"Art"

When it become too complicated for teenagers to be spoonfed on.

>rich people wasting their money on an abstract painting by a famous painter because they think of it like buying a commodity is evidence that "art has turned to shit"
explain

File: REPIN_Ivan_Terrible&Ivan.jpg (837KB, 2992x2328px) Image search: [Google]

837KB, 2992x2328px

>>2209238
here is real art for comparison look at deepness of an emotions at all of colors and at complexity that can't be rivaled by modern works

>>2209244
Dude, the eyes...

Call me a pleb but I believe that art is a good when it combines aesthetic and meaning. The traditional religious art like the ones of Michelangelo managed to combine both aesthetics and (religious) meaning in strive to come closer to good. Experimentalism can be a bonus factor, impressionism is a style I find intriguing even though it was hated for a long while.

However, I feel like at a certain point that art made a complete flip around with post-modernism. It no longer has the aestheticism or constructed meaning. Instead it represents some flowing meaning of the artist that can be interpretated by the beholder. I used to make art like this in highschool and I did it mostly as a joke but my teachers loved me for my "deep meaning" to what was essentially garbage.

Everything can be art, and therefore nothing is art.

File: Johannes+Wessmark+-+Tutt%2527Art%2540[1].jpg (56KB, 720x498px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 720x498px

There's nothing wrong with modern art. OP is a shitter who don't know anything about art so he will pretend based on some shit he saw on the internet and form an uneducated opinion about it based on muh feels.

I for one hope that OP gets children and they grow up to be liberal arts artists who on one hand will understand the scope of art while being dirt poor, just to spite OP, so that the one day he gets a heart attack they won't be able to afford the record bill, only because he was too much of a faggot. If he wasn't a faggot, his kids wouldn't be contrarians and he wouldn't have died from devouring one burger too many.

>>2209244
you didn't answer my question, why is rich people wasting their money on bad art evidence that all art that isn't old is bad, you're merely ignoring all the good art that is made today to confirm your biases about how we've lost something from the past and are now in some kind of decadent and degenerate present.

also why do you consider the painting you put in the OP a "modern work" when it was painted over 70 years ago?

>>2209249
art is more than just painting and sculpture

>>2209248
DUDE, THAT EXPRESSION, LMAO

>>2209251
I would agree there's nothing wrong with modern art per se but there is legitimately no reason for stuff like what's in the OP to be worth as much as it is. no matter what you think of its aesthetics it requires absolutely no technical skill. the question is what are you really paying for: the piece of art or a piece of art made by such and such?

>>2209252
Are you retarded? OP is obviously referring to abstract art when he talks about modern art. Abstract art is garbage. It has no meaning at all, it's totally undisciplined. It's literally just for snooty elites to pretend they see the "deep emotion" of a white square on a white background so that other people agree in order not to look stupid for not being able to see the deep emotion. The emperor has no fucking clothes.

>>2209220
its 1dep2u m8 youll never get it.

>>2209220

reminder that there has already been two people who presented masterpieces of modern art that were made by their child smearing ketchup on a canvas and by a monkey smearing paint on canvas

File: k-malevich-black-suprematistic-square-p-1914-15.jpg (22KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 300x300px

>>2209284
> It has no meaning at all
It isn't true. In many cases their meaning is even explained directly by creator.

>>2209276
>or a piece of art made by such and such
that's absolutely why, it's a Barnett Newman who was one of the first abstract painters. Someone bought it because they thought they can sell it for more in the future, not because they really thought it was a great work of art (I would imagine).

>>2209284
If he felt abstract art is garbage then why did he say "modern art" but post a painting that was made before the end of ww2?

>>2209289
>In many cases their meaning is even explained directly by creator.

doesnt that mean its shit?

>go to Tate Modern
>they have Rothcoe exhibition
>wall plaque says the painting series is meant to evoke the feeling of being in a dark room
>the exhibition is in a room with no windows and the electric lights low

Bravo Rothcoe, truly great art

>>2209220

It's now an investment scheme since interest rates are so low.

Book sales are more of a money laundering thing for politicians.

File: image.jpg (95KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 300x300px

>>2209292
I didn't say modern art you illiterate mongoloid. Re-read the OP. I am asking when and why art went to shit, and you haven't answered either. Kill yourself ASAP and never reply to my threads again.

File: 098.jpg (3KB, 479x466px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 479x466px

>>2209284
> snooty elites pretend
> see the "deep emotion"
It isn't their fault that autists can't process simple expression techniques (i.e. sometimes silence is the most powerful sound for a scene) that doesn't rely on the mechanical show of concrete objects.

>>2209305

It's not our fault the emperor has no clothes.

>>2209292
>If he felt abstract art is garbage then why did he say "modern art" but post a painting that was made before the end of ww2?
Modern art has been around since the beginning of the 20th century. I mean surely you know Guernica was painted before the end of WWII. most art nowadays is post-modern.

>>2209297
Because art must be a puzzle or what?

>>2209305

>t-the emperors robe looks great!

File: dur.png (242KB, 389x562px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 389x562px

>>2209301
>here is real art for comparison look at the deepness of an emotions (sic) at all of colors (sic) that can't be rivaled by MODERN WORKS(!!!!!!)

anyway to answer your question art hasn't gone to shit, you just focus on the shit artists of today and ignore the shit artists of the past because their art wasn't preserved. Art has also changed due to the creation of new technologies for artistic expression, like photography, film, and television so less artists today are interested in painting and sculpture than in the past.

>>2209316
"you're wrong" is not an argument

File: 1380697092809.jpg (42KB, 479x720px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 479x720px

>>2209309
> i can't see it, so it doesn't exist! XD
truly euphoric position

>>2209318
I didn't post that, autist. Didn't I already tell you to fuck off? Your answer is embarrassing.

>>2209323

neither is "you just dun get it!"

>>2209327
> people only pretending to understand the thing!
Let's be honest here, original argument is a most retarded of them all, as it is some sort of autistic, in the literal sense of the world conspiracy theory.

>>2209326
oh ok, thought that was you nevermind then. But my opinion is still that art has not gone to shit, people just focus on the shit artists to confirm their preconcieved notion that we are in some kind of cultural dark age.

What the hell is embarrassing about that, why are you insulting me?

File: 1484124313228.jpg (39KB, 589x639px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 589x639px

>>2209325
that gives me an idea: would it be possible for an artist to sell an art piece that is literally nothing and say it's "transcendent and immaterial"

>>2209220
Photography happened. The ability to portray reality became trivialized and with it an objective means of determining the quality of art.

>>2209349
Get to it before someone does that.

File: Capitalism.jpg (19KB, 450x450px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 450x450px

>>2209276
> here is legitimately no reason for stuff like what's in the OP to be worth as much as it is
This is problem with capitalism not with a painting. It isn't like creator can choose the price, it was out of his control.

>>2209349
I did it several time in during my college years. All they got was a document where they legally owned the piece and a note saying that it isn't material. My favourite piece was probably "thought about clouds forming like dancing girls 2015-06-21".

>>2209349
Let me check if it wasn't done before.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-HZBQrT5Hw

>>2209358
>out of his control
even if this was sold in an auction I would imagine the starting bid wasn't $10

i live on SSI because of bipolar disorder do you guys think I can convince rich people to buy crappy art from me?

Bipolar people are supposed to be very artistic they'd definitely buy into this stereo type to reaffirm themselves and virtue signal


plz I'm so poor I eat nothing but rice and beans send help

File: 1484123939440.jpg (60KB, 812x640px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 812x640px

>>2209362
wait did you do this for a class? surely I would have thought in a college setting they would call you on your bullshit and demand some effort

>>2209371
Well, if you seriously count price as an element of an artwork, than you are already more postmodern than most of so called artists. It probably shouldn't be sold for billions, but being overpriced isn't really the artistic flaw.

>>2209276
$43,800,000 inst necessarily worth anything
Money is only "worth" what you did to get it.
Unfortunately everyone pays for it.

File: 1463877413521.jpg (244KB, 1372x1000px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 1372x1000px

>how art used to look like

File: commissions.png (2MB, 2564x2088px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2564x2088px

>>2209372
no, but if you actually learn how to draw you can eke out a nice living drawing for furries

File: tumblr_static_tumblr_static__640.jpg (53KB, 519x292px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 519x292px

>>2209406
There is deep irony about how people who are rich from passing papers spend billions on the objects, that were created with just the little bit more effort. Perhaps modern economy is just the one huge art performance by itself a most grandiose of them all.

>>2209409
> nice living drawing for furries
Which is basically patronage art, furries are true descendants of the renaissance artistic tradition.

>>2209423
society as spectacle
life as performance

File: fedorasea.jpg (1013KB, 2327x2980px) Image search: [Google]

1013KB, 2327x2980px

>>2209244
>that
>good
literally the fedora of paintings, next to this

>>2209423
Tell me about it.
I've seen my bit of jobs. social envinronments, situations etc, and the intense vacums between them really tires me sometimes...

>>2209423
Lack of coherency.

I think it's tied in with the decline of religion. All art back in the day was religiously motivated.

File: Ivan-Constantinovich-Aivazovsky---The-Ninth-Wave_800.jpg (139KB, 800x528px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 800x528px

>>2209459
Wanderer above the Sea is a great painting, stop being a contrarian. Here, have another nice seascape.

>>2209251

>be Jackson Pollock
>squirt paint out of butthole onto canvas
>somehow this is art

>people who have no interest in art still have opinions about it
>they want the same thing we had for centuries

>>2209549
It was religiously motivated because religious institutions commissioned the paintings

>>2209268
>>2209248
>>2209459
>umm what the fuck this doesn't even have migrants pozzing me up

>>2209312
The meaning you intended to deliver should be clear from the painting itself. If you have to explain it, you're a shit artist

>>2209648
It's pure Dunning-Krueger.

just because the rich are shelling out millions for garbage doesn't mean "real" art is dead

If your city has a "reputable" modern art museum it also has a classical one as well go there instead

>>2209648
>people with no taste in art have opinions about it

Can art only progress through these retarded post no abominations? There are good modern artists that aren't mongrels of the lowest order (Zdzisław Beksiński and Lucian Freud being the most famous)

>>2209244
>cliché, le painture

>>2209323
B-but that's wrong

>>2209698
oh shit you're right, sorry

File: lavender-mist.jpg (243KB, 1000x745px) Image search: [Google]

243KB, 1000x745px

You plebs just can't appreciate it.

>>2209709
I mean, I've seen some of his paintings in a museum and they're definitely cool looking but if we define good art as capable of producing an emotional evocation then I'd have to say its a failure.

>>2209709
That's actually good though.

>>2209724

Making you think it's cool is something right

>>2209614
You do realize he is standing in the mountains and its fog, right?

File: Roberto Ferri Il canto della vergine, 2015.jpg (157KB, 1600x1130px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 1600x1130px

This was made in 2015.Stop generalizing

>>2209842
>This was made in 2015
That's fucking amazing. Why isn't shit like this being set as an example for good modern art these days?

File: adam_by_tazi_san-d4457q0.jpg (62KB, 434x356px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 434x356px

>>2209842
So was this lifelike portrait of Adam and his first wife, Lilith the demon-wolf

>>2209378
I was taking an art class for teachers and we were given permission to display whatever we wanted at certain events, even if it weren't part of what we did during class. I displayed a contract of ownership of nothing alongside my "proper" art (not very good, mind you) and the fake stuff actually sold (the proper art weren't for sale) after someone actually bought it not understanding it wasn't suppose to be sold.

>>2209852
It is.

>>2209349
Look up Yves Klein.

>>2209342

>being so insecure you have to start calling people conspiracy theoriest because they dont like the same shlock you pretend to like

lol

>>2209298
If you don't rage at least once you are not at the Tate Modern.

Same applies to the Turner Prize.

File: 1483769031785.png (177KB, 436x361px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 436x361px

>2017
>photorealism

>>2209312
A piece of art's meaning should come from the relationship between the art and the person viewing it, not from the relationship between the art and the artist.

Those little white squares of card next to a lot of pieces contain the most pretentious bullshit ever put in text.

File: 1468611054932.jpg (428KB, 1200x877px) Image search: [Google]

428KB, 1200x877px

>>2209220
>>2209244

If you can't piss in it, it's not art. Them's the rules.

File: 1481041567654.jpg (285KB, 1280x855px) Image search: [Google]

285KB, 1280x855px

>>2210007
You have a problem?

>>2209842
>>2209852

It's heavy handed and derivative and the renderer hasn't quite gotten over outlining.

>>2210022
Yeah I can just take a picture thanks to my iPhone5s ™ and it will be the same

File: 1479487293828.jpg (143KB, 609x1000px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 609x1000px

>>2210029
When would a beta like you ever get this on your iphone?

File: Serge Marshennikov (6).jpg (382KB, 1280x1216px) Image search: [Google]

382KB, 1280x1216px

>>2210029

I'd like to see you take a photo that looked like the painting you're replying to.

desu though that guy's painting isn't photorealistic (and that's a good thing). just regular realistic, and a realistic painting can look way better than a photo.

File: Jeremy Mann (14).jpg (299KB, 500x683px) Image search: [Google]

299KB, 500x683px

Modern art is trash, but it's a mistake to take the label "modern art" and apply it to all art done in modern times.

we've still got plenty of excellent painters / artists who do stuff other than abstract shit.

>>2210041
>>2210037
DUDE TITS LMAO

>>2210054
>>2210041
>>2210037
>>2210022
>Focuses on shit that a decent photographer could make
>focuses on naked women

Yeah, as if there was any more proof needed that the detractors of modern art are fundamentally plebian in their sensibilities.

File: 1477245009788.jpg (621KB, 1224x1779px) Image search: [Google]

621KB, 1224x1779px

>>2210063
You can't make a photo look like this

File: Articulations-Armored-Train-in-Action-520.jpg (63KB, 397x520px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 397x520px

>>2210054
I like futurism though

I will say it right here: Dadaism was a mistake.

File: roberto ferri (4).jpg (44KB, 600x428px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 600x428px

>>2210063

>Focuses on shit that a decent photographer could make

Confirmed for pleb taste and zero awareness of realism painting.

No, a photographer could not take a Jeremy Mann painting or a Roberto Ferri painting or any decent realist (not photorealist) painting. Just because it looks realistic doesn't mean it mirrors reality in the way a photograph does.

File: Freud - Reflection (self portrait).jpg (2MB, 2400x2709px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2400x2709px

>>2209683
Lucian Freud is probably my single favourite artist. He somehow manages to make the uncanny valley feel more tangible and realistic than a photograph.

File: Jeremy Mann (70).jpg (604KB, 1000x795px) Image search: [Google]

604KB, 1000x795px

>>2210063

> shit that a decent photographer could make

nah m8, you're making it pretty obvious you've never done either photography or painting if you think that.

>>2210092
>>2210083
>>2210066
>posts more photography-tier art

What did they mean by this?

>>2210100
>still doesn't get it

Wew lad the pleb is in

File: 1477551807435.jpg (1MB, 1497x2500px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1497x2500px

>>2210100
(you)

>>2210100

>retards all over again

anon I'm sorry you're blind. Realism =/= photorealism and if you're too stupid to realize this you should find another thread.

>>2210104
>still thinks that blurry bullshit makes this kind of art not plebian in its sensibilities

I guarantee you there's not a single thing in those paintings that couldn't be better expressed with a photograph.

>All these posts implying there is no art in modern world.

Art is still being propagated through different medium and breaking through different fronts from drawing to anime to cinematography to photography to sculpture to font types and stuff.

>inb4 consumerism

>>2210107
I'm sorry you can't see the forest for the trees. You focus on all the minutiae that makes these different from photographs, when you're really just missing the fact that the ideas behind all of these pieces could have been more effectively and easily expressed with a photograph. There's literally no place for realism in art these days; it's plebian shit meant to appeal to the sorts who think art is about pretty pictures with good composition.

File: gorilla warfare.jpg (29KB, 600x313px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 600x313px

>>2209244
And here is REAL art that paintings just can't match

>>2210110

depends on your goal, anon. find me a photograph that looks as or more appealing as >>2210054 for the "same reasons" so I can laugh at your shit taste. I'm willing to bet you'll post a naked woman with zero understanding of what makes the painting good.

File: 1479492951652.jpg (336KB, 1600x1058px) Image search: [Google]

336KB, 1600x1058px

>>2210114
how about this?

File: 1479489296642.png (2MB, 1024x692px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1024x692px

>>2210114
or this?

>>2209220
Ironically, some of the stuff that created modern art, and are sometimes held up as examples of modern art being painfully simple and idiotic, are complex and fascinating in their own right, but as always, artsy "experts" went full on "man, it's like so deep, you wouldn't get it" despite not understanding the painting themselves, and therefor paving the room for actual morons painting idiotic things from whatever crap they have lying around
http://www.cracked.com/article_23992_6-lazy-pieces-art-that-took-insane-amount-work.html
>inb4 cracked
Just read it.

>>2209614
>he doesn't know that landscapes and the ilk are looked down upon for their lack in compositional depth, needed skill, or actual meaning.

>>2209870
Hot

>>2210119
It's doing something a photograph can't do. Bravo.

Though truthfully, I've just been talking shit. I only think realism has any relation to a plebian sensibility when you get the sort that uses realism as a counterpoint to modern art to claim modern art isn't really art.

>>2210092
To go back to this, the piece has a certain sense of austere solemnity that would have actually been quite difficult (but not impossible) to capture with a photograph.

>>2210114
>You focus on all the minutiae that makes these different from photographs

the "focus on the minutae" is what makes it appealing you fucking moron. A focus on the minutae is what makes a difference between a good photo of a cathedral compared to one some shit took on his iphone. One is crafted with a certain aesthetic in mind, another is merely documenting reality. None of the realist paintings are INTENDED to be a document of reality, they're not painting the model so they can remember what she fucking looks like or she can put it on her driver's license, you jackass.

You might as well say we should never draw humans, period. Not stylized, no nothing, cameras "do it better". Otherwise you can't see the forest from the trees, man!

You're obviously mentally deficient, anon, and you should find another thread to transmit your shit taste.

>>2210083
You think this guy is hot stuff but the way his outlines show is embarrassing. From a technical perspective it's just not very good. He's got soft blending and proportion down but that's about it. Poses and subject matter all copied from famous baroque stuff. Terrible sense of weight in >>2209842.

>>2210092 is much better but what's the interest? Does it have anything going for it other than being a decent imitation of old masters?

>>2209852
because its boring? The painter didn't produce something very original, interesting, or subtle. It sucks. Most pop art is executed better

>>2210136
>he doesn't know that photography can be used for more than documenting reality

Really dude? You don't think photographers use a similar process to artists in their work, that they just try to take the picture as they first see the thing?

Dumbass.

>>2210081
Dadaism was a direct reaction to ww1.

File: 1477546487504.jpg (35KB, 486x600px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 486x600px

>>2210114
You couldn't get this in a photograph. or at least you couldn't without keeping it a secret

>>2210106
>cherubs
>naked lady
>uninteresting background
oh wow its fucking nothing

>>2210146
>very original, interesting, or subtle
le soup cans

>>2210123
>1872
not particularly impressive, also the coloring is too dark which makes the subject smaller than intended, too small for the canvas

File: 1477553096576.jpg (52KB, 550x400px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 550x400px

>>2210155
what do you have against naked ladies?

>>2210161
He's prolly gay sm h

>>2210160
Not that anon and no idea about the painting but I bet the canvas is fuckhuge in person.

>>2210148

>He doesn't know how to read

I literally specified the difference between a crafted photograph of a cathedral and a pleb snapping an iphone picture, you retard. It was to illustrate that there even though the subject is the same the goals of the person depicting it are different between a pro photographer, a painter, and some retard with a camera phone.

The existence of photoshop is blurring the line, many photographers make 'painterly' decisions with a photograph (particularly in regards to colour/value but also stuff like arranging what stuff is 'in focus' / detailed what what isn't), but even that still doesn't render realistic paintings obsolete.

File: 1479487476122.jpg (73KB, 736x834px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 736x834px

>>2210162
or maybe she's gay

File: ruan-jia-dragons.jpg (199KB, 1250x704px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 1250x704px

>>2210155

>give me DRAGONS I want DRAGONS!!!!!

fine anon will you shut the fuck up and stop bitching now?

>>2210172
If (((it))) was a lesbian then tits wouldn't get his panties in a bunch

>>2210168
I already admitted I was talking shit earlier and I misread your post. Sorry about that.

As I said, I think the focus on realism is only linked to a plebian mindset when you get that brand of idiot or fedora tipper that insists that all forms of abstractionism aren't really art, which is tantemount to saying "art is only pretty pictures" which is indeed a fundamentally plebian thought.

>>2210186
>I think the focus on realism is only linked to a plebian mindset when you get that brand of idiot or fedora tipper that insists that all forms of abstractionism aren't really art
in other words a strawman. personally I don't have a problem with abstract art in general, just the pretentious shit like >>2209365
personally I like a lot of early modern art like futurism and cubism

>>2210186
dat classism

File: sargent (3).jpg (459KB, 676x1024px) Image search: [Google]

459KB, 676x1024px

>>2210186

I agree that people who like realism because abstraction is the devil have a shallow appreciation of realism, but I'd also argue that's a more valid critique of photorealism than realism (and while people miss the distinction there is a distinction). If you admit you were just talking shit maybe I'm preaching to the choir, but the "why not take a photo lmao" sentiment is common and it's a shame.

All the best 'realist' paintings I know of make excellent (and rarely 'just like real life') colour choices, are very clever with brush strokes, and know how to use a hierarchy of detail to draw somebody's attention around a painting. And managing details in a painting is different than touching up a photo in post.

If you zoom in on good Sargent paintings sometimes the things that look incredibly detailed are just cleverly placed globs of paint, zoomed in it looks nothing like it does zoomed out. There's interesting technique to make something 'appear' realistic yet still not be photo-realistic, it's an illusion which photography tends to lack in my experience. Painters will design their painting in a different way than a photographer will design a photograph. They'll accentuate different things for different purposes. A photographer would no doubt be able to take a photo of one of Sargent's subjects very competently, but they wouldn't take a Sargent portrait. There's a reason why people can often be surprised when they go to a realist plein air or life drawing session and see 8 different people leave with 8 different paintings of the same subject done with different mediums/palettes/etc. They all capture the same thing, but differently.

>>2210196
>in other words a strawman

Nah, an opinion that's very common around here. You ever seen people trying to tear down Weimar era art around here?

>>2209220
read:

http://northeastwestsouth.net/uselessness-refusal-art-and-money-encounters-david-graebers-towards-anthropological-theory-value

File: 6501511020-washbrook-urinal.png (484KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

484KB, 1000x1000px

Let's be honest. Nobody ITT is ever going to compete with American Standard.

>those rhythmic curves
>that minimal palette
>lighting-dependent but always perfect contradistinction
>simple but deep juxtaposition of similar but vitally different materials
>each with their own sense of proportion and style of contour

Perfection in itself To Be Honest

File: e166124be870350718e4ba523b4cb5c7.jpg (43KB, 339x550px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 339x550px

>>2210214

Also when you think about, say, a realistic watercolour, it still has a definite character that makes it distinct from a photo. Same with any medium. Ultimately it amounts to preference.

File: Degenerate art show.jpg (24KB, 373x267px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 373x267px

>>2210215
>You ever seen people trying to tear down Weimar era art around here?
this isn't /pol/. the only Weimar era art I've seen attacked is Dada, which in my opinion deserves it for the most part

>>2210141

Roberto Ferri is just a good way to shut people up about "muh old masters modern art sucks!" because he tackles a similar subject matter in a similar way. Some of his stuff is pretty tacky but he's definitely nailed a familiar aesthetic. If you asked a normie who didn't know better what time period he was from they'd probably say he's from a few hundred years ago.

File: battle of rocroi.jpg (375KB, 1650x1017px) Image search: [Google]

375KB, 1650x1017px

Rocroi, el último tercio, by Augusto Ferrer-Dalmau (2011)

>>2210295
strictly meh

File: shadows-altare-della-patri-rome.jpg (366KB, 757x1000px) Image search: [Google]

366KB, 757x1000px

>PHOTOGRAPHERS HATE HIM

Damn missed the thread, am I too late to play bingo?
>only pretending to like it
>literally only exists for money laundering
>class signalling
>the emperor has no clothes

Plastic arts allowed themselves to be replaced by other forms of popular art.
Modernism, hell even post-modernism aren't exactly wrong.
Beauty doesn't need to follow strict standards.
And art doesn't even necessarily need to be beautiful.
It can be just about making a statement or whatever, sure. But that doesn't mean it's interesting.

And post-modern art is so fucking boring. "WOW this wierd thing can be considered art too". "WOW this is so shocking". It's just the same shit over and over, none of it is engaging. Beauty has a more, dare i say, universal appeal, but it's like it's fallen out of fashion.
Maybe when it started it had a bit of an appeal i guess, at least the ideas being presented were new. But it lost the luster really fast.

And then artists close themselves in their echo chamber of self-fellating art critics and colleagues sustained by money laundering and fools who want to look avant garde, with no one in the world sincerely appreciating their work.

>>2209407
That's a quite morbid painting.

File: 962px-VanGogh-starry_night_ballance1.jpg (358KB, 962x768px) Image search: [Google]

358KB, 962x768px

>>2209220
>When and why did art turn to shit?
Some argue after the invention of photography.
Artists lost the need to capture reality so they began painting how they feel instead.

File: WHIT_98.308.jpg (107KB, 1024x706px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 1024x706px

>>2209251
there is nothing wrong with modern art but shit like pic related needs to stop.

was David Foster wallace right?

Is art in trouble because of post Modernism?

>>2210628
i don't know if i can answer properly without the ability to put footnotes in this text box

>>2210628
art needs significantly more time to be judged than we're giving it I think

people are saying that photography ruined art, but without that we never would have had impressionism

>>2210634

yeah but how can we judge art if the standard can be varied.

if we judge art on how photorealistic something can be, plenty of art is outside of those bounds and could be considered terrible.

but if we judge art by it's intent, then plenty of photo realistic paintings become meaningless because the "intent" is that the painting is supposed to be "pretty"

there's seriously an impasse in regards to art

File: 140923152608-photo-realism-helnwein-girl-stare-horizontal-large-gallery.jpg (98KB, 980x552px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 980x552px

>>2209244
That's a giant load of crap
https://www.google.com/search?q=realistic+portraiture&newwindow=1&espv=2&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiljYzdrrvRAhXJYiYKHYvGDnAQ_AUICCgB&biw=1600&bih=745#imgrc=jgh6GzvIaWyntM%3A
Modern artists can make paintings that would have startled Leonardo or Rembrandt

Also, when you look back at history what you are looking at a "greatest hits" compilation, the best of the best that have been preserved down through the centuries specifically because they were exceptional.

Modern art is still alive and well, it's just that morons fixate on the abstract art which only aficionados/technical experts can truly appreciate because it fulfills their "muh degeneracy" meme. Good art is out there, it's just that the people bitching about the state of art are actively refusing to go look for it. Because, you know, that would take effort, and stuff.

>>2210603
Does it anger you my brother?

>>2210654
Wasn't that really what duchamp was getting at? The artist decides what's art but its up to everyone else to decide in a completely subjective manner if its actually good.

>>2210675
Of course it does. I hope you don't start pretending to understand it.

>>2210683
Yeah the whole point of postmodernism is obscurity of meaning and subjectivity. We can't know if the artist is being "sincere", if he has a "good/real" meaning, so at that point it just becomes up to us

That's the way I see it anyway

And personally I think duchamp is ass and every art movement after impressionism is also ass

le modern art is bad meme

>>2209220
https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/06/02/kandinsky-concerning-the-spiritual-in-art/

Read Kandinsky or go be a pleb somewhere else.

>he thinks people purchase this art because it makes them think they're smart

Protip, rich people don't care about how you dumb commoners see them. They purchase these works because they *like* how it looks or how it will fit with the other objects they have in their homes.


Type 'Aesthetics' into wikipedia, brainlet. You might learn a thing or two.

>>2210687
I derive great aesthetic pleasure from the fact that certain works make people you mad and I think that's a perfectly valid reason to enjoy modern art To Be Completely Forthright And Truly Honest With You My Steadfast Companion Amerigo

File: 1474833251835.png (162KB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 2560x1440px

>>2210683
>>2210700
yeah but that's what presents the problem though

if the artist decides what is art, and the audience decides what to subjectively think is good.

then really there are no artists. Anything that exists can be understood in some basic form as art. Ergo. literally nothing as art. the audience is now the artist and decides what is art.

but if that's case, then Art really is dead.

and if art is dead, that means that modern paintings are objectively worse than those that came before us. that's not how I personally feel, but that's what it comes down to.

this is why there is an impasse

>>2210718
I will unironically knife you
Seriously

>>2210715
rich people buy art because they're rich.

they want something to spend their money on.

might as well spend it on a piece they can afford

>>2210726
That's good reasoning imo

File: 200_s.gif (30KB, 218x200px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 218x200px

>>2210731
Phew young man

>>2210733
>rich people buy art because they're rich.
>they want something to spend their money on.

Partly true, but they do have an affinity towards this kind of stuff. Trading is very big amongst them yes, but many do it for aesthetic reasons. You can be guaranteed that many fund architectural projects all over Europe and are regular donors to many museums and galleries.

It was always shit.

By the way does any of you guys have one of those paintings of Old Greece and those clowns from those street plays, completely wasted on the gutter? The perfect portray of the so called "artists" in every century there was or there ever will be.

Thanks in advance.

File: 19281003.jpg (67KB, 500x521px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 500x521px

>>2210736
yeah but I want a solution though! THERE IS AN EMPTY VOID IN ART. WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? GODDAMN YOU NIETZSCHE

File: image.jpg (85KB, 760x1015px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 760x1015px

>>2210761
>it was always shit

>>2210239
I have seen people unironically attacking Otto Dix on this board.

>>2210726
I read some Aquinas for an essay once. There was a chapter where he made a series of inferences that became increasingly tenuous as they built upon the last, with the inevitable conclusion that God exists. I feel you are doing the same here. You have your opinion, and you want to give weight to it, so you work towards it with the conclusion in mind, no matter how illogical your inferences are.

When art went from creativity and skill to "Expression".
Everyone's expression is of equal worth since an artist isn't somehow smarter than the rest of us his expression is as important as a 5 year olds.

>>2210790
what are some of my illogical conclusions?

>>2210778

I don't classify Christ/God driven pieces as "art", since its the truth.

Can't go in details on that because english it's not my native language.

>>2210802
>if the artist decides what is art, and the audience decides what to subjectively think is good.
>then really there are no artists.
is the rotten foundation to the whole thing, for two reasons:
You never explain why having an opinion as a consumer completely entirely neutralises the producer,
nor why and how the public having an opinion is inferior enough to the academy or wealthy patrons being gatekeepers to justify your drastic next step that art is dead.

>>2210838

shit, you're right, I need to rethink some of my reasoning.

>>2210913
How about this lad
Modern art is shite and it often physically disgusts me to look at

>>2210913
You've obviously accepted that subjectivity is real, unlike many autists on here who claim that people that like things that they don't are only pretending for cultural cachet, etc. Why illogically try and force objectivity back onto the side of your opinion?

>>2210726
>but if that's case, then Art really is dead.
quite the opposite, if that's the case then art is more alive than ever

File: 1466705296737.png (12KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 1920x1080px

>>2210913
>>2210838
>>2210981

okay here goes nothing

the artist decides what is art. this is true, if I put an assortment of colors onto a sheet of paper, the paper beforehand and the colors existed, but the colors by themselves and the paper are generally not considered art. however, if I as the artist claim that an assortment of colors on a paper is art, then I am asserting it to be as the artist, and now an assortment of colors on paper is now no longer just materials, but is now art.

the audiences is to subjectively think upon if the art I have proposed is subjectively good or bad. but what is good or bad? I would say that the way an audience conceives of a piece of art as good is that the intent of the artist is understood and met. however, the notion that a piece of art can be judged as bad is also a puzzle, because by the meaning of good art, then bad art is art that is intent of the artist is not understood nor met by the audience. however if that's true, that means that the art does not have the intended meaning that the artist has conceived of the original art piece, however if the intentions of the artist is not what the audience intentions were, then, the audience is claiming a new intent for the art, if the audience is claiming a new intent for the art, they are essentially the artists themselves, by giving a new intent that the original artist did not give.

if the audience can give a new intent to the art by subjective means, then that means that the original intent by the author can mean nothing so long as the audience has a new intent, and the intent of the artist does not matter.

if it does not matter what the intent of the artist is, then the artist is essentially useless, and therefore dead.

I need to work on the rest of this

>>2209220
Modern Art = $$$$$$$$

>When and why did art turn to shit? Has it always been a money laundering scheme?

You answered your own question, when people started using it for money laundering.

Art hasn't gone to shit, there's more art out there than ever, its just not along official lines anymore.

>>2210985
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_the_Author

>>2210985
>the artist decides what is art.
If I say that being white is art, am I right?

>>2211037
yes because you're claiming it to be art.

if I claim that the night sky is art, some people will agree with me. isn't that technically photography?

I took a picture of the nightsky

>didn't make the nightsky
>didn't make the camera
>shot a piece of the sky that is technically everyone can see without my picture

>the picture is still art.

>>2211013
>art became shit when people started using it for money laundering
>architecture became shit when people started using it for money laundering
>pizza became shit when people started using it for money laundering

>>2211060
Pizza became shit when people started using it for child prostitution rings

>>2211053
It's almost as if art is a meaningless buzzword. Shocking.

File: 14234610716.gif (21KB, 455x364px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 455x364px

>>2209614
Damn that's some good water.

File: pepe_frog__perler_beads__by_guildperler-d96yxjn.jpg (94KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 1024x768px

>>2210660
What is point of photorealism if you can just use a good camera?

>>2209648
to be better you have to be different
but not everything that is different is better

>>2211168
What' the point of photography when you make a film and pause?

>>2211037
"Being white" is not an art, it's a fact. But yourself can claim to play an artistic performance.

>>2209220
"If it is art, then it is not for everyone. If it for everyone, then it is not art."
Fittingly enough, that quote is from the somewhat controversial 20th century German composer Arnold Schoenberg.

>>2210660
There's a good reason that a lot of ultrarealism looks like stock photos and semi-professional photographic portraiture, they heavily utilise photographic reference to the exclusion of subjects in person. It's human photocopying.

File: Yoji Shinkawa (13).jpg (730KB, 1737x2600px) Image search: [Google]

730KB, 1737x2600px

It's also worth remembering that as an industry a lot of art is illustration / concept work for books/movies/games nowadays, rather than wallhangers.

File: Lucien Freud 1.jpg (412KB, 1180x1061px) Image search: [Google]

412KB, 1180x1061px

>>2210086

File: orzhova-s-gift.jpg (1MB, 6000x4386px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 6000x4386px

>>2212938
I can see some MTG art being on par with greatest masterpieces of the past.

File: Yoji Shinkawa (59).jpg (33KB, 340x526px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 340x526px

>>2213009

Yoji is great.

>>2209220
>hello i am a 15 year old and i think the only REAL art is photorealistic paintings of my favourite anime grills

>>2210222
this

>>2213009
wew lad

File: art.gif (33KB, 489x357px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 489x357px

"The work is made up of “hypersensitive screens” which react to environmental changes in the room so as to “lead to the possibility of pure experience." The work is a rejection of substance, instead embracing a quasi-postmodern reflexivity.

>>2213275
>hurrrr my blue canvas is worth $40000000000 because muh postmodern post-truth post ironic post meta post gender post societal post post post post statement about shallowness XDDDDDD

Dadaism killed art when it convinced artists it was okay to put in a modicum of effort so long as it "made a statement".

SPENGLER SAYS IT WAS ANYTHING AFTER 1800

>>2213791
Art still exists bub.

>>2209671
You guys are fucking obsessed

>>2211200
It's they have doesn't understanding art and it's history.

>>2209220
art never turned to shit, it just changed mediums.

video games, music and movies are today's high baroque

"Back in the day" artists were some of the most educated people in their society, they understood studying physics, psychology and other fields led to greater art. Making art based on the rules of nature, not just imitating it. It took a lot of effort, money, and resources to become a great artist.

I don't blame modern artists, they lack the wealth and rigid social structure to fully pursue greatness. They know mediocrity pays. It's the fault of art buying scene that is to blame IMO

You can't be employed by the emperor of Austria to write opera or get commissioned by the Vatican anymore