Modern Art

File: 1427879915117.jpg (50KB, 630x561px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 630x561px

Here you go.

File: way_genius_hi.jpg (62KB, 450x748px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 450x748px

And some futurism, for good measure.

File: índice.jpg (13KB, 219x230px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 219x230px

>>2018333
You mean contemporary art. Modern art is from renaissance to 20th century.

Here's some Klimt.

File: Colville_032.jpg (106KB, 656x654px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 656x654px

a e s t h e t i c

>>2020694
>renaissance to 20th century.
fuck, that sounds stupid. I meant to say
>renaissance to Impressionism

>>2020694
i know the renaissance is referred to as 'early modern' but literally no one calls renaissance art modern. it's totally different

>>2020694
>Renaissance
I think you mean romanticism.

File: lastsupper.jpg (735KB, 900x645px) Image search: [Google]

735KB, 900x645px

Satan's Last Supper 1950

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

349KB, 1100x660px

>squirt paint out of your asshole
>art

File: 1445524767289.jpg (416KB, 1800x1274px) Image search: [Google]

416KB, 1800x1274px

>>2018333
>>2018333

File: 1418896877175.jpg (608KB, 1280x1185px) Image search: [Google]

608KB, 1280x1185px

>>2018333

>>2018333
This reminds me of Oursler's work.

>>2022315
Who

>>2018333
That looks like lindebeige

File: Odilon_Redon___Virgin_with_Halo__1898_.jpg (862KB, 1247x1920px) Image search: [Google]

862KB, 1247x1920px

>>2023196
>>2023247
I'm sure it is Odilon Redon based on my memory.

File: Sorvolando in spirale il Colosseo (Spiralata), 1930.jpg (293KB, 996x996px) Image search: [Google]

293KB, 996x996px

>>2022315
>>2022802
That's contemporary.

File: Screen Shot 2016-12-01 at 11.25.09 am.png (1MB, 894x741px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 894x741px

A relative of mine, this piece sold for 300k at auction. I really need to get out to America and look at his collection.

Daniel Ridgway Knight.

Quality is shit because I can only find high quality above 4mb files, reverse image search to find them.

>>2020694
No. modernsim is a historical period like baroque or rococo. modern art is generally dated from about 1870's to high modernism towards the middle/end of the 1950's. everything produced post 1960 is considered contemporary.

File: rothko.jpg (35KB, 480x600px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 480x600px

>this triggers /his/

>>2022802
>a pleb reveals himself

>>2022811
kids got wierd legs

File: louis_aston_knight_b1135_along_the_river_beaumont_le_roger.jpg (583KB, 944x750px) Image search: [Google]

583KB, 944x750px

>>2025057
His son, Louis.

File: Treno Blindato, 1915.jpg (497KB, 1515x2000px) Image search: [Google]

497KB, 1515x2000px

>>2025083
Contemporary, not modern.

lrn2 art history, senpai

>>2025111
thats not contemporary

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

1MB, 1249x1535px

>>2025123
Abstract Expressionism is contemporary.

It was pretty much the first movement that came out of the rupture from modernism.

>>2025154
how is it contemporary?

>>2025083
nice joke, Anon

>>2025154
Isn't Modernism just art still influenced by a search for meaning? Kind of a shitty way to put it but like it was about Idealism?

Abstract Expressionism being really influenced by Psychology seems right inline with that.

Not to argue, if you can explain the distinction that would be cool.

Of course

>>2025460
>Isn't Modernism just art still influenced by a search for meaning?
Not necessarily, but it's still possible. A more accurate definition of modernism is that it searches to represent the world and its abstract ideas (e.g.: 'movement' for the futurists, 'metaphysics' for the metaphysicists, etc.) in non-classical methods, that is how they are seen, felt or imagined, not how they actually are. And we must not forget their view of the supremacy of aesthetics over meaning.

>Kind of a shitty way to put it but like it was about Idealism?
You're totally right, modernism is essentially idealistic.

>Abstract Expressionism being really influenced by Psychology seems right inline with that.
Here's the difference: abstract expressionism is based, above all, in the rational. I see that, because of its view of logic being above all else, it inherently rejects aesthetics, something essential to the modernists.

Well, that's my pseud opinion, don't take it as fact.

>>2025460
>>2025704
And I would also like to add that because of abstract expressionism's nature, one can't simply compare it to another movement by mere sight like one could do with, let's say, neoclassism and romanticism. You must understand the intention, the logic of the artist though their writings. And that was their goal, this is one more thing that differentiates it with modernist movements. While modernism was highly theoretical, it did not abandon aesthetics for theory.

File: RIVOLTA-Luigi-Russolo.jpg (409KB, 1380x896px) Image search: [Google]

409KB, 1380x896px

>all this Futurism
Quality /his/ thread.

File: Beksinski - kartiny -014.jpg (697KB, 1615x1883px) Image search: [Google]

697KB, 1615x1883px

>>2018333
is this an excuse for beksinski

File: Beksinski - kartiny -034.jpg (541KB, 1697x1767px) Image search: [Google]

541KB, 1697x1767px

>>2025965
My personal favourite.

File: Beksinski - kartiny -057.jpg (344KB, 864x1040px) Image search: [Google]

344KB, 864x1040px

>>2025967

File: Beksinski - kartiny -033.jpg (558KB, 1796x1476px) Image search: [Google]

558KB, 1796x1476px

>>2025968

File: Beksinski - kartiny -035.jpg (524KB, 1706x1790px) Image search: [Google]

524KB, 1706x1790px

>>2025970

File: Beksinski - kartiny -008.jpg (798KB, 1768x1787px) Image search: [Google]

798KB, 1768x1787px

>>2025971

File: Beksinski - kartiny -010.jpg (777KB, 1337x1776px) Image search: [Google]

777KB, 1337x1776px

>>2025974
how come there's like no post timer on /his/

File: Beksinski - kartiny -060.jpg (342KB, 944x1138px) Image search: [Google]

342KB, 944x1138px

>>2025975

beautiful screaming art.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdZ9weP5i68

>>2025167

This is cool

>>2020703
thank you, one of my faves

>>2025141
this

>>2026003
Impressive artistic work.

Jewish nihilism is trash, this thread is trash

File: 7d463706bbf1cf5d91746eb859f879ef.jpg (1MB, 1170x576px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1170x576px

Anyone outside of Norway heard of Pushwagner?

File: 2868071854_cd8b04db05.jpg (128KB, 350x500px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 350x500px

Giger, bitches

>>2025975
maybe this board is smaller than others?

File: IMG_0610.jpg (438KB, 576x762px) Image search: [Google]

438KB, 576x762px

I'll post more moholy later

File: Crocifissione, 1927.jpg (134KB, 637x856px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 637x856px

>>2026144
(You)

>>2025154
ab ex is very much modernism, not contemporary. contemporary can be traced from the duchamp revival and various forms of neo-dada, but ab ex is strict formalism and thus high modernism. it is separated from contemporary on account of post-modernism, as such it is why no one practices it anymore

>>2025460
modernism is basically the art influenced by the medium itself rather than any external factors. generally art historians will place cezanne as the galvanising factor for modernism but it has precedent in courbet and manet (realisme)

ab ex is modernism because yes it is influenced by psychology, which is also a key (the key) influence on surrealism. it also finds similarities to cubism (critics would call cubism one of the first steps to abstraction) and expressionism/fauvism which both deal with the frame and form of art as a factor in the construction of the work itself. it's pretty much a combination of all main streams of early modernism so it represents 'high modernism'

>>2029784
There's a performance artist who goes to city centers and has random strangers feel her titties and pussy in public. Check it out she's on pornhub.

There's also matress girls sex tape which was her final art piece for uiniversity. And theres that duo that deliberately gave themselves HIV to make an artist statement.

The one I hate though are those who's performance art is to vandalize other people's art in museum, Some of them being paintings hundreds of years old.

>>2029784
'post-modern' isn't really 'these days'

and yes anything can be considered art but not all things are. a photo of a pile of shit isn't very relevant artistically

>>2025057
beautiful

>>2026068
Yeah it's such a shame the Soviet's forced social realism, the abstract stuff was far superior.

>>2029784
> I can take a photo of a pile of shit I took in the toilet and put it up for auction.
As if, you are like the cucks who believe that they can just copy WoW to have billion of subscribers. They are just envy the success of other creatores and lack understanding of view they sucees. So in they delusions they just can copu what is already done and become some sort of geniuses. Top kek.

>>2027640
I like that, pretty deep work.

File: 1462780550833.png (27KB, 181x220px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 181x220px

>modern "art"

>>2032504
Are you colour blind? Why would you save this shit version

>>2027672
This is perfect.

File: malevich.supremus-58.jpg (70KB, 770x877px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 770x877px

>>2025167

>>2025083
I really like Rothko

>>2018333
YEEESSSSS!

File: IMG_0071.jpg (70KB, 520x400px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 520x400px

Mondrian always does it for me.

File: Colin McCahon.jpg (707KB, 2241x3000px) Image search: [Google]

707KB, 2241x3000px

>>2033472

>>2025083
Not my favorite Rothko but the way he can paint feelings of utter despair and dread is just amazing. He's like one of the few contemporary painters that I really enjoy

File: NI_NMNI_BELUM_U421.jpg (77KB, 564x800px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 564x800px

I find Charles Sims fairly interesting.

>Sims was an accomplished and successful academic painter in oil, tempera and watercolour, of figure subjects, genre scenes and landscapes. He studied in London and Paris and exhibited at the Royal Academy from 1894. He won Gold Medals at the Amsterdam and Pittsburgh International Exhibitions in 1912, was elected RWS in 1914 and RA in 1916. He was an official war artist in 1918 and Keeper of the Royal Academy Schools from 1920-26. In the early 1920's Sims began to show signs of mental illness, possibly schizophrenia and his pictures became more improvisatory in execution and revelatory in content.

>His new mystical paintings were shunned by those who had once feted and revered him. Increasingly depressed, he went out at dawn on 13 April 1928 and shot himself at his home in St. Boswells, Scotland.

File: tmp_27097-death-of-basquiat-robert-wolverton-jr1121121124.jpg (253KB, 724x900px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 724x900px

>>2018333

File: jackson-pollock-08.jpg (1MB, 1994x1300px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1994x1300px

let me see what i have

File: 028. Picasso. Autorretrato. 1906. Óleo lienzo. 65x54 cm.jpg (255KB, 664x800px) Image search: [Google]

255KB, 664x800px

this is a self-portrait of picasso, somehow reminds me a wojak

>>2022315
Why does image search return no relevant results? Who is this?

>>2025624
MUH nigga. Ernst is so comfy. I really love that painting, thinking of buying a Replica for my room

File: 1450633730552.jpg (2MB, 2990x2966px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2990x2966px

Paul Laffoley anyone?

>>2018333
But this stuff is shit.

File: 1451417063060.jpg (505KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

505KB, 1000x1000px

These are all hand-made by the way

someone tell me if they have got these in higher resolution

bunp

File: Alessandro-Bruschetti-Mussolini.jpg (65KB, 600x842px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 600x842px

>>2038489

File: musso.jpg (127KB, 646x771px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 646x771px

>>2038493
this one is brilliant

File: mussolini.jpg (266KB, 1200x1600px) Image search: [Google]

266KB, 1200x1600px

>>2038496
there is something I like about mussolini's taste in abstract, modern art

>>2036179
>Muh plebish mind cannot comprehend it.

>>2020703
>>2020711
>>2022815
>>2022811
this shit is great. got any more like these?

File: absolutely pure ideology.jpg (59KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 1280x720px

>>2036176
this shit is fucking great. got any more?

>>2039190
oh, lol. didnt scroll down

File: safonkin cruc.jpg (77KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 1280x720px

>>2020703

>Semiautomatic pistol
> Shirtless dude in trousers
> Waves
> Glass door

Could literally be a scene from any time between 1911 and now. What a timeless image.

>>2032521
Can you get me a better one?

File: ilya_chashnik_kosmos.jpg (2MB, 2300x2676px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2300x2676px

>>2033432
This is my favourite suprematist composition, almost a figurative representation of nature and technology.

>>2025083
Call me a pleb or whatever you want, but to call this art is offensive. To do so is to suggest that it shares something with the masterworks of immortal artists like Raphael, Caravaggio, or even Cole. If you are so spooked by the spread of subjectivism, then I am sorry for you but there is an objective standard for art.

If you look at these three rudimentary slabs of color and feel anything but contempt for the public that allowed it to be received as arellowednything more than a laughable mockery, I genuinely think you are a pretentious piece of shit. It is no less ridiculous than when such cunts dare liken Mozart with Taylor Swift by saying the latter creates music instead of some useless nonsense not unlike the painting.

Again, there is an objective standard for art. Go to a gallery of art and see if you feel the same awe when in the presence of works that have survived from antiquity as you do when looking at contemporary drivel. If you like such paintings, I do not say your taste is inferior, only that you are utterly without taste and contributing to the decline of sincere art.

File: Henry_Ossawa_Tanner_-_Angels_Appearing_before_the_Shepherds.jpg (554KB, 1400x1123px) Image search: [Google]

554KB, 1400x1123px

>>2035874
I can accept a lot of trash when it comes to Modern Art, but this will always disgust me.

>>2039653
ok but i like it

>>2039335
That painting inspired a scene in Heat too.

>>2039653
yeah there is an objective standard of art. objectively in the 20th century academism was a failure. there's no other way of thinking around that fact.

>>2039653
>then I am sorry for you but there is an objective standard for art.
I often see people mention "objective standards for art" but they consistently fail to outline them.

Plus, to tie your personal taste to some greater (unexplained) objective standards and then to call others pretentious is laughable, please take your autism meds before posting.

>>2039653
This is like saying that 1+1=2 isn't mathematics, because to say that would be to shit on Shinichi Mochizuki. Yes, it isn't some kind of was hard to get, awe inspiring statement, but it plays its own role in discipline and have an actual importance.

>>2038553
>I-it's not shit!
>It's just too deep for you!
It's ugly, has no message, no meaning, and has displaced actually good art in the modern art world.
I wouldn't mind it, at least, if it didn't kick good art from the public consciousness.

And the whole point of it is a pseudo-intellectual circle-jerk, where idiots say they like it and understand it because they want to be accepted by other idiots who say they like it and understand it because they want to be accepted by other idiots who say they like it and understand it because they want to be accepted by other idiots who say they like it and understand it because they want to be accepted by other idiots who say they like it and understand it because they want to be accepted by other idiots who say they like it and understand it because they want to be accepted by other idiots who say they like ETC. ETC. ETC.


And museums will eat it up, and pay out the wazoo for it, and slander good artists, all because they want to keep it up, because the people really at the top of this whole charade are the ones producing """art""" that sells for big bucks with no effort put into the production.

And my tax-dollars fund some of it.

>>2040909
Jesus Christ /pol/ go watch Evagelion and buy a coloring book.
>>2040967
>I don't understand or like it, so everyone else must be pretending.

>>2040967
> displaced actually good art
It isn't. Nothing stops (((good painters))) to create their art while other peinters creating their.

>>2040967
>muh money conspiracy
>muh psuedointellectuals
>muh good art *posts random realistic artist from rembrandt to norman rockwell to thomas kinkade*
you're as uninteresting as the art you complain about

stop posting at any time

File: 14586755672331.jpg (149KB, 800x820px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 800x820px

>>2040967
This.

File: klee_2701723b.jpg (97KB, 620x387px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 620x387px

German expressionism was top tier

I love Demuth, Boccioni and even Pollock but I can't stand Rothko and Mondrian

Help

File: AntolyFomenko1.jpg (922KB, 596x850px) Image search: [Google]

922KB, 596x850px

Who says communists are bad at art

>>2033499
Yes certain colors can evoke certain emotions
>omg 3 bands of colors so deep

>>2035888
I understand why the Nazis outlawed this type of garbage

File: gondola hitler.png (100KB, 501x394px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 501x394px

>>2040967
This.

File: Dali_Crucifixion_hypercube.jpg (130KB, 726x1139px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 726x1139px

>modern art is shi-

>>2041168
Thats surrealism, not modern art in the context that most people refer to

File: cqfxY99.jpg (54KB, 389x498px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 389x498px

>>2041153
He also created the art of new chronology where you can prove that Holy Roman Empire is Israel by comet dating.

>>2041170
So? Just because most retards think modern = contemporary doesn't make them correct.

>>2041311
I'm saying that no ones saying surrealism is shit; blank canvases and jackson pollock are a different story

>>2041483
What exactly do you like about this piece? I never understood this pseudo-surrealist crap

>>2039653
>but there is an objective standard for art
lol

>>2040967
i know it's hard to think about things you disagree with, but if you try you might learn something.

>>2027654
>>2025978
>>2025975
>>2025974
>>2025971
>>2025970
>>2025968
>>2025967
>>2025965

these people can't wrap their heads around a rothko but valorize this thematized band t-shirt schlock. pathetic.

File: Zdzis+éaw Beksin¦üski - 388.jpg (224KB, 672x800px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 672x800px

>>2041604
>lash out at random people because you assume they don't like your art even though pretty much anyone who shitposts about rothko only likes generic "realistic and beautiful" things(source: art threads on /pol/)
is it even possible to be this buttmad?

>>2041724

nah my man. brezinksi or whatever the fuck sucks dick. overly complex for the sake of it, designed to appeal to sci fi virgins who listen to cannibal corpse. no redeeming value whatsoever, a parody of itself before it was even popularized.

File: 1479695074065.png (133KB, 487x622px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 487x622px

>>2041756
>overly complex
???
>designed to appeal to sci fi virgins who listen to cannibal corpse
????????

>>2041767

you heard me, pleb

>>2041788
please collect yourself

>>2041919
>shitty painter who failed
>resorted to throwing shit around
Fixed

File: Roman Fresco qSI2mpd.jpg (581KB, 4522x1575px) Image search: [Google]

581KB, 4522x1575px

I love Dali.

He uses craft to express what he wants to express, while Rothko and Pollack do utter rubbish and expect to be treated as someone like Rembrandt or Monet.

Pollack is literally a shitty painter who failed, and resorted to throwing paint around

(edit) For some reason I thought Rothko was also a sculptor. Have no idea whose work I was thinking of, but it wasn't his.

His drawings are alright

>>2039653
lmaoing @ u cucc

>>2035894
>swiggity swoggity im coming for dat booty

>>2040967
>It's just too deep for you!
It's ugly, has no message, no meaning, and has displaced actually good art in the modern art world.

this is a load of nonsense. none of what you listed are qualities of 'good art'. if you want beauty, message, and meaning, go watch some capeshit. that is what your favourite art amounts to; flattery for the viewer. you have no artistic sense.

>And the whole point of it is a pseudo-intellectual circle-jerk

it's actually just your old-fashioned intellectual circle jerk, as art has been since the renaissance. unless of course you're talking about the "truly intellectual" art of the 19th century which was created with bourgeois tastelessness in mind. if you like pretty pictures, the less intellectual the art the better.

you sound like you're mad that you aren't accepted by the art world. it's probably because you don't know what you're talking about rather than it being some exclusive club. you probably think, in terms of art, "this colour means anger" or some shit. you can't conceive a simple artistic thought. you can only think in a way you think others do. look at your opinion on art: completely unoriginal. not even historically accurate, yet you are here on a history forum trying to prove otherwise with no evidence.

>>2040989
>Jesus Christ /pol/ go watch Evagelion and buy a coloring book.

the fuck are you talking about you idiot? there is nothing /pol/ about that post

>>2041938
>Pollack is literally a shitty painter who failed, and resorted to throwing paint around

This is an oversimplification. His drip technique was actually quite methodical, and there's a computer program that can tell the difference between his work and imitators quite well.

>>2041432
jackson pollock finds precedence in surrealism

the only reason no one talks about surrealism in the context of modernism is it doesn't fit the narrative of 'muh modern art no talent' or whatever, just as people who hate contemporary art only ever talk about piss and shit and have no idea about installation, photography, new media, or literally every other major form of contemporary art.

>>2041604
>these people can't wrap their heads around a rothko

I can wrap my head around Rothko well enough, and I still like those works. I've always enjoyed the weird and macabre. What's your fucking problem?

>>2041938
>Rothko and Pollack do utter rubbish and expect to be treated as someone like Rembrandt or Monet.

source?

>>2040967
>I wouldn't mind it, at least, if it didn't kick good art from the public consciousness.

Yeah, how dare the world get tired of more pictures of the Madonna, various mythological figures, and rich fucks with the time and money to commission (and then sit still for) portraits. Or maybe we should have some more bland pap of natural scenery.

>>2026483
nah

File: q-1-suprematistic-lc3a1szlc3b3-moholy-nagy-american-born-hungary-1895-1946-q-1-suprematistic-1923-oil-on-canvas-37-12-x-37-1222.jpg (3MB, 4500x4447px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4500x4447px

>>2027672
pls

>>2041530
It represents a dream-like situation, where something seems familiar, but it actually isn't. Almost uncanny.

>>2042745
I can't say if they thought that, but Curators would see it that way.

They're everything everyone goes to when they complain about Modern Art, and are the inspiritors of all the rubbish art you see today.

>>2042923
>and are the inspiritors of all the rubbish art you see today.

example?

>>2042738
No, they don't talk about surrealism like other forms of modern art cause it isn't some shitty pretentious piece of crap. You can enjoy contemporary art without being a fucking "jaksun polluk is 2deeeep no one understandz"edgelord about it. You seem to think people who say they don't like crappy modern art say that for the sake of an argument like a bunch of wannabe art connoisseurs; have you considered that maybe we just genuinely think it looks fucking disgusting?

>>2040967
t. never actually gone to a local museum

>>2043495
>No, they don't talk about surrealism like other forms of modern art cause it isn't some shitty pretentious piece of crap.

what do you mean 'no' when that is literally what i said? i 'seem to think' people who say they don't like crappy modern art don't know what modern art even is -- it's just the stuff they don't like, even though by all definitions surrealism is modern. it just doesn't fit the narrative fabricated by people with literally no education in the arts, only gut reactions to 'beauty' which they, for some reason (i.e. they have no comprehensive or consistent idea of art), assume all art must have

and absolutely surrealism is just as pretentious. like i said, pollock has precedence in surrealism

>>2043495
Surrealism is extremely pretentious, you should read some stuff about Salvador Dali. Its often ugly, often intentionally so. I say this as someone that actually likes surrealism. It's captivating and makes you think. But this is often because it defies norms of beauty, and because of the pretentious ideas of the artists finding their way onto canvas.

File: René Magritte, Les vacances de Hegel, 1958..jpg (88KB, 500x629px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 500x629px

>>2043564
Lads, after photography developed painting gradually became more about expressing general concepts. Some are not very good theoretically, some ideas you mightn't like, think effective or, dare I say understand. That's all there is to it.

>>2043826
correlation, not causation.

>>2038086
jesus

>>2018333
MODERN ART = SHIT

>>2022802
Its supposed to be against conformity or something

>>2022811
>realism
yawn

>>2040912
>I often see people mention "objective standards for art" but they consistently fail to outline them.

I did not intend to outline anything besides my contempt for what some of you are so careless and unscrupulous in calling art. But since you seem interested, I will give you this outline.

Art being an individual attempt to create the beautiful, artwork must contain some element of beauty. This is not to say that it needs to be beautiful, but that the motivation in creating it must be to strive for the creation of beauty. The reason such works as those I responded to are not art is because the individual creating them is not motivated by the virtuous desire to create beauty, but by sheer egoism.

It's a different thing to 'express one's self' and to express an idea. The imbeciles responsible for pseudo-art are trying to express themselves, placing more value in their insignificant, ephemeral beings than the pure idea which calls for expression. Worse still are those who turn to a canvas without any idea whatsoever and who will create 'whatever emerges'. Call them what you will, but an artist is devoted first to beauty, which becomes a devotion to art; these philistines are devoted to themselves.

I'll admit that I did not take my autism meds before the post you responded to and I did not take them now, but the sweat you excrete in trying to come up with a response that is not something I've read a hundred times before should serve as a substitute. The savages of Africa might not comprehend an objective standard for art because they have not been exposed to sincere, moving art; but what is your excuse?

>>2025083
God dammit this isn't fucking art this is 3 brush strokes from an autist or a 4 year old. Fuck anyone who thinks this is art, low skill meaningles hoarseshit like this is a cancer on the world of art.

>>2035874
>OOOOOO LET ME JUST SPRAY RANDOM FUCKING LINES OF PAINT OOO IM SO FUCKING ARTY GIMMIE 2 MIL

Fuck you, you cretin

>>2039653
This anon gets it.

>>2041483
Ico?

File: 1480491579626.png (100KB, 250x283px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 250x283px

>>2044906
bruh...

File: andy-warhol-soupcan.jpg (58KB, 485x727px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 485x727px

>>2039653

There is an objective standard of criticism and evaluation for modern art, granted not for all art, but there is.

There are more things written in academic journals and art reviews about Andy Warhol than any other artist out there. What you should really be asking about, is what is there as an aesthetic criterion of evaluation of an artistic object, which is a muddled question to ask today, since the art market plays a significant role and because there are many schools and opinions about art today.

Also you need to learn to differentiate between different traditions and the point they are making. For example post-modern art like that of Warhol expresses the transient, nullity and artifice, and isn't concerned with giving you an object evaluated on its face alone.

>>2044906
How do you define beauty, how do you quantify it, what is the minimum amount of beauty units in an "element"? Who judges intent? Are standards of beauty as they apply to art universal: are they even supposed to be universal and completely cross-cultural, or only Western, regional, national, or local etc? Are each one of us the arbiters of beauty or a select number with truly objective taste?

How does an artist portray ugly things; how does Goya, for example, portray the Disasters of War and still have them be "art"? Take No.39; does he self-censor, removing it and similar from the series, or do whoever calls the shots ignore the intent requirement and the subject matter and say "well, the composition and draughtsmanship are top notch, this is art".

File: Lucian Freud.jpg (43KB, 495x559px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 495x559px

>>2043880
Maybe, I think it's better to see photography as introducing a conundrum to portraiture in that what should a painting contain that cannot be reproduced in seconds with a photograph. At the same time, the immediate reaction of pure abstraction has become rather safe. In my opinion what the more interesting artists continue to do is introduce this abstractness to traditional forms, scrutinising material or reinterpreting human integrity.

>>2045078
Same guy

>>2044906
>art needs to create beauty

That is the single most plebian thing I have ever heard. Art needs to be a product of expression and skill, nothing more. As long as it conveys something and was created with forethought and skill, I'll call it art.

There is so much more to the world than what is beautiful, why limit one of our means of expression to just that?

File: The wandering faces.jpg (34KB, 509x600px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 509x600px

>>2018333

File: image.jpg (34KB, 480x428px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 480x428px

Posting some art from PR
This is by Myrna Baez

File: image.jpg (26KB, 480x400px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 480x400px

>>2047101
More of her

File: image.jpg (33KB, 480x402px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 480x402px

>>2047110

File: image.jpg (81KB, 628x640px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 628x640px

>>2047114
This is by Miguel Pou

File: image.jpg (109KB, 488x600px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 488x600px

>>2047118
More of him

File: image.jpg (974KB, 1600x1576px) Image search: [Google]

974KB, 1600x1576px

>>2047122
This is by Arnaldo Roche

File: image.jpg (99KB, 528x432px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 528x432px

>>2047127

File: image.jpg (250KB, 522x512px) Image search: [Google]

250KB, 522x512px

>>2047129

File: image.jpg (161KB, 750x537px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 750x537px

>>2047135

File: image.png (1MB, 1085x542px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1085x542px

>>2047139

File: image.jpg (279KB, 1024x773px) Image search: [Google]

279KB, 1024x773px

>>2047140

File: image.jpg (2MB, 1280x1790px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1280x1790px

>>2047143

File: image.jpg (835KB, 601x770px) Image search: [Google]

835KB, 601x770px

>>2047146
Diogenes Ballester

File: image.jpg (88KB, 600x420px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 600x420px

>>2047154
Augusto Marin

File: image.jpg (33KB, 236x167px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 236x167px

>>2047167

File: image.jpg (47KB, 480x342px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 480x342px

>>2047169
Ramon Frade

File: image.jpg (23KB, 480x322px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 480x322px

>>2047178
And ending with Domingo Garcia

File: image.jpg (31KB, 389x480px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 389x480px

>>2047180

File: image.jpg (141KB, 433x864px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 433x864px

>>2047183

>>2046081
No, no it's not.

>>2039653
>>2040967
This is Icycalm isn't it?

>>2046078
painting was leaning more towards ideas and personal expression in the years prior to photography (romanticism), in fact almost since the french revolution, and one can argue that the invention of photography owes much to these same developments rather than galvanising them. in any case, abstraction is often said to find its roots in early modernism, almost 70 years after the invention of photography.

certainly there was some effect on portraiture, such as the middle-class now being able to have portraits done of themselves at a far cheaper cost, but the middle-class now being prime art buyers had also been effective at changing art practices. it was their influence that brought about the rise of genre scenes in the 18th century, traditionally one of the lowest forms of art.

and of course there are the influences of orientalism (japonism), those crazy international fairs they had around the turn of the 20th century introducing different cultural art practices to a western audience, general influence of 'folk' on art (including music), primitivism, etc.

i'm not disagreeing really, but i think saying 'photography changed painting' is kind of misleading when there are other factors -- some maybe even more influential -- that also contribute to the development of (abstract, to say nothing of surrealism) modernism.

>>2044906
'beauty' is meaningless, as one can talk about the beauty of ugliness, if (re)produced in a certain context

it is context that separates art from not, not beauty

>>2047703
Icycalm is shit but not that shit.

File: Pablo Picasso, The Kitchen (La cuisine), 1948.jpg (272KB, 1000x693px) Image search: [Google]

272KB, 1000x693px

>>2047738
True enough, both the sublime and the pastoral of Romanticism were attempts to reach the underlying ideas of a nations territory and people that produced a reality that was more real then reality. Orientalism in the work of Thomas Seddon, Jean-Leon Gerome, or Vasily Vereshchagin replicated much of this in an externalised sense. Reproduction changed how art was perceived, I'd see abstraction formally beginning with the impressionists. though there are undoubtedly precursors, they represented the rise and effect of the middle classes on art work. I'd agree there are other elelments and I was being overly simplistic I think at a base level it remains that photography, and the sense of instat reproduction it embodied, accelerated the shift towards abstraction present within contemporary art.

>>2049516
This is fantastic, have you any more by the artist?

File: Paul Reid - Minotaur.jpg (158KB, 540x735px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 540x735px

This too is contemporary. Still haven't seen any Odd Nerdrum.

>>2045578
Cans are pretty underrated as an art object. They are results of thousand searches for beauty, even the most common Cola ones are more complex in their design than rembrandt paintings.

>>2020703
Did he drop his penis on the table or what?

File: Kazimir_Malevich,_1915,_Black_Suprematic_Square,_oil_on_linen_canvas,_79.5_x_79.5_cm,_Tretyakov_Gallery,_Moscow.jpg (1MB, 1718x1724px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1718x1724px

>>2025083
Fuck you, /his/. I like Malevich.

>>2039653
>Call me a pleb or whatever you want
Don't mind if I do

>>2051931
I prefer Russo-European abstract art to American.

>>2052634
suprematism and colour field are surprisingly similar

>>2053043
i mean in form as well as idea

>>2018333
Got any good tile art? I'm always searching for some juicy fresh tiles and need some for my folders.

>>2044836
>Family driving a car 40 years too old for their clothes
>Deer placed in the worst place possible
>Deer living in a completely treeless area
If you think this is realism, your brain is diseased.

>>2053295
ceramics?

>>2051903
>gun=penis
ebin

>>2025154
contemporary started in the 60s dick

>>2056022
*citation needed

>>2053330
>not understanding that people often drive much older vehicles

I actually don't have an answer for the deer on the top of the truck. People sometimes do dumb shit.

>not seeing the fucking tree stumps

I'm guessing you're not a poorfag. My father owned tons of old trucks that he drove to death and those kinds of abruptly clear areas are pretty common in heavily wooded areas due to logging.

>>2025083
>>2039653
i hate most abstract art, but rothko has an amazing lyricism to his work, and if you can't see that, you're a philistine--you and someone like frank gehry are two sides of the same coin.

File: Funeraloftheanarchistgalli.jpg (543KB, 875x675px) Image search: [Google]

543KB, 875x675px

I saw before me the bier, covered with red carnations, wavering dangerously on the shoulders of the pallbearers. I saw the horses becoming restive, and clubs and lances clashing, so that it seemed to me that at any moment the corpse would fall to the ground and be trampled by the horses...

File: Umberto_Boccioni,_1913,_Synthèse_du_dynamisme_humain_(Synthesis_of_Human_Dynamism),_location_unknown,_destroyed.jpg (171KB, 709x1005px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 709x1005px

While the impressionists paint a picture to give one particular moment and subordinate the life of the picture to its resemblance to this moment, we synthesize every moment (time, place, form, color-tone) and thus paint the picture.

File: 5ba1c0c1a43610f8f06616ed4637296e.jpg (160KB, 650x934px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 650x934px

>>2038489
I still find it surreal how Futurism managed to become so mainstream in Fascist Italy. You would think a totalitarian government that was hellbent on reclaiming the glory of Ancient Rome would have a problem with an ideology that felt the past was a burden to society.

>>2059391
They wanted to revive the sense of glory, not relive in a nostalgic sense. That said I'm not sure how mainstream the futurists were compared to more traditionalist elements.

File: 1442471179342.jpg (551KB, 799x579px) Image search: [Google]

551KB, 799x579px

bump

>>2044906

I think you might be making a lot of judgement there without really having all of the information needed to render such judgement effective. You seem to be confused about what you think art actually is and what it is for judging from the confused language of your post. I'm sure you do have some valid concerns given how weird art can be but I'm going to try and examine a few here real quick.

First, as others have pointed out your notion of beauty seems a little narrow. Beauty can be found in many forms and not all will be traditionally beautiful or skillful as you might expect. Older notions of beauty are typically thought of as being related to the divine, a touch of god's brilliance viewed through the mortal world which was the root of the aesthetic reaction. As we became more secular this led to a re-examination of what we found beautiful and why we created such works. There's lots of other stuff that changed those perceptions of beauty of course like mass reproduction and new media but whatever. A lot of this can be blamed like so much else on Kant, which makes it hard to get to grips with but a lot of his notions about the sublime and such had a pretty big impact. I'm not smart enough to sit here talking shit about Kant but the essential idea here is that our idea of beauty has changed a lot. Beauty comes from an aesthetic experience and these days understanding that experience can be more interesting than the beautiful itself.

[1/2]

Second, your idea about Rothko and the like being concerned with ego and the individual rather than some single minded pure artistry is...strange, but I think I see where your coming from. These artists have got a strong cult of personality but that is not so much the a part of their work. it's more to do with the fact that they were making high selling art at the same time as Mass media and pop culture were becoming a thing. The idea of these artists as gifted and tortured geniuses is mostly an embellished myth having to do with our changed perceptions of the artist over time. What we consider an artist today and even what we consider art itself are not the same thing they made in prior eras.

The lads you were talking about definitely weren't making art out of some higher calling to pure beauty. They were doing it to get paid, or to outdo each other in painting dick measuring contests . Or in the case of Caravaggio so he could keep fucking cheap whores and killing lads in duels without repercussion. You seem to have the new artists and the old masters confused in their goals. For someone like Caravaggio ego was a huge part of what he was doing and the way he painted. Contemporary art is filled with artists who question this idea of identity and ego in contrast to what you seem to think. Duchamp is a good well known example of this (in at least this instance) with the Fountain. He submitted it under the pseudonym R. Mutt as a way to remove his identity from the piece as well as any kind of ego or favoritism due to his status. The piece would supposedly speak for itself.

[2/ I wrote to much bullshit]

[Last bit/ posting in an art thread that hit image limit but fuck it I wrote all this crap, I'm posting it]


The status and role of the artist have greatly changed and your just missing all this information, how can you possibly be able to understand what your even complaining about? I don't want to be rude or whatever, I know that a lot of modern art can be frustrating and feel like a load of high falutin shite talk but it's just a matter of looking into it a little bit to understand what it's all about. You say you're waiting to hear the same old arguments again but I think you might want to pay more attention, you clearly have not been listening.

Do you know what's my problem with contemporary art? They use very different artstyles but in the end the paintings just convey trippiness. They feel very limited, just look at this thread.

>>2062807
Most of what's posted here is quite varied covering a gradual shift from accessing mentalities to questioning what is reality.

>>2057407
it has already been argued in the thread. there's nothing contemporary about abstract expressionism. formalism is no longer a favoured analytical style to art historians

>>2059316
i don't know why people think these artistic concerns are unique to futurism. it owes so much to cubism and cubism is a far less one-note

>>2062807
that's not really a problem with contemporary art since painting is kind of a minor medium now

>>2063237
The Cubists resembled Impressionists in almost everything but shape and colour. Cubism still painted individual moments, it didn't try to represent movement and speed like futurism did.

>>2038106
Does anyone know of a WW1 painting that shows some Austrian soldiers hunched over crawling through a field like creepy robots? I remember it was supposed to represent serfdom and agriculture in Austria or something...it was in the styel of painting that these were...
>>2020703
>>2020711
if i remember correctly

>>2063309
cubism resembles post- or neo-impressionism, which in turn resemble impressionism, but i think the pair are fundamentally different as separated by the concerns of post- and neo-impressionism to create something with more solidity than the precedent. i would argue that impressionism has more in common with futurism in its attempt to capture the ephemeral

either way futurists used cubist conceptions of pictorial space like the technique of passage or non-euclidean geometry as a basis for depicting ideas of speed and movement.

>>2040912

I'm not that anon and I don't wholly agree with him, but he could make useful rhetorical inroads for his thing by citing studies which demonstrate that humans universally prefer to look at other human faces with such-and-such characteristics (big eyes, lateral symmetry, etc).

The theoretical point being that an objective standard of beauty (insofar as humans subjectively measure it across populations) would be an easier thing to argue, and from this, for the person who wants to make the case, the thing about "objective art" could be attempted.

That said, I do nevertheless disagree to a large degree with what he's trying to say. He hasn't appreciated that a large part of the appeal of Rothko and other artists is their personal lives, backstories, and so on. Their histories. Van Gogh has this, Francis Bacon. When you understand that Rothko himself was actually sincere in what he was trying to do, and appreciated mythology, to the point of not wanting to be a corporate shill, and beind a sadboy who killed himself, well this is an extreme example of an artist with some cred. He pulled all the right "career moves", suicide among them.

I know that postwar pieces are traded by billionaires as money laundering with good returns these days (which would probably make rothko himself spin in his grave), but the point is that there is a /mythology of authenticity/ behind them. Rothko can lay claim to some of this.

I'll push the apology one step further. Rothko painted like a dozen paintings at the end of his life that all looked exactly like dead lunar landscapes, just black/white. This was his art taken to its logical conclusion, then he sat down in the tub and opened his veins. The other anon could fairly argue that that's indicative of the uselessness and vacancy of the art, but I would come at it from the other direction: understanding that Rothko actually was a sadboy lets us empathize with him a bit, and makes his last paintings more tragic and poignant.

>>2041168
this painting is shit though

>>2041530
I personally like italian surrealism. It has this eerie feeling of emptiness to it which captures the dreamlike essence of surrealism very well.

Modern """"""""""art""""""""""

>>2063804
t. post-modern retard

>>2063603
beauty is not art and art is not beauty. there'd be no point citing a study on beauty to determine standards for art

or maybe we could argue that we prefer art with larger hips

>>2035886
best van gogh

>>2041756
You are a fucking pleb. I am going to see his works today just to spite you.


AND THEN I SHALL GO SEE ROTHKO

>>2041483
makes me feel nervous