor's new clothes writ large

>>1642325
>it's not 'bad art', it's just not art
A lot of the 19th century shit that people post is fucking bad too. You can tell this thread was started by an American because that whole run of posts is purely melodramatic high-falutin' shit across style and era.

File: 1470835233896.jpg (47KB, 480x691px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 480x691px

>>1642782
>Defense against what?
The argument that poster made was that much of the "art" in the 19th century was little more than decoration, without any emotional or artistic content. It was a valid criticism of the period, though not necessarily one I agree with.

Your comment about shit on a canvas was a complete non-sequitur based on memes.

>It's just the emperor's new clothes writ large
If you're saying that contemporary art is devoid of substance and that people are just pretending to like it because of social pressures then that at least is a valid criticism, again not one that I agree with but miles better than your inane "muh shit on a canvas" argument.

>>1642383
>>1642411
>pigeon playing chess.jpg

>muh old and not degenerate art

File: 19a_4.jpg (152KB, 600x800px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 600x800px

how about some Gothic?

File: Hasegawa Tōhaku-Pine_Trees.jpg (162KB, 1280x599px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 1280x599px

byobu

19th century art:
Decadent/Symbolism/Aestheticism > Impressionism > Romanticism > Post and neo-impressionism > Realism > Academicism

>>1643914
>Post and neo-impressionism
>19th century

what are u doin

>>1643941
They started in the 19th century.

>>1643941
>>1643948

The term "post-impressionism" its kinda tricky since many of those artists were contemporaries with the impressionists. No idea why they coined that term.

>>1643914
does neoclassicism fall under academism?

File: h5_1993.132.jpg (97KB, 504x400px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 504x400px

>>1642855
>If you're saying that contemporary art is devoid of substance and that people are just pretending to like it because of social pressures .
Not him, but the really ironic thing is that's the exact criticism which people used against pre-impressionistic art: that it was just mindless mechanical repetition of the old masters in a hoity toity social scene which shunned actual genius and anything which pushes boundaries or challenges pre-conceived notions about what art is and what it could be

>>1644058
No. Neoclassicism was from the 18th century and it formed from the ideals of the Enlightenment. Academicism was 19th century reaction to movements that rejected the more 'academic' approach to art. They might seem similar on the surface but their context and ideals are different.

>>1644104
>shunned actual genius and anything which pushes boundaries or challenges pre-conceived notions about what art is and what it could be

this is such a cancerous way to look at art. It was created in the 19th century once the western soul had run it's course and we had to think of new ways to make ourselves feel good about our clearly inferior art. Art is a non rational, spiritual aspect of human existence which can help us transcend, the expression of the soul. It's not about trying to be clever, or come up with the newest, trendiest, hippest way of recreating duchamp's fountain.

>>1641913
>>1641934
>>1641941
>>1641942
>>1641946
The one thing I agree with /pol/ on, modern art sucks

>>1641938
While I can't speak for everyone, I know that as a Texan, the only art history that students are taught about in highschool is European/American art from the 18th-19th centuries. So that is what we're most familiar with. Aside from a few famous Asian paintings I don't know of many other historic art pieces, so there's not much to draw me in to looking into other arts

File: 84705-004-B4C00CAB.jpg (109KB, 550x369px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 550x369px

>>1644563
>we had to think of new ways to make ourselves feel good about our clearly inferior art.
That's a very superficial understanding of art history which is clearly being influenced by sociopolitical agenda

The truth is that the advent of cameras and high quality print making forced a divergence away from the old art culture where only states and churches could afford to hire a guy who spent most of his life studying anatomy and slavishly copying works of the old masters, and only aristocrats had the privilege and access to see them.

>Art is a non rational, spiritual aspect of human existence which can help us transcend, the expression of the soul. It's not about trying to be clever, or come up with the newest, trendiest, hippest way of recreating duchamp's fountain.
Which is a nice way of admitting that your definition of good art is whatever you personally like and nothing else.

File: image.jpg (29KB, 489x301px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 489x301px

While there are great forms of contemporary art, I feel that most of it lacks aesthetic and cares more about the message and shock value

>>1642383

Who are you to say what is art and what isn't.

If I was to bang with pots and pans and yell inchorrently, would I call it music?

Art is subjective

>>1644638
pic unrelated

>>1644638
Vlad Kush is such an lazy pastiche of Dali without any understanding of what made his style good in the first place.

>>1644563
>Art is a non rational, spiritual aspect of human existence which can help us transcend, the expression of the soul.
That doesn't contradict the impressionists' arguments though. The mechanical and formulaic style of art before the impressionists is the exact opposite of what you just described. They didn't even deny it. Bouguereau admitted he just painted paintings that he thought would sell.

File: 457444.gif (8KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 300x300px

>>1641319
>>1641341
>>1641344

>you will never suck Mucha's dick

why live

File: 01 Olmecs.jpg (111KB, 618x460px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 618x460px

Ancient Olmec art is best art

File: Nicolas_Poussin_-_Et_in_Arcadia_ego_(deuxième_version).jpg (184KB, 1024x730px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 1024x730px

muh conspiracies

File: image.jpg (55KB, 383x383px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 383x383px

I miss futurism

File: Canto d'amore, 1914.jpg (1MB, 1249x1535px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1249x1535px

>>1644680
So I just found out there's a game that let's you explore some of De Chirico's paintings.

https://gigoiastudios.itch.io/surrealista

>>1644719

Bourguereau falls outside the era which I am talking about. My argument is that the pinacle of western art, meaning the time in which the western soul was best expressed through painting, was during the 16 and 17th century, and that painting/art in general from the 19th century on is devoid of soul. Artists that I would refer to as the greats of western art would be painters such as Rebrandt, Bosch, Brugels, Tiepolo, Rubens, Fragonard. There could be some exceptions; I think that Van Gough may have perhaps been expressing the western soul, but he would be an exception that proves the rule.

And these painters weren't formulaic, they were trained yes, but there art came from a true and very real belief in the devine, that god was painting through them and that they were depicting god. I would argue that the impressionists were far more mechanical in that they set themselves very clear parameters and then worked to them.

>>1644631
>That's a very superficial understanding of art history which is clearly being influenced by sociopolitical agenda

Of course my view on art is influenced by my sociopolitical opinions. It's formed by all views on mankind as a species. To see art outside of this is to view it from outside it's context and make any true analysis impossible

>Which is a nice way of admitting that your definition of good art is whatever you personally like and nothing else.

What I'm trying to get at here is that you can differentiate between two kinds of art. Soul art and non soul art. If you read about Oswald Spenglers views on this and spend enough time looking at art through this reality tunnel you'll understand what I mean. The two are very different things. I really like Klimt, Schiele, Delaroche to name a few of my favourite "non-soul" artists. But the enjoyment I get from these artists works is very different from the enjoyment I get from works with "soul

File: landscape-with-ploughed-fields.jpg (240KB, 900x723px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 900x723px

>>1644983
>Of course my view on art is influenced by my sociopolitical opinions. It's formed by all views on mankind as a species. To see art outside of this is to view it from outside it's context and make any true analysis impossible
But it's entirely possible to love art for being art, not having to love a painting because of what it existentially stands for, or for what political agenda it supports, but to like a painting because its a beautiful painting or because it is a technically sophisticated one. It's also possible to appreciate something for its innovation, for how it changes people's perception even if society marches on from the point that the work of art was originally addressing. Nobody cares that the statue of David was built to commemorate Florentine resistance to Milanese autocracy, nor is it particularly realistic (the head and hands are way out of proportion).

>Oswald Spengler
Pseudohistorian not taken seriously by contemporary academics in either history or art, though as romantic poetry his work is master class. You're building a narrative of society "declining" as if modern art plays into that because it contemporary art culture doesn't venerate unquestioning realism over style and abstraction. The truth is that there's still plenty of artists out there, popular and mundane, who specialize in realism, but there has been a huge proliferation of media so they simply don't get the wide exposure that they did in simpler times

>>1644374
it did continue very briefly into the 19th century but i suppose not enough to count seeing as, yes, it was primarily an 18th century style. i was wondering why you didn't include it

File: François_de_Nomé_-_St_Paul_Preaching_to_the_Athenians_-_Walters_37328.jpg (4MB, 1799x1418px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 1799x1418px

>But it's entirely possible to love art for being art

I agree with you 100% on this. In terms of individual artistic pieces, context should factor in very little, if at all. I mean more trying to understand art as a more general concept

>Realism
When did I mention realism? Realism is not an indicator of great art by any standard

File: Andy-Warhol-Prints.jpg (22KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 400x300px

>>1645070
>I agree with you 100% on this. In terms of individual artistic pieces, context should factor in very little, if at all. I mean more trying to understand art as a more general concept
But there are layers of technical understanding such as composition, color theory, media combination, that can be isolated and commentated on in the form of fine art itself, which is why abstract art has its place.

And then there were people like Andy Warhol who argued that any distinction between "high" art and low "pop" art is essentially the arbitrary whims of a social elite, that even something like the decorations on a can of soup can be treated like art. There is a market for art that does actually have something to say, but the fact that there is not a dominant art style which delivers a mono-cultural narrative has more to do with the fact that art, even high quality art, is so easily created and distributed these days.

Or maybe because governments don't promote the arts like they used to. It's worth mentioning that Walt Disney would have gone bankrupt in the 1940's had it not been for the work that he did for the state department.

>When did I mention realism? Realism is not an indicator of great art by any standard
I should have made it clearer that I was referring to art before the impressionists told the royal academy to go pound sand.

File: Voice_of_Fire_photo.jpg (37KB, 300x671px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 300x671px

Look at this beautiful piece the Canadian Government bought for 2mil.

>>1645565
Literally 5 clicks in Paint

>>1642365
You should eat a bowl of my vomit with a spoon. It sounds right up your alley.

>>1641708
>>1641738
>>1641862
Whats up with him and little girls ?

File: 1466464672387.jpg (1MB, 3000x2342px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3000x2342px

>>1648093
He was a pedophile obviously, like every man of superior taste.