Why do people buy into the BS that modern art is intelligent?

>>1860729
Maybe you are just too stupid to get it?

File: 1447624139846.gif (1MB, 268x274px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 268x274px

>modern art was trying to be "intelligent"
>art in general is about "intelligence"

File: Art shit.png (437KB, 646x469px) Image search: [Google]

437KB, 646x469px

>>1860733
May I interest you in a can of my own shit?

>>1860753
This isn't about the shit itself you moron.

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

1MB, 1249x1535px

>>1860753
I've noticed that when people whine about modern art, they almost always refer to post-WW2 modern art.

Really makes you think, huh?

File: 530-1.png (499KB, 845x634px) Image search: [Google]

499KB, 845x634px

>>1860770
>Really makes you think, huh?

Think about what?

>>1860770
Dada isn't post-WWII

File: La Torre Rossa, 1913.jpg (1MB, 1800x1309px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1800x1309px

>>1860774
That dividing the world into two opposing globalist blocs kills creativity and diminishes human's spiritual quest for beauty.

>>1860788
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist%27s_Shit

File: Pawel-Kuczynski18.jpg (98KB, 800x548px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 800x548px

>>1860792
>That dividing the world into two opposing globalist blocs kills creativity and diminishes human's spiritual quest for beauty.

What does politics have to do with art?

>>1860729
>people confusing the modern art movement with contemporary art
wew la

>>1861183
>What does politics have to do with art?
Everything.

File: Dali_Crucifixion_hypercube.jpg (35KB, 319x500px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 319x500px

>>1861268

Explain

File: 1471804781074.jpg (62KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 500x375px

>>1861268
this image of godzilla making le shinji face is politically motivated.

>>1860753
How about you actually make a substantiative criticism of why feces can't be used as a medium instead of making appeals to disgust? I'm dead serious. Art has a long history of disregarding boundaries and consequently being whined about by authoritarian autists like Plato. How does being offensive or revolting exempt something from "true art" status? Why does art need to be intelligent?

>>1860729
People mistake abstract thought for intelligence, because they don't get it.

>>1861268
Socialist realists pls go and stay go.

File: I funerali dell'anarchico Galli, 1911.jpg (290KB, 1383x1080px) Image search: [Google]

290KB, 1383x1080px

>>1861773
Futurists started with the Art=politics=art thing.

For a long time, painting was simply a skill. The cost of paintings was mostly in the pigments, and proportional to the size and colors of the paintings. If you were a good artist, you simply got more commissions and got to paint bigger pictures with better pigments. There was very little artist's intention, which is why you notice all the polish of old art is subtle. Being a better painter simply got them better jobs. It wasn't about expression or creativity. It was about painting a big colorful portrait for rich people. If you could subtly improve it, then you got better commissions.

That changed with the introduction of art for art's sake.

i think artists circlejerking about how intellectual and 2deep4u their art is is similar to autistics masturbating to their shitty memes drawn in mspaint being the bleeding edge of internet culture

>>1860729
its a money laundering scheme for people more important than you. they make it seem more intelligent so dumb fucks like you accept the ridiculous amount of money they spend on it.

>>1860729
The value of art is entirely decided by the audience.
Sure a classic renaissance painter had more talent than the people who put out modern art galleries. But that is not a determining factor when people assign value to art based on personal taste

File: 1461823204710.png (376KB, 674x674px) Image search: [Google]

376KB, 674x674px

>it's another modern art is shit thread

Why do you people willingly want to get BTFO every time you make this nonsensical thread?

File: Choosing, c. 1864.jpg (2MB, 2400x3226px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2400x3226px

>>1861785
>That changed with the introduction of art for art's sake.
Symbolists and Decadents had some great art.

>>1861755
I don't know man, look up Roger Scruton articles on the topic. He gets paid for them, I don't

>>1861793
>classic renaissance painter had more talent than the people who put out modern art galleries
>it's another "that teenage girl who poured beans on herself and took a piss at her opening is representative of all modern art" episode
please explain your reasoning.

>>1861975
I'm not doing that you secondhand sophist.

>>1860733
/thread

>>1860753
>cherrypicking this hard

kys retard

>>1861268
t. pleb

>>1862030
>dude le can of shit
>dude i dunno lmao cbf makin an argument go read scruton or something
bravo

File: joseph_beuys_i_like_america_b_kidsofdada_article_grande[1].jpg (51KB, 600x391px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 600x391px

>In May 1974 Beuys flew to New York and was taken by ambulance to the site of the performance, a room in the René Block Gallery at 409 West Broadway.[32] Beuys lay on the ambulance stretcher swathed in felt. He shared this room with a coyote, for eight hours over three days. At times he stood, wrapped in a thick, grey blanket of felt, leaning on a large shepherd's staff. At times he lay on the straw, at times he watched the coyote as the coyote watched him and cautiously circled the man, or shredded the blanket to pieces, and at times he engaged in symbolic gestures, such as striking a large triangle or tossing his leather gloves to the animal; the performance continuously shifted between elements that were required by the realities of the situation, and elements that had a purely symbolic character. At the end of the three days, Beuys hugged the coyote that had grown quite tolerant of him, and was taken to the airport. Again he rode in a veiled ambulance, leaving America without having set foot on its ground. As Beuys later explained: ‘I wanted to isolate myself, insulate myself, see nothing of America other than the coyote.’[31]

A significant part of twentieth century art was IRL shitposting

>>1862516
I'm not making an argument. I'm saying your cherrypicking of trash art and saying that's the standard of modern art is wrong.
It's odd you still talk about the can of shit though because that's actually quite an interesting piece. People pay for brands, they'll buy terrible works simply because it has someone's name on it (kanye wests clothing for example, as well as beats headphones). This artist is making a statement of that, but instead of putting out a shit piece of art to sell, his piece of art was literal shit, and he sold it. It's a clever mockery of consumer culture, only just a bit crude.

Repeat after me: "Just because I don't understand something doesn't mean it is objectively bad. Not all modern art is teenage girls throwing period blood onto paper."

>>1862765
You can come up with any justification to make any piece of art sound profound. Plopegg is amazing because it equates the act of art, or creation, with birth, the most fundamental act of creation that is birth. By randomly shooting colored eggs of paint out of her vagina, the artist is creating a piece that communicates this fundamental connection that has been neglected in the historical record where emphasis was on ordered construction. Etc etc. You can justify anything if you start from the assumption that it must be good because it's art, and especially if the "plebs" don't get it.

>>1862783
Yes but that's not my point is it?
I asked you to explain your reasoning on why classical renaissance painters are objectively more talented that modern artists. You spouted some memes and still haven't told me how they are. Art is completely subjective and I'd argue it takes more skill to put a meaning or message into your work than simply painting a scene or a portrait.
So as I said before, please explain your reasoning and please don't change my argument for me this time

File: Screenshot_20161023-102839_01.png (521KB, 1080x705px) Image search: [Google]

521KB, 1080x705px

>>1860729
Alinskyism -> Nihilism -> Aesthetic Relativism -> Post-WW2 modern art -> Modern Art

If beauty doesn't exist then everything can be considered good. And anyone who does not like it are simply not understanding it because they're ignorant bigots!!!!!!!!!!!!! #MUHfeels

Does it sound (((familiar?)))

>>1862792
I'm not >>1862516. I just disagree with your "that's actually an interesting piece" sidebar because anything is interesting when you use those methods to justify their existence. It isn't profound, you'really just reading into it in an attempt to feel sophisticated.

>>1862812
>I just disagree with your "that's actually an interesting piece"
You don't think an artists literal shit being sold isn't interesting?
>It isn't profound, you'really just reading into it in an attempt to feel sophisticated
Once again, your cynicism is what makes you think it's just bad. I'm not trying to sound sophisticated, I wouldn't buy it, but I think it's really interesting and thought-provoking that someone would buy someone's /literal/ shit.
Look at it objectively. Would you buy someone's shit? The person that bought it probably wouldn't either, but the fact that it's "art" and has an artists name on it changed the context so much that they were willing to spend their money on someone's shit. If that's not a commentary on consumer culture, and you genuinely don't agree that it is, I don't know what to say.

>>1862819
>You don't think an artists literal shit being sold isn't interesting?
A ceo flipping me off and saying "can you believe how much I get paid for this?!" is about as interesting, without reading into it.

>thought-provoking
Apply the same thought process you did to justify that to anything. Seriously, right now, get up, look at some random object, and decide every bit of it is meaningful. You will be able to come up with just as elaborate justification/commentary if you actually invest yourself. It's not the object/"art" that is provoking thought, it is your desire to not feel uneducated.

>>1862765
sorry man, I wrongquoted, was meant to be directed at the post above yours,
>>1861975

It's not for you and that's okay but you're bitching because you hate being left out.

>>1862848
Ah, my bad. Got unnecessarily mad at you.

Is there even an active and relevant art community at the moment? I mean outside of university art departments

>>1862865
Nah, everybody knows that visual art stopped some time in Q3 of '76

>>1862874

Did you notice I qualified my statement with "relevant"

>>1862854
It's not for us, it's for rich billionaires to launder money. Which is fine, but it would be nice if they just kept to themselves and didn't fuck with regular art.

>>1862880
to whom?

>>1862888

Oh god just shut up

>>1862883
>le money laundering meme
And I guess everybody else that likes contemporary art is only pretending in order to try and gain cultural cachet?

>>1860729
>You just dont get it :^)
Seriously though, i can explain why i think modern art's bullshit. I look for aesthetic value and craftsmanship in art, and those two ideals are replaced by "abstract meaning" in modern art.

I have developed the skill of making up some believable bullshit behind abstract paintings. Its too easy.

>>1862898
No, not everyone. There has to be at least one or two people who like it unironically, and a handful of artists who think they are being legitimately profound.

>>1862902
>Why do people buy into the BS that modern art is intelligent?
So the emperor has no clothes, the vast majority of people rushing to blockbuster exhibitions are just pole climbers, and the majority of artists are cynically cashing in on a grand money laundering scheme?

>>1860729
"Look, this completely white square represents... The inner peace of man while in his natural state"

/his/ will defend modern art because this is a humanities board and they desperately need to sound "smart" so no one questions their piece of shit fields of study.

Jesus christ I hope there'll be a philistine revolution soon and we can throw all modern art in a pit to burn it and never have this pretentious wank again.

Something that is skillfully done is art. Something that just aims to baffle and confuse for no reason isn't art but a waste of everyone's time and attention.

Realistic painting, Sculpture, Singing, Composing, Playing an Instrument, Pottery, Carpentry, Masonry, Engineering, Fighting, Rhetoric, Gardening and whatnot are examples of arts.

And not because they are aesthetic, intellectual or because they somehow exist in a special sphere of arts as apart from all else.

But because they, to be done well, require a fuckton of skill. Practise and a hard work and actual fucking utility.

Jesus Christ, even the word art is, in its roots, directly related to skill - and not transcendental shit-canning.

Art for art's sake is a pile of shit, apparently sometimes literally so.

You may now go forth and call me an autist, but at least I'm not wasting public funding, space, and time.

>>1862918
>>1862920
>So the emperor has no clothes
The emperor is covered in cash. Whatever he declares are clothes, are clothes.
>the vast majority of people rushing to blockbuster exhibitions are just pole climbers,
Of course. Most people who actually have access to recently-made contemporary art considered "worthwhile" are rich socialites whose primary concern is making connections with other rich socialites. There are a few legitimate artists making statements on the Internet and in third-world countries but by and large the focus is not on them.
>majority of artists are cynically cashing in on a grand money laundering scheme?
Yes, in general. Note the pure distain for the uneducated tastes of the "common person" paired simultaneously with the dogma that contemporary art opened the doors of art to non-elites. You only get that level of cognitive dissonance when someone is trying real hard not to think through their situation.

Normies don't spend much time looking for something that appeals to them, they just stroll around an art gallery with a starbucks and the only recently made art normies will see is modern art.

The pretense and the monopoly is the problem, it is a practical problem and doesn't reflect on the art. A problem typically seen in institutions where adopting the views of your superiors or other bureaucrats is how to get funding, approval and promotions. Modern art is the subculture of bureaucrats, a way to induct students into the system. Jackson Pollock spooked Saatchi who spooked Damien Hirst and so on.

They are critical of capitalism and how it affects society while being ignorant of how their own source of wealth and fame affects them. They intentionally exclude outsiders and only accept artists who are carbon copies of themselves, their subjective tastes are the standard and decide what is "high art" and the normies tag along because it is fashionable.

>>1860733
That CIA psyops campaign worked wonders on you

>>1862929
>the vast majority of people rushing to blockbuster exhibitions are just pole climbers,
>Of course.
That is such a broadly dismissive statement it seems like a genuinely autistic inability to relate to the tastes of other people when they clash with your own. it would be like me saying about american football "who could like a game that takes 3 hours for about 10 minutes of actual play time, people only like this shit to look cool!"

>>1862948
So generalization is now a thought crime?

>>1862948
There is no econic barrier to watching American football. Even if someone doesn't have a cable subscription, they can and do watch it at a friend's house or at a bar whose entrance fee is a single drink. Exclusive to many, yes, but not to as many as the average art gallery.

With that economic barrier, I am absolutely comfortable with making the statements I make.

File: jew degeneracy modernism.jpg (127KB, 823x873px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 823x873px

>>1860729

Jewish brainwashing

>>1862962
The economic barrier in many parts of the world is as little as the cost of transport. The most I have paid for the most hyped blockbuster exhibition is less than an hour of the minimum wage where I am from.

>>1860753
>>1860729
>>1862030
>>1862783
>>1862802
>>1862883
>>1862926
>>1862947
>>1862967
>I dont understand conceptual art therefore it's le shit xDDDD le shit in a can xDDDDDDDD

back to the workhouse with you

also >>1861248

>>1862970
If you say that, in whatever your country is, your view is being expressed in modern artimes, then congratulations. My own experience is that such voices are either ignored or exploited. However, knowing the prevailing trends, do you really believe you are being represented and that your complaints aren't being reduced to specific generalized national values?

>>1862979
>>I dont understand conceptual art therefore it's le shit xDDDD le shit in a can xDDDDDDDD

>Because I like modern art I'm going to straw man anyone who doesn't as having an inability to understand it

>>1863004
He's agreein with you, CIA fuck.

>plebes complaining that an outdated art form tries to make itself relevant by experimentation
You are like the middle school students who think Bohemian Raphsody is the pinaccle of music.

>>1863017
No he isn't

>>1862945
Do you have anything backing that up?
Asking because I agree with the sentiment.

>>1863021
>Modern arts current predicament is due to experimentation and not stagnation/decay

Keep telling yourself that

File: black-on-dark-sienna-on-purple.jpg (10KB, 523x600px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 523x600px

>went to tate modern
>Rothko exhibition
>plaque says paintings are meant to make you feel like you're in a dark room
>exhibition is literally in a dark room

>>1863024
The only reason modern art looks like it looks, is because realist art became redundant and boring. You might not realize that, but this change goes as far as 1870s. Unless you are trying to tell me that (((Monet))), (((Cézanne))) and others were just cultural marxist commando who keeps the aryan man down.

File: arty shit.jpg (11KB, 251x300px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 251x300px

>>1861755
>why feces can't be used as a medium

It can, but "artist's shit" is not art.

>>1862985
>>1862985
>If you say that, in whatever your country is, your view is being expressed in modern artimes, then congratulations. My own experience is that such voices are either ignored or exploited.
I recently went to a Gilbert and George exhibition. Several of the more contemporary pieces were clearly intended to make people politically uncomfortable, including coddled pro-immigration leftists. Another piece at the museum was anti-fat acceptance and just plain anti-fat. It's gratifying seeing my own views projected back at me but little more. Overtly political art seems out of fashion in the big galleries, and with good reason. It is the realm of tawdry and hackneyed street art. I think the last overtly anti-war art I saw was Goya's The Disasters of War and a Jake and Dinos Chapman riff on them. It's good that there's pushback from artists like Gilbert and George, and it's a shame they are seen as something of a novelty, but really, I'm not disappointed that for the most part overtly political art is largely out of fashion, IMO it's shit.

>>1863024
>Modern arts current predicament
no such thing
modern art is fixed in time, just as the romantic or the baroque etc

>>1863051
So, in other words, we have an easily ignored st of viewpoints that will be easily ignored in the long run?

>>1863067
How about in English?

>>1860729
>it's a 'let's call contemporary art modern art' thread

>>1860729
Im speedplaying fate just so I can watch prisma illya

File: artists_shit.jpg (39KB, 340x358px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 340x358px

>>1863043
Andy Warhol would disagree.

>tfw they explode

>>1863070
Makes it easier to placate the egos of the rich Anglo phones suporting you.

>>1863051
>>1863116
You all know any art made today is "contemporary," right?

>>1863040

Contemporary art (which is really the next stage of modern art) became "redundant and boring."

>>1860770
Not really seeing how Nazi Germany whined about post WW1 art

>>1863568
>You all know any art made today is "contemporary," right?
no shit cunt, learn to read and then read what you replied to

>makes a thread shitting on modern art
>Doesn't post any example

>>1863568
the 'next stage' of modern art is post-modern art, and the next stage of post-modern art is contemporary

contemporary art isn't homogeneous so you'd be hard pressed to actually prove that it is redundant and boring. not that saying such a thing removes modernism from its context

in short, what are you talking about

>>1863591
Somebodies salty lol

>>1863647
Just a bunch of shit from people defending their love of shit

>>1863703
you can do better

Because modern art is not about beauty, it's about gains and benefits. Because modern art is very simple to produce, it's very cheap to make, which means that you can ship more units at a much higher profit. The bullshit theory around it that this is 'art, but fractured, so that the inner personality of both the painter and the painting is exposed' (I just made this shit up on the spot), is just a bullshit excuse to intellectually justify the production of shitty, cheap paintings.

Basically, nowadays postmodernism is just used as a tool for perception management. It never had a very heavy impact on the academic world, and so it was just recycled as a PR tool for companies, politics, interest groups, etc.

>>1863714
i guess that explains why there were so many modern artists trying to escape commodification

>>1863713
Why though? .

>>1863713
The statement sums up I feel 100%

>>1862926
So, what, masturbating for several hours without stopping is art because it requires a fuckton of skill?

>>1863699
because I used a naughty word? don't be racist.

>>1863724
probably sarcasm but it's true, many if not most online artists go by pseudonyms, this carries over into a lot of post-internet art
they also work in spaces that are at odds with commercialisation and gating

>>1863805
Textbook strawman

>>1863805
>masturbating for several hours requires skill
what?
Maybe for several days, multitasking while eating drinking etc. would be but for a a few hours? Jesus man get your libido levels checked.

>>1862792
Art is a selective recreation of reality according to the artist's value judgments. Good art is that which reflects good values, which are necessarily the values that further human life, which are of course objective. Art that depicts a can of shit, a holy figure immersed in piss, and shit like that is art that reflects awful, anti-life values, because they involve the desecreation of the sacred or the belief that the world is a can of shit, and as such is awful and its makers are evil.

>>1864065
artist's shit is more to do with the body's processes in contrast with artistic processes

and serrano has done far more photography than just piss christ

If you get anti-art, then you're spot on.

Maybe you literally, unironically don't get it, OP?

>>1863805
Reread. Skill and utility. If you need to masturbate for several hours to get off, that might be a medical problem and you should turn to the art of medicine.

>LE LOL SO RANDOM XD

That's all contemporary art is.

File: 14493273_2.jpg (168KB, 800x1200px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 800x1200px

>>1862079
Who you calling pleb, pleb?

>>1860729
The CIA.

ITT: Autists sperg out over non-realistic art.