Explain postmodernism to a renaissance artist. Go.

That would require two textbooks, several studies, and the violent shattering of everything he holds dear. I think I'd make it to the impressionists before he lost the will to go on.

>>2928046
comfy in the eye of the beholder > objective comfiness

"Remember that shit the pope paid you to paint on the fucking ceiling of a cathedral that took like half a decade to finish? Imagine you could just completely haphazardly bullshit it and pretend it's sophisticated."

>>2928046

Sophism.

>>2928046
>Imagine if your lazy apprentice were actually taken seriously for his shitty attempts at art

>>2928094
/thread

File: 1495157479941.gif (187KB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 480x270px

Being good at painting is now a readily easy thing to do, so we act retarded on purpose.

File: Domenikos_Theotok%C3%B3poulos%2C_called_El_Greco_-_The_Assumption_of_the_Virgin_-_Google_Art_Project[1].jpg (3MB, 2762x5395px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2762x5395px

>>2928060
I mean look at this. El Greco's "Assumption of the Virgin" is thirteen fucking feet tall, and every square inch of it painstakingly deliberate. If I showed him Martin Creed's "Work No. 227: The lights going on and off" and told him it was art, he'd cut me.

Ugly is the beautiful, the lie is the truth, and the good the bad.

File: 1493642713654.gif (650KB, 647x363px) Image search: [Google]

650KB, 647x363px

Anyone can learn to draw good, but only a true artist smears menses on a canvas.

Can the Virgin of the Rocks defeat the Patriarchy!?

Merely pretending being retarded

>>2928106
>a readily easy thing to do

It still takes years to get any good at painting.

>>2928140
hahaha what the fuck
don't pretend literally throwing paint on canvas (or leaving it blank except for one black dot) takes any skill whatsoever.

>>2928140
Yeah, but you can buy a book or go to the community college and get pretty good.

In those times, that level of art hadn't been achieved ever

Putting your name on a shovel is considered to be on the same level as making a 20-foot-tall statue of David.

>>2928160

Read the post I'm replying to, it was arguing that painting is easy and therefore we choose to paint like retards. Painting didn't magically become easy. We have easier access to instruction, sure, but it's still a skill that takes years to cultivate to be proficient.

That's real painting, not postmodern shit which is graphic design at best and monkey-tier paintsmears at worst.

File: 24christ-span-jumbo.jpg (185KB, 1024x525px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 1024x525px

>>2928046
Show him this

> all good things are painted already
> so only option is to paint random shit
> also there is magic box that can create picture of whatever you see without need to study for 15 years

>>2928211
I see.

>>2928222
wtf

>>2928078
Thread

I couldn't and really wouldn't want to

there you go, dumb animeposter

>>2928046
source?

*gives him THE GOLDEN ASS by APULEIUS*

>>2928222
It's fine modern art you unsophisticated pleb!

File: 14711426716980.jpg (70KB, 668x400px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 668x400px

>>2928222

>>2930284
No, it an awe-inspiring post-ironic conceptual moving image installation.

>>2930301
Complete with an essay. Arthur Danto was right?
http://eujournal.org/index.php/esj/article/viewFile/1308/1315

>>2928046
Excellence has already been achieved so many times that it is now of no interest for both the general public (which won't care enough to finance high art; we are included in this group, and as such we do not have the right to complain) and the specialized academia (which now is fully aware of the limits of the limits of classical art, and can notice immediatly how much derivative and insignificant is modern traditional art).
Since the most appreciated trait of art is uniqueness and its ability of displaying a completely individual and original effort (people don't like to admit it, bu the way in whoch they finance the arts just prove this point of mine), the new criterion of excellence is innovation: everything that opens a new world for a medium will be highly regarded, independently of their aesthetic qualities. Therefore Boulez was more important than every other neoromantic and Warhol was more important than virtually every landscape artist of the '50s and '60s.

Now, this art may look ugly and unrefined to you, but the truth is that the entire Western world, being so desensitized to beauty, has decided that this is the only art worth financing. There won't be any new Michelangelo, Rembrandt or Beethoven, my dear friend, for no one really cares enough about that kind of art anymore. Sure, people will find it more pleasing than the more avantgardistic one, and may also compliment the artist and his effort, but the story will end here: this is the maximum support a traditional artist who is not fine with whoring himself (in this case, by dumbing their art down) out will get.
This new art is in itself valid, but its predominance may look almost dispotic, unjust, but please, keep in mind that more than predominance this is an absence of support for a type of art that, in fact, never got assistance from the institutions that are now curating it.

Anon.

we live in a world where morality is dead, everything is subjective, nothing is absolute, nobody is right or wrong, and art can be interpeted in a thousand different ways that the artist never intended because people apply their own subjective view to things and craft stories to explain things. Because of this, there are a ton of people that project all over shit and the artists themselves take advantage and put out shit because nobody can objectively say anything in postmodern society. Quality is meaningless, profit is everything, all that matters is mass appeal, nobody will give a shit about artists until afted theyre dead, btw youre famous but sucks you never get to enjoy it, your skill will be trivialized and hacks will live like gods in comparison.

File: image.png (44KB, 833x886px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 833x886px

>>2930326
A bit too real, my man

someone discovered a set of chemicals that react to light, they coated pieces of paper with these chemicals and focused light on them using a lens such that the image through the lens was stamped on the paper, so to speak

this invention was perfected to the point where anyone can make precise color images of what they saw, with obvious consequences for the art world

>>2930439
Explain the changes in literature and art music then.

>>2931345
>literature
printing press
>music
phonograph

>>2928094
bingo.
>muh subjectivity is everything. nothing matters. art is anything

Poop poop poop everything now is poop.
Poop?

>>2930326
>the new criterion of excellence is innovation: everything that opens a new world for a medium will be highly regarded, independently of their aesthetic qualities. Therefore Boulez was more important than every other neoromantic and Warhol was more important than virtually every landscape artist of the '50s and '60s.


In other words, in the recent years we valued autism over hardwork, dedication, tears, blood, sweat, and struggle.
>Now, this art may look ugly and unrefined to you, but the truth is that the entire Western world, being so desensitized to beauty, has decided that this is the only art worth financing.

No its because when you create an eco-chamber among elites, literally anything goes to stand out. Hence the muh innovation. nigga there isn't anything new under the sun.

This new art is in itself valid, but its predominance may look almost dispotic, unjust, but please, keep in mind that more than predominance this is an absence of support for a type of art that, in fact, never got assistance from the institutions that are now curating it.

It never got assistance from anyone from themselves because who wants to stop homeless people from throwing shit on each other in a dark ally-way?

>>2928046
They would lack the framework to understand something as insane as postmodernism. If you were in their time, and made the attempt, know that you would be confined to a mental institution.

>We invented magic artifacts that captured flawless images of the world around them. To justify their existence in this new age, artists resorted to shitting on various items and insisting it was worth thousands of dollars.

>>2930326
If people want crazy why not fund surrealism? There's a lot of shit people can come up with and it's 100 times better than most postmodernist crap

>>2930326
In summary, modern art has no aesthetic function, no social function, and no objective beyond propagation of the lifestyle of "artist".

>>2928046
Human technical skill peaked during your lifetime. No objectively better art was ever made.
We invented ways of making perfect copies of images and sending them to every person on Earth.
Consequently, society has grown tired of beauty and is not impressed by displays of artistic mastery.

We must now derive aesthetic pleasure from:
>producing incomprehensible art that defies all known metrics of quality, in hopes of stumbling upon something good by accident
>mocking good art in order to feel like we have an elevated, super-human aesthetic sense (without necessarily having one)
>interpreting bad art through the lens of our personal experiences, in order to perceive meaning and emotion that doesn't exist within the work itself

We get mixed results.

>>2931759
> We valued autism over handwork, dedication, tears, blood, sweat, and struggle.
How can you achieve the same struggle that was real in medieval times with current levels of tech?

>>2928222
wasn't that just done by some local granny who wanted to help?

>>2930439
>>2931806
Explain all the classical art that depicted fantastical things in a realistic style then.

File: art laundry.png (40KB, 1333x339px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 1333x339px

I'd have to explain a whole hell of a lot to make pic related make sense. Maybe I can get him to understand the fact that 90% of the American media (And thus, world media) is owned by just six corporations. Maybe an analogy to town criers and monastic copyists?

If I can get his head around the internet however then I can make him understand that actual art, not meme """"""""""""""art"""""""""""""" is still made and still loved just as much as it is in his day, it's just not found in churches anymore.

File: 9d532de6dd6ae71ea696af3d26c94d6.jpg (184KB, 620x500px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 620x500px

>>2928046
Show him a book, a painting, a movie and make him listen to David Bowie.
Then throw all of that into a blender and serve it to him on a plate while saying "It's a metaphor."

>>2934167
it was novel because no photos

>>2934281
I told you to explain all the classical art that depicted fantastical things in a realistic style.

File: b448d13cf484a0f43e883f551dcf27f1.jpg (61KB, 500x643px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 500x643px

>>2928046
This thread is retarded and filled with art plebs.

All you'd have to do to make a renaissance artist "understand" post-modernism is take out your smart phone, snap a picture of him, slap a filter on it, and if you have the capacity print it out and hand it to him.

I mean fuck, show them a picture of a pre-made oil paint in a disposable aluminum tube, and then show them what Vincent Van Gogh was able to do with that much paint. They'd shit themselves with joy.

For guys who had to make their own paints by hand, they'd be truly amazed at the tools we have at our disposal for creating art. They would easily begin to imagine the possibilities and would soon begin to understand what makes abstract art so compelling when generating photo-realistic images becomes an effortless, instant endeavor, and art becomes more of a question of what you can do that a camera can't. After explaining to them the huge proliferation of art leads to a huge proliferation of medias, artists specialize, and fine artists stopped needing to be given a subject matter by some wealthy asshole, they could create art for pure art's sake. They would easily grasp what Andy Warhol meant when he talked about the meaninglessness of the distinction between high art and low art when they started seeing fantastically intricate visuals for even mundane objects like soup cans. After taking the time to understand just how sophisticated our society is, they would begin to understand why contemporary artists aren't limiting themselves to a 2-D surface, but their pieces become something that is installed.

These kind of discussions are always dominated by knuckle-dragging forest apes using art as a vehicle to bitch about 'muh degeneracy' like they've never actually met a creative person, or know how one's mind works. They hear the stories of lesbians smearing their menstrual fluids all over a canvas and assume that's the state of art without actually bothering to see what's being made these days.

>>2928046
>What if bad things were actually good?

>Imagine if, after Savonarola was defeated, a bunch of his supporters, instead of admiting they were wrong, decided that reality was wrong, and didn't exist, instead

>>2928046
>Explain postmodernism to a renaissance artist.
Commission him to portray Hell.

>>2935530
>pic
What

>>2928046
Easy.
>Every wanted to be a girl but youre a boy?
>destroy civilization so that when even anyone calls you out for being a faggot you can lynch them

File: Piero_della_Francesca_046.jpg (345KB, 820x1200px) Image search: [Google]

345KB, 820x1200px

>>2935530
While you're partially correct, you're mostly wrong.
These renaissance artists were Craftsmen and Mathematical types, rather than the "Artistic" types which came later. The roles for those people in the Renaissance was Humanist circlejerk symposia, the type lambasted in the works of Aretino and Rabelais.

Your line of reasoning would hold little water with folks like Leonardo, but would possibly be effective on the likes of the Mannerists. Leonardo was renowned for his hatred of the imperfect representations of the human form present in the early mannerist works of Michelangelo.

>>2928046
Imagine if the world was run by Jews....

>we have cameras now
>therefore realistic art is pointless
This argument never held water for me.
It's not like Michaelangelo got God and Adam to pose for him when he painted the Sistine chapel. How does the invention of the camera effect a decorative painting of spiritual subjects on a ceiling?

It especially doesn't make sense considering the supposed "creative" impulse of the artist. Having access to cameras doesn't suddenly make an artist want to throw away his pencil and no longer desire to bring the visions in his head into the world.

On the other hand though if we're claiming that thanks to postmodernism, modern artists now only have abstract images of chaos and disorder in their heads, rather than the glory of God and human endeavour, I suppose it make sense then that the rise of the camera would displace painting among tradesmen intent on replication of real world images, leaving the realm of painting solely in the hands of the mentally ill products of the modern university system.

>>2928078
>pretend

It is sophisticated.

File: 1496936906472.jpg (200KB, 1345x1600px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 1345x1600px

Art is meaningless, and your hard work means nothing.

This image and this post are just as artistically relevant as the Mona Lisa

File: michelangelo_pieta_rondanini.jpg (392KB, 1536x2048px) Image search: [Google]

392KB, 1536x2048px

>not knowing that postmdernism already existed in the renaissance

File: slaves.jpg (62KB, 912x400px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 912x400px

>>2936383

>>2936383
I was going to say.

>>2928046
Imagine the bricolage effect that you find in Raphael's Miraculous Draught of Fishes tapestry that constructs an image from different sources, and the focus on process as art in Michelangelo's ('unfinished') Battle of Cascina cartoon, and similarly the primacy of theory over content (a new way of depicting subjects like the change from greca maneira to the present style) in his presentation drawings of Leda and the swan to... is it Anna or something? But yes imagine this emphasis on theory introduced in the Renaissance by your artist-theorists is allowed to develop to its own logical completion and you will have postmodernism. Also buy stocks in Apple.

File: 1496804338868.jpg (241KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 1920x1080px

>>2936383
He died
>>2936385
Those are unfinished

Michelangelo was a mannerist, not a faggot, despite being a faggot

>>2936383
It did, just like capitalism existed in certain merchant city-states at that time.

But there's a difference between something being the cultural norm and something being an underground phenomenon.

>>2931759
>No its because when you create an eco-chamber among elites, literally anything goes to stand out

Lol who do you think the patrons have been over the entire history of Western art? The people?

>>2933135
Postmodernism is very surrealist, especially in a Breton and Bataille way.

>>2936410
I like Surrealism better, because you don't have to be a shit draftsman to be a surrealist

>>2936325
>This argument never held water for me.

Yep it's a bad argument. I'd argue the camera brought an end to modern abstract art rather than gave it a beginning.

File: 1360008027848.jpg (2MB, 3418x2608px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3418x2608px

>>2936393

>Those are unfinished
>Michelangelo was a mannerist, not a faggot, despite being a faggot

no, they were complete actually.

>>2936396

>michelangelo
>undergound


also this is pretty postmodern (or surrealist at least) and is evern earlier

File: 'Dying_Slave'_Michelangelo_JBU001.jpg (3MB, 1737x4433px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1737x4433px

>>2936440
No, they're not. Those are the unfinished sculptured for the Tomb of Julius II.

This is a finished or near finished one. Just because you like it unfinished doesn't mean he intended it so

>>2936383
yeah, essentially just point to everyone's reaction to the sistine chapel or other Michelangelisms

>>2928046
Mimesis got boring, Colorito is no longer the core excellency of painting, its all about sheer expression of Grace

>>2935577
>Fair is foul and foul is fair
>fly through the fog and filthy air
that's not a new idea

File: Jacopo de' Barbari, Salvator_Mundi.jpg (1MB, 2287x3200px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2287x3200px

>Not being so Postmodern that You've looped back to the Renaissance

File: 1208822.jpg (90KB, 786x786px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 786x786px

>>2936729
>not wedging a halberd into Jeff Koons face for producing hackish shlock

File: the sphinx.jpg (286KB, 2011x2048px) Image search: [Google]

286KB, 2011x2048px

>>2936729
on the other hand, compelling painting still speaks for itself

>>2936782
>dick
>vag
>decapitated body

2edgy4me

File: El Greco Eva 9263578820_187fc898f3_b.jpg (183KB, 660x1024px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 660x1024px

>>2936791
>Implying the old masters never drew/sculpted vag

>>2936809
With an element of decorum, yes. Not edgy schlock trying to reproduce the image of the Academies but completely lacking the spirit.

File: Mathis_Gothart_Grünewald_058.jpg (2MB, 3427x4421px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3427x4421px

>>2936816
>Not being edgy

>>2936835
Are you sarcastically saying that painting is not being edgy, or are you chiding me for not being edgy enough to enjoy your edgy Sphix painting?

File: Yamamoto-Takato--ilustração-sexo-erotismo-sadomasoquismo-bondage-dionisio-arte-20.jpg (160KB, 750x1084px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 750x1084px

>>2936845
What exactly do you consider edgy?

>>2936857
Decorum, or what is emphasised by the painting. 'The Sphinx' doesn't need to be about the sphix at all, it's just an exercise in edgy classic-like painting. Spraying blood for no reason (what caused the cut?), breast on the lower body for no reason, vag on the upper body for no reason, body upside-down for no reason... a combination of elements makes it edgy. A nude girl is not edgy because the point is beauty. And for Christ bleeding these things show his suffering and the means by which man is redeemed from sin; you don't see his dick, for example.

>Imagine humans have the power to destroy everythig at the push of a button. Makes that painting that took you 16 years seem silly, doesn't it?

>>2928111
Tbh El Greco is a hack

ITT: hurr i dont get it! i like pretty mass produced paintings instead because i don't have to think too hard about it!

>>2928046
k

People got bored of realistic things and started exploring with other means of expressing themselves.

File: 1494546933599.jpg (313KB, 612x716px) Image search: [Google]

313KB, 612x716px

>>2936929
>Your handpainted Masterworks are mass produced
>Postmodern Superstar Warhol became famous for mass producing identical soapboxes
What did (You) mean by this?

>>2936949
To be fair there were thousands upon thousands of artists working in the 19th century making work that was (at least superficially) classicist. They're not 'masterworks' but the idea of painting masters doesn't apply to the whole history pre-modern, post-Renaissance art.

And soapboxes were already being mass-produced. The artistic point was to bring it into the gallery and for Warhol himself to be like a machine.

>>2937081
No, Studio 54 literally copied and mass produced boxes that looked exactly like soapboxes that contained soap. That was the art.

And yeah, by the 19th Century, classical painting had become just another decorative craft. The Impressionists had taken over the artsy part of the art world by then.

File: Judith.jpg (424KB, 1337x973px) Image search: [Google]

424KB, 1337x973px

>>2936876
is this too edgy

File: saint and angel.jpg (503KB, 1141x2052px) Image search: [Google]

503KB, 1141x2052px

>>2936876
enough decorum?

>>2937086
>That was the art.

What do you mean 'no'? What you said doesn't contradict what I said.

>>2937092
That's Baroque dynamism for you. The subject is literally one of violence and is not extraneous.

>>2937096
No dick, no bleeding wounds.

>>2937124
I thought you meant they took boxes made by a factory and brought them into exhibition, instead of making them

>>2937137
Yeah the 'it' wasn't very clear.

>>2937086
>classical painting had become just another decorative craft
that's what it was at the height of the cinquecento too

>>2937442
Well, that's what Warhol's art was too. All art is just pandering to rich people who feel smart by putting it on their wall.

What I meant is that the Academy style had no other meaning or artistry aside from decoration. It was purely craft

>>2936325
>Having access to cameras doesn't suddenly make an artist want to throw away his pencil and no longer desire to bring the visions in his head into the world
This. I mean we can create pretty much any kind of music we want with computers but that doesn't stop people from picking up a guitar and drum set, or sitting down at a piano and expressing themselves through that.

File: food paintings.png (483KB, 580x385px) Image search: [Google]

483KB, 580x385px

>>2936325
>This argument never held water for me.
Look at it this way: you're a magazine publisher who's trying to drive up sales while keeping his profit margins down. You can either spend hundreds of dollars on a classical painter, or you can pay a photographer to do the same thing you need for pennies on the dollar, and without the weeks you'd spend waiting while the artist renders the painting.

People get caught up in what art is "supposed" to be and forget that it's a business, and like any other business what the consumer wants is what drives the industry, and what the consumer wants is faster, cheaper, and easily reproducible.

>It's not like Michaelangelo got God and Adam to pose for him when he painted the Sistine chapel
Yes, actually Michelangelo would have used figure models representing God and Adam to carefully plan and draw the poses the way he wanted it before he transferred it to the ceiling. Modern artists now just take pictures of their figure models and use tracing paper or projectors to make the process insanely easier on everyone involved, including the figure models who now don't have to sit there not moving for hours on end.

> Having access to cameras doesn't suddenly make an artist want to throw away his pencil and no longer desire to bring the visions in his head into the world.
No, what it does is allow for specialization. Some artists chose to remain in the niche fields and preserve older traditions, others hop enthusiastically into bed with technology and immediately get to work seeing how this technology can give them a professional edge over their peers.

> leaving the realm of painting solely in the hands of the mentally ill products of the modern university system.
You obviously don't know shit about the modern art industry. Probably too busy lionizing the past and getting all your current events from AM talk radio

>>2939048
>while keeping his profit margins down.
I meant costs, obviously.

It may look stupid, but if the creator intends for it to be art, then it is art.

File: pic.gif (7KB, 170x200px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 170x200px

In a world of normies relaying diluted contemporary thought only one meme can save us from embarrasment

>>2928046
Atomization and relativism. Done.

>>2939048
I already addressed everything you brought up in the post you responded to, you were just too stupid to pick up on it.

>AM radio
hack

>>2931759
>In other words, in the recent years we valued autism over hardwork, dedication, tears, blood, sweat, and struggle.

You can dismiss certain music because you may not like it, but here you're talking about something objective, which is the amount of hard work that went in every piece of these composers. In that sense, you're wrong for the most part (although this argument can be made for the Darmstadt school). People like Boulez, Stockhausen and Xenakis worked as hard as they possibly could, and left us a body of knowledge of which their compositions are only a small part.

>No its because when you create an eco-chamber among elites, literally anything goes to stand out. Hence the muh innovation. nigga there isn't anything new under the sun.
Said echo-chambers were always present: do you think lots of people listened to Reger's music in the early XX century? Of course not, it was just a niche of composers and musicians who were interested in counterpoint. In the same years Mahler was becoming famous, and to do so he took the private route, which was still available at the times.
Both sides of this music market have always existed, you're just mad that the private one died and the academic one is still alive. You may call for a conspiracy, but the truth here is that the public has not been able to promote a traditional and accessible genius for 100 years now. Subject art to capitalism and this is what you will get.
On the contrary, painters, writers, composers and a handful of fans have been able to mantain the avantgards alive on a transcontinental level for 70 years now, and it has all happened out of sheer passion. There's no stealing here, nor there is any feud: there were 2 ways of regulating music, one is gone with aristocracy and its replacement (the free market) was downright pathetic.

[1/?]

>>2939189
>>2931759
>It never got assistance from anyone but themselves because who wants to stop homeless people from throwing shit on each other in a dark ally-way?

If you believed so much in the need of a renaissance in the production of landscapes and portraits, you could have started studying the contemporary scene, searching for accessible artists who are still able to display any sort of genius. Shilling him on 4chan would have still been something, especially since so many people costantly ask for the new Dante/Bach/Raffaello/Michelangelo.
Yet, you never cared enough to even think about searching for yourself, supporting and advertizing him is on a whole other league you can barely concieve. Don't feel guilty: apparently all of that art that is so praised by the conservatives and traditionalists is simply not worth supporting, from the point of view od the general public. As long as this will happen almost no one will have the right to complain. If you think you can do so when talking about academia, then it'll appear clear to us that you don't know what academia is there for.

>>2933135
>If people want crazy why not fund surrealism?

Because what's interesting is economically worthless. I'm pretty sure you know almost no one who would fund a surrealist artist for the sake of Art.

>>2933176
>In summary, modern art has no aesthetic function
For the shallow and uneducated man, mostly no.

>no social function
It has a social function for painters, writers, musicians and art appreciatiors.

>no objective beyond propagation of the lifestyle of "artist".
I don't know where you got that from. The objective of most of the academia is progress in the fine arts. Technically every once in a while someone should come and synthetize with a new spin all of these new technical, theoretical and conceptual achievements, but again, the public never bothered enough to care. What is old in both its nature and scope does not have any place in academia.

File: 220px-Ffrazettaself.jpg (20KB, 220x295px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 220x295px

>>2939152
>I already addressed everything you brought up in the post you responded to
Badly, which is why I picked it apart. Do I need to pick it apart further?

>How does the invention of the camera effect a decorative painting of spiritual subjects on a ceiling?
Because it de-commodifies something which was once so precious that only the wealthiest individuals could afford them. It's a question of scarcity, that's why we remember the Sistine Chapel and not latter day works which expand on the artistic principles that it pioneered.

> suppose it make sense then that the rise of the camera would displace painting among tradesmen intent on replication of real world images
except that there's still a niche field for illustrations rendered realistically, you completely betray your art pleb status by speaking in such broad black and white terms. The truth is far more fluid and organic, with classical artists using cameras to improve their paintings and photographers doing watercolor studies of their subject matter before setting up their expensive equipment

>"le mentally ill universities" meme
Told me everything that I need to know about your level of education and where you derive your bullshit views.

>>2939265
>I picked it apart
You picked nothing apart. As I already said you didn't actually address anything that wasn't already implied by my statements.

>a-art is a business
>m-magazines
Was already addressed when I said that it's common sense that tradesmen would readily adopt cameras as their medium. The issue is we're not talking about tradesmen, we're talking about ARTISTS. You know, those people you claim to hold in high esteem who are motivated by things other than profit, remember them? The invention of the camera doesn't magically make passionate people stop sketching or painting.

>Because it de-commodifies something which was once so precious that only the wealthiest individuals could afford them
How exactly does the camera "de-commodify", expansive decorations applied to a ceiling, like the Sistine chapel, faggot? Pretty sure I'd still have to be rich to even consider such a project especially if you're planning on printing a gaint photograph and mounting it on the ceiling.

>pleb
LOL
Keep sucking down shit a man with a fancy title labeled as gravy, I won't stop you.

>>2928046
>He who does not believe in God will believe in anything.

>>2928046
you die in vain

>>2939367
>The issue is we're not talking about tradesmen, we're talking about ARTISTS.
And that's why I know you're full of shit and don't know a thing about the industry, because there's no fucking difference.

All that matters is this: "who are your clientele?" Michelangelo happened to have the richest and most powerful man in the world bankrolling him, so that's why he was able to pull off humongous works of artistic achievement which we remember to this day. All those other classical paintings were the result of either governments, clergy, or astronomically wealthy aristocrats commissioning artistic works to show off to each other, and that was the only game in town for a very long time.

Fine artists often incorporate photography: skilled tradesmen still value traditional mediums. There's an entire niche industry of fine artists who specialize in high-focus still lifes, plein air paintings, and impressionistic paintings. They put their art in a gallery and sell them to rich people like fine artists have done for as long as fine art has been a thing. And the foundation of any "skilled tradesmen's" education is doing things the way that the old mastered learned: through painting and drawing what they see in real life. The only difference is their target audience.

The industry is not nearly as clear cut as you simplistically make it out to be.

>How exactly does the camera "de-commodify", expansive decorations applied to a ceiling, like the Sistine chapel, faggot?
stop beating your chest, it makes you look like a self-conscious forest ape. It de-commodifies visuals because now any average shlub can make his own ultra-realistic visuals for a fraction of the effort it once took, so its no longer the exclusive status symbol it once was.

Ah it is an "Hurr durr postmodernism is a meme, cause like now artists are lazy" thread.

>>2940452
Yep

>>2939048
>Look at it this way: you're a magazine publisher who's trying to drive up sales while keeping his profit margins down. You can either spend hundreds of dollars on a classical painter, or you can pay a photographer to do the same thing you need for pennies on the dollar, and without the weeks you'd spend waiting while the artist renders the painting.
This has already been addressed. What if you want a realistic looking depiction of god creating man for the cover of your magazine? Are you just Going to tell Johnny Fuckwitt to go to the nearest church and summon up god to do a miracle tor you to instagram? Do you seriously expect me to read the rest of your shitpost when you ignore posts not even ten spaces above yours?

>>2940192
>you're full of shit and don't know a thing about the industry
Ahhhh.
That explains it, you're a butthurt art-industryfag, futilely attempting to justify your existence. You're not bringing up anything I don't already know, or anything that has anything to do with what I said.

> It de-commodifies visuals because now any average shlub can make his own ultra-realistic visuals for a fraction of the effort it once took, so its no longer the exclusive status symbol it once was.

All I need to do to refute your argument, is point out that fine art photographers still get paid fortunes for their work, even though the medium by it's very existence supposedly de-commodifies ultra-realistic visuals and apparently any "average shlub" can make equivalent photographs.

>>2940920
>That explains it, you're a butthurt art-industryfag, futilely attempting to justify your existence.
Keep pounding your chest, forest-ape. Nobody actually cares about your simpleton opinions and they never will, and when you die nobody will remember them.

>is point out that fine art photographers still get paid fortunes for their work
Which only reinforces my point, it's a question of knowing your market, and what they will pay for your work, and that trying to draw a distinction between "artist" and "tradesman" is gorilla-speak for "I have no clue how the art world actually functions"

>>2940452
Well, if the shoe, put out for exhibition, fits

>>2940533
>What if you want a realistic looking depiction of god creating man for the cover of your magazine?
You hire an illustrator or a professional photographer to do all the creative heavy lifting for you, who are going to make phone calls to their figure models and do things more or less the same way Michelangelo and Leonardo did, but with fancier equipment.

You would ideally want to hire one who specializes in making art for the print medium that you distribute your magazines in, because they would be able to match your workflow output and render visuals which look as best as practical, given the mechanical limitations (which exist in a much altered way in the digital age)

>Are you just Going to tell Johnny Fuckwitt to go to the nearest church and summon up god to do a miracle tor you to instagram?
you could certainly try, or you could pay Francois PretentiousCunt thousands of dollars to spend months to give you a spectacularly beautiful 25 foot tall oil painting depicting God in grand form, either against a nationalist or biblical backdrop. You know, assuming you have a wall big enough for it and you think that your company could somehow utilize it to recoup the cost.

These kind of skills haven't gone anywhere, they're just no longer the only game in town.

>>2941063
lol
>Cameras de-commodified ultra-realistic visuals!
>The fact ultra-realistic visuals created by cameras are still commodities in no way invalidates my point though, because reasons.

You can't even keep your story straight.

>>2941131
>You can't even keep your story straight.
And you seem to be having a difficult time appreciating subtlety so I'll explain it to you with straight, simple language.

>A long time ago, only the wealthiest members of society could afford a realistic painting or sculpture.
>Today, those same skills still exist but in vastly more reproducible forms, so trying to shoehorn the art industry into any narrative about western culture "declining" is retarded.
>Some people are willing to pay more for technical precision, others want something abstract. Some rich people are pretentious snobs and there's an industry which caters to them, others are tawdry hillbillies and they have a market, too.
>the proliferation of industrial technology has made 3-D installation art the technological cutting edge of the contemporary art world. Large corporations and municipal facilities will pay very large sums of money to have the negative space of their buildings decorated.

>>2935633

That appears to be a threshing device of some kind.

>>2928046
>we're still trying to depict the sublime and even though resources and such are much more available we don't think we are any closer, the method has been trial and error as always, and we show no sign of stopping.

So I saw this thread yesterday and brought it up at a party I went to talking with some artists. This is what they said they would say:
>In between your time and mine, we will begin a quest to determine the deepest nature of art as a concept, to define the foundations of its essence. But after 200 years of plumbing the deepest truths of art, we will discover that it's center is hollow. There is no technical element of an artwork that is individually fundamental: Not color, not line, not composition. Any of them can be purposefully excluded from a piece, and that piece still be recognized as art.
>The culmination of two centuries of philosophy will be that the only thing that all artworks of all time have in common is an ability to provoke: Awe, anger, melancholy, relaxation, satisfaction, lust, hunger. It doesn't matter what's being provoked, only that there is a provocation.
>This shatters art.
>With "provocative" as the only metric of inclusion, the barking of a carny is just as much art as a religious portrait; the smell of a well-cooked mutton as artistic as a sonata.
>A generation of artists converts this terrifying revelation into a work-a-day reality. If the fundamental nature of art is to provoke, they will provoke. They will ask first "Are people compelled by this to react?" and never "Is this beautiful?" They will make no distinction between disgust and joy, base desire and noble impulse: All that will matter is the SIZE of the reaction, not its kind.
It doesn't matter that a picture of Abraham Lincoln fucking a goat made out of shit fills you with revulsion and confusion and outrage. It just matters that it FILLS you. Modern art is trolling.