Do you think art suffered or prospered when its focus shifted

>>2067870
Personally I regard postmodern art like this as a reactionary bandwagon by rich hipsters that is essentially bullshit, but what do I know.
Prove me wrong /his/ I want to be shown otherwise.

>>2067870
I think the issue is that old art is too easy to create with modern technology and the amount of people that have free time. So they need something to separate artists.

>>2067889
This is avant-garde anti-art and a precusor to Dada of the early 20th century, not postmodernism.

Basically it was a reactionary movement against war and modern society and was anti-bourgeois. So you're not that far off with the hipster thing desu.

I wouldn't consider it bullshit, as it did lead to surrealism and modernism and all that jazz. It started collage, photo montage, and assemblage art not to mention a lot of literary and poetic trends

>>2067898
Yeah, that makes sense. Even back then people were making stuff that was more or less photo-realistic it was so good, so they had to start fucking with people's heads and branching out. Otherwise the whole thing would've descended into stagnation.

Doesn't mean I don't hate De Stijl

>>2067926
I think Fountain doesn't deserve the fate of being grouped with other dadaist art that followed it, mainly because it has meaning.

Duchamp made it in protest if an art expo that charged artists for showing their stuff, segregating poorer artists, so he paid the toll and gave them the most banal thing he could think of

>>2067940
>“Whether Mr Mutt made the fountain with
his own hands or not has no importance.
He CHOSE it. He took an article of life,
placed it so that its useful significance
disappeared under the new title and point
of view – created a new thought for that
object”
It might've been that in part, but it was a statement about what art is and how it's perceived. The reason I grouped it with Dada is because Duchamp's "anti-art" readymades were a precursor of the movement. Dadaist works also made statements and expressed anti-war and opposition to "bourgeois" art styles of the past.

>>2067926
thank, i can appreciate the fact that it lead to other things, and I do appreciate surrealism so, cool. Still
>Basically it was a reactionary movement against war and modern society and was anti-bourgeois. So you're not that far off with the hipster thing desu
>>2067940
>Duchamp made it in protest if an art expo that charged artists for showing their stuff, segregating poorer artists, so he paid the toll and gave them the most banal thing he could think of

That for me reeks of pretentiousness and engaged art.

Tbh, I am not an expert, but it still rubs me the wrong way. I get that it is subjective, but I don't like art for the sake of "art" or for a "greater cause" or a "beef". I like art to be personal, for it to have personal symbolism. Guess there isn't a discussion to be had since it's so subjective.

>>2067940
That's the problem with a lot of modern art, though -- absent the context in which it was made, whatever it was a commentary on, it's pretty fucking worthless. Call me a philistine if you want, but if you need a plaque to appreciate a piece of art, then to me it has no artistic value -- maybe historical value, but not artistic. Obviously I'm not talking about every piece of modern (or postmodern) art ever, that would be an insanely broad brush to paint with (haha), but enough of it to piss me off whenever I dip back into art history.

I've also just about had it with artistic works that serve as commentaries on the nature of art itself -- a little of that is okay, but beyond a point, it really just starts to feel like what I believe the Brits refer to as "wanking."

>>2067987
Nah familam, it's exactly because it is so subjective that it's great for discussion. I agree, art for the sake of art can often come off as pretentious, but there also has to be some sort of thought and skill and aesthetic behind it to be considered "good art", even if "good art" is ugly by society's standards.

It's all about that fine balance of art in terms of beauty and form and art in terms of thought and interpretation.

>>2067870
As an artist I have mixed feelings about this.

>>2068075
Explain further mate. I'm an artist too, and I know the talent we have for waxing poetic about this kind of thing.

>>2068063
What bothers me in exhibiting a urinal as art to piss off the status quo is that it feels like you act impulsively and shallow to push a message while your submission has no deeper inspiration other than being a vessel for "dissing".
At risk of sounding like a weeb, End of Evangelion and the Eva series where a supreme example of meaningful symbolism and personal strife projected into artistic work that wasn't reactionary. And compared to that for example, I can't appreciate the urinal.

>>2067889
>postmodern

>>2068117
Well yes, the urinal itself isn't something I can appreciate. It's a urinal. But the urine does have meaningful symbolism and though it was reaction it was a part of a growing movement that would help shape art for the next century.

It's a vessel not just for saying "fuck your idea of art, it's saying "art is subjective, and should have meaning in addition to form." An anonymous source defending the Fountain said that the entire point was to say that objects can take on new meaning and symbolism depending on their point of view, and how the artist chooses to display it changes and influences that interpretation. Yeah it's no Shakespeare play, and it's no Picasso painting, but it's commenting on art itself and it was important for art that came after it.

File: 45254566777.jpg (31KB, 624x352px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 624x352px

>>2067926
>It started collage, photo montage, and assemblage art
so basically duchamp has lead us to memes

>They actually prefer boring realist paintings to the flourishing vibrant works of modernism

lmao, plebs