Why does modern society produce artlets? Modern "art"

>>3364838
Because the modern west is a rotting corpse and trying to revive it is on par with digging up your grandma's skeleton and pretending she's a vital 20 year old girl.

>>3364838
no one should dictate what art should be, having said that, I agree with that most modern art is shit, but even in the old days, most of anything was shit too

if you mean contemporay art a lot of it is very good. Poor people and other filth like the ones youll find in libcuck cities can only afford blank white paintings and menstrual fluid as 'art'. Sad really, they think we're getting richer while they're obviously becoming poorer and poorer

realism can be very boring, alot of that shit looks so similiar

File: 3f05f82de2a78269f16768b5e3f785c4.jpg (146KB, 620x412px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 620x412px

This is now an erotic art thread

>>3364838
Contemporary art is always absurd and retarded so that it drives away normies. Classical art can now be enjoyed by everyday tourists where it use to be the exclusive pursuit of the wealthiest and more cultured.

The modern art crowd is more concerned with association and status symbols than the art itself. And since what is considered transgressive changes everyday, they specifically seek retardation. They have sacrificed meaning for a scene. Just ignore them.

wealth made us lazy

File: h5_29.100.112.jpg (101KB, 537x400px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 537x400px

>modern art is inherently shit
when will this meme end. all art has value, even if it isnt aesthetic value

>>3364838
Nobody wants to devote their life to sculpting or painting anymore, that's why.

>>3364838

There are plenty of talented artists probably even more than in the past as living is easier it's what is promoted that is the problem.

>>3364967
Its just that standards have dropped, ofc there are still good artists out there, but the left thinks theyre part of some 2017 renaissance

>>3364987
Its a sad reality

Rich people got tired of the same boring attempts to recreate the ancient world and decided to fund other artists that they enjoyed.

File: JMDispersion.jpg (2MB, 2100x1331px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2100x1331px

There's plenty of good "modern" art. You just have to know where to look.

>>3364838
Composer reporting in, I also know lots of writers who work in academia.
This is the deal: contemporary composers do not compose for people like you, in fact to them (I'll use them instead of us, since I've never shared this dominant elitism) you are downright disgusting, someone who just has no right to utter not even the most basic opinion on the argument. It may sound silly, but these people have spent decades training their ears for the most sophisticared techniques (which, at this point simply ignore concepts such as tonality and atonality) and at this point they just do not care anymore for the public.

It's not about pomo drivel, it's about the fact that contemporary artists treat themselves as researches, just like a Biology PhD would do, and as such elements like the ego of the composer, or the mere public's empathy become simply worthless.
Rimsky-Korsakov famously said to a young Stravinsky "Do not listen to Debussy, you might like it", well, this is the case for a plethora of other less famous contemporary composers. I must have heard thousands of clueless critiques on Schoenberg music: if only they knew how fun it is to compose and analyze (once you get acquainted to it, which is usually a task for musicians) such music, they would at least start their arguments by recognizing his genuinity.
They are not lying to you, they genuinely appreciate it, it's just that they've never factored yor appreciation in the first place.

>>3365181
Idk. Even here theres something but it has no flow, no connections. Its not abstract if its a mess

>>3365211
You're full of shit and you know it, any chump from here to bolivia can tell how good a piece of art is just by experiencing at it. Understand its message too

>>3365253
DESPACITO

>>3365260
man you sure showed me. is that your aforementioned composition made by the mighty elites who live in ghetto shithole republics where there literally are no elites?

>>3364838
>Why does modern society produce artlets?
>Modern "art" is sad

>Well over 2000 years of civilization and people still dont understand the filter of time

>>3365275
I bet you like the shit they scavenge out of 'excavations' too

>>3365274
Not him, but it's blindingly obvious that the world's most streamed song is meant as a refutation to your statement that "any chump ... can tell how good a piece of art is just by experiencing at it". Now I firmly believe that taste is subjective and aligning one's personal tastes with a nonexistent objective truth is arrogant and blinkered; but on the other hand, reggaeton.

>>3365292
numbers don't prove anything. Ask a person if they actually think that song is good and youll know the truth. Taste might be subjective, but a lot of art is mean't at all to be enjoyed, whwich is the art that he is defending as superiorly made by the musical elites or whatever garbage hes on about like hes gods gift to earth for making shitty music

>>3364985
>need to fap
>no fap material
>no money for a visit to a brothel
>spend your life mastering sculpting and realistic painting so you can produce your own fap material

>>3365158
>the left thinks theyre part of some 2017 renaissance
>2017
thats not modern art then mate

>>3365130
The problem is that few of those talented artists are getting recognition. There is a man sculpting animal statues to near-inhuman precision by memory, yet all he gets is a single "did you know" article living with his parents while artists who make art that is literally mistaken for garbage get to live in mansions built and passed down to them by greater men.

Art is about looking at the artists you love being thrown under the rug against artists you loathe, yet do to its subjective nature it is considered irrational to protest. The popular artists are popular because they are objectively popular, and that's the end of the discussion.

>>3365790
The guy you're talking about isn't an artist. Any actual artist would consider him an abomination if thats what he did for a living and called it art. Don't blame teh world for why more of that person's are didn't get made, it was always your fault that more didn't get made. A dvine punishment, if you will

>>3365801
what the fuck are you even talking about

>>3364838
Because modernity is anti-culture.

>>3365181
I actually like that pic.

The point is, it is not necessary to something to have an objective form to express emotion and connect ourselves to some innermost feelings.

Even tho there is a huge lot of rubbish in modern art, there are quite few thoughtful artists to look over.

>>3365816
The guy you're talking about is a crafter, not an artist. More good art doesn't get made for people to enjoy because people are impious and don't deserve it

>>3365830
sculpture is art my friend, also the barrier between art and craft is incredibly fickle and subjective, and is not a useful distinction

>>3365835
sculptures are art, but crafts are world apart from art and only a cultural marxist would say otherwise. They have no expression, no human creativity, sometimes not even inspiration.

>>3365841
how is that s? things that are traditionally considered craft, such as pottery, embroidery, knitting, also have some of the greatest skill and creativity behind them. The only reason I would say they arent art is because they have use

File: scruton.jpg (361KB, 800x1000px) Image search: [Google]

361KB, 800x1000px

>When Modernity sends its artists, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending artists that have lots of pretentiousness, and they're bringing those pretentiousness with us. They're bringing abstraction. They're bringing irony. They're degenerates. And some, I assume, are thoughtful artists.
>But I speak to museum curators and they tell us what we're getting. And it only makes common sense. It only makes common sense. They're sending us not the right artists.

>>3365847
>pottery, embroidery, knitting
pottery is oftentimes art and falls under sculptures, the other two things are literally as ghetto as it gets and are made by machines now and illiterate peasants without any education in art in the past. There is no skill or creativity and their crudeness if proof of it. Though they can be with the right people, if you fashion.

>>3365253
>You're full of shit and you know it, any chump from here to bolivia can tell how good a piece of art is just by experiencing at it. Understand its message too
So? Are you too stupid to understand that this statement has nothing to do with what I wrote? Composers don't care about the public, but the public can tell how good a piece of art is (by the way, really? If I have you listen to 20 Bach's fugues, let's say 15 from his youth and 5 from his last years, would you be able to tell me which one is written better?).
The point from the beginning was that composers don't care in the first place about what YOU think, they care about composing their music, have it played, and have other composers listen to it and read the scores.

>>3365302
It may be musical elite, but it's not written for the elite. You're complaining about a bunch of people doing something they love, and you're hating them only because they are not sumbing down their art for you. Well, maybe you were not part of the picture in the first place?
And again, you trust far too much the opinion of "chumps" in Bolivia and far too little the opinion of people who have dedicated their life to their craft.

>>3365855
I'll tell you a secret: audiences do not care for traditional art.
You can give them the most mesmerizing Rembrandt's painting, or the most delicate Beethoven's quartet, they will appreciate it, say "wow, it's beautiful" and that's it.
On onjective terms, the Art that Scruton hates seems to be the most interesting art currently available, simply because the entire global population is absolutely incapable of elevating not even one single serious artist (representational for painting and sculpture, tonal and structured for art music) to the ranks of the art canon. Not one.

>>3365863
You're a pleb.

>the other two things are literally as ghetto
Ideological argument, not about aesthetics. The specific contemporary context behind knitting does not tell you anything about what a great knitter can achieve. You're thinking in stereotypes.

>are made by machines now and illiterate peasants without any education in art in the past.
Every craft can be now made by machines, and most artists of the past were only educated in their craft, remaining often ignorant in every other way of life. Basically, you're dismissing virtuosity in knitting and broidery because you think that only grandmas do it, and because you don't know what virtuosity in this craft is in the first place.

>There is no skill or creativity and their crudeness if proof of it.
Prove it. If I knit I can represent whatever I want in whatever texture I wanr: how does that stifle my creativity? It doesn't, you're just rationalizing prejudices.

>>3366578
>On onjective terms, the Art that Scruton hates seems to be the most interesting art currently available, simply because the entire global population is absolutely incapable of elevating not even one single serious artist (representational for painting and sculpture, tonal and structured for art music) to the ranks of the art canon. Not one.


So what? It is still shitty art.
This is not an argument, the lack of good art doesn't make bad art more interesting.

>>3366688
Checked.
>So what? It is still shitty art.
According to who? According to guy who just look at it once or twice every year, or according to the guy who think about and produce it 24/7? Why is your "opinion" objective?
Let's have you saying "Webern is shit, it's just noise!": why should I trust you and not actual musicians and composers, who, and I know this for a fact, have trained their ears enough for them to be able to fully identify every possible dissonance?

>This is not an argument, the lack of good art doesn't make bad art more interesting.
Again, you're throwing lots of claims without justifying not even one.

>>3366709
>According to who?
according to the general public. most people dislike this kind of art because it doesn't get in touch with them, it is meaningless for most people, including some people sensible to art.

>why should I trust you and not actual musicians and composers, who, and I know this for a fact, have trained their ears enough for them to be able to fully identify every possible dissonance?

This is authority fallacy. You shouldn't say "this is good art" because someone else said so and wrote an enormous thesis on the complexity of it.
You should not trust the others, but yourself and your sincere feeling towards it.

>Again, you're throwing lots of claims without justifying not even one.
tu quoque

>>3366733
>according to the general public. most people dislike this kind of art because it doesn't get in touch with them, it is meaningless for most people, including some people sensible to art.

According to the general public of the past 99% of our musical canon would be downright worthless. The reason for which we still listen to Schubert is not because the public just likes him more (which is not true by the way, I can assure you that the public would rather listen to a Ries or Gluck piece, and could not tell the difference), but because those musicians who have studied its craft have discovered its actual inherent value. So how important is the appreciation for Bach by the part of the public if the public would still be incapable of describing and internalizing it in a way that would be different from what would happen with a random Bach student's fugue?
On the topic, read the third Aesthetic Lesson by Wittengstein, I think he managed to explain what happens in uneducated listeners far better than me. Maybe I'll link it later.

>This is authority fallacy. You shouldn't say "this is good art" because someone else said so and wrote an enormous thesis on the complexity of it.
You should not trust the others, but yourself and your sincere feeling towards it.
And this is why I have not trusted your opinions, and then I asked you why I should care about them more than the ones conjured by composers and musicians? You were tryring to hide an authority fallacy by pretending that the authority in question was not you. Otherwise why would you have said "bad and good music" rather than "music I like and dislike"?

>tu quoque
I haven't made any claim, I have just described what's the mindset of the contemporary composer, without applying any moral/value hierarchy to it.

File: image.jpg (17KB, 213x255px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 213x255px

>>3364941

>>3364941
Noice

File: Chalepas-Sleeping-Female-Figure.jpg (91KB, 1024x686px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 1024x686px

Check out Yiannoulis Halepas.
Pic rel.

>>3364969
>>3364995
turkish art?

Modern art means art from the 1860's to the 1970's, brainlets. Use the right terminology.

>>3367282
Contemporary starts after WWII, you absolute dumdum.

>>3365211
>just like a Biology PhD
leave biology out off your autistic circlejerking

t. biologist

>>3367310
You're a retard, I'm just describing what have been the mindset and the ambition of the contemporary artist for the past 60 years. Don't blame it on me, dummy.

>>3365159
But, anon, why don't you just go out and be a sculptor?

File: Piet_Mondriaan,_1939-1942_-_Composition_10.jpg (338KB, 841x940px) Image search: [Google]

338KB, 841x940px

because nobody cares about old boring art nomore you plebs

>>3367357
Unironically true. You can fill a museum with new masterpieces and people would go "Oh! That's a nice" or "ooooh look at that... let's see the next thing now".
At least if you put a can full of shit people will fucking feel something in museums, and even if that something is confusion or disgust, that is still better than nothing.

File: mona lisa crowd.jpg (295KB, 1024x519px) Image search: [Google]

295KB, 1024x519px

>>3367375
Is this why the renaissance/baroque Italian sections of the Louvre are ALWAYS so fucking packed you can't even see anything through the mass of people, while literally nobody but a handful of hipsters and pretentious intelliguanas gives a damn about cans of shit and empty canvases?

File: burning_pyramids.jpg (662KB, 2048x1365px) Image search: [Google]

662KB, 2048x1365px

>>3367375
if you want to create art that makes people feel something, you don't make it for a museum

Because decent artists are sidelined in favor of celebrity artists.

>>3367357
I like Mondrian AND the so called classical art, and I don't see why anything after Mondrian and other moderns should bear the same fringe identity of it.

art should invoke a sense of beauty in the person viewing it. plato wrote about this many thousands of years ago

we enjoy art because of the beauty

>>3367405
Then let's burn most of our museums.

>>3367404
Why do people travel to see the Mona Lisa? Because other people told them that it's a great painting, and Da Vinci was a genius.
Once they arrive there they say "what a genius" (of course they could not justify such a statement, nor do they know if Da Vinci's contemporaries were similar in talent, which means that they're talking out of their asses), and even when they are in front of the grratest paintings we know of, what do they do? What I've said earlier: "oooh, nice, let's go on", even if they were looking at a Raffaello's painting that could have deserved hours and hours (for scholars: decades) of focus and analysis.
I'm starting to think that you guys are not really used to go to museums and theaters.

>>3367436
Then let's burn Beethoven's Grosse Fuge. In fact, if you have read Plato, you would know that this would imply burning every piece of music with counterpoint in it.
Don't trust excessively philosophers when it comes to Art. As the golden rule, ignore Plato, Aristotle, Kant and Hegel, the 4 worst aestheticians of the Western canon.

The wealthy now flaunt their wealth on instagram instead of using all their free time to learn an art-form that takes many years.

File: Zdzislaw Beksinski.jpg (152KB, 858x1088px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 858x1088px

>>3367436
I don't think it is that simple, some art can be grotesque, repulsive, unsettling, and yet, cause sensations of wonder in the viewer. Beauty is not a requisite, ugliness can be compelling too.

Like the figure of Christ in the Cross, for example. In most modern churches, the Passion of Christ doesn't look so gross and morbid than it used to be in the middle ages. Once I saw a medieval, wooden carved Jesus, full of blood, pale and sick, in an expression not of serenity, but of pain.
It was probably the most impacting religious iconography experience I ever had. And it was absolutely repulsive.

>>3367459
Actually, most people say "it's so small".

>>3367490
Ugly art can't be art. Plato argued for it multiple times.

>>3367635
Just because clever-man Plato said many things, doesn't mean that all of his sayings are truths to be followed strictly.

>>3367656
To me it's rational. The goal of man is the ultimate Good, therefore the proper usage of Art can only lead in this direction, and you would certainly not say that Good can be equaled to disgust, repulsion and obscenity. It would be irrational.

>>3367667
But art is not about what is rational, but also about what is irrational, primal instincts.
Art is feeling with no language.

Apollonian and Dionysian. That's why a comprehension of beauty sometimes, and if only sometimes, need to be suspended.

File: pietmondriancomposition10.png (3KB, 841x940px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 841x940px

>>3367375
So? I can accomplish the same going to /b/.

File: 474732133_344f5adb2a.jpg (37KB, 309x309px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 309x309px

Please educate a historically challenged individual but for >>3364948 >>3364944 >>3364959 and >>3364985

did the sculptor generally have "models" for this or did they do this simply from memory?

>>3367886
All of the sculptors and painters of the past used extensively real models.

>>3367956
Good lord. So what's the story here >>3364985 ?

Visit to the brothel?

>>3367854
Well, there are some people who say that memes are the next step of art. Like an art piece made by millions of people from all around the world. Maybe in 50 years there will be art historians examining Pepe and the influence /b/ had on art world.

>>3367854
>"Art used to be something to cherish. Now literally anything could be art. This post is art."

>A photo of a 4chan post sold for almost $100,000, because ‘art’

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2014/08/05/a-photo-of-a-4chan-post-sold-for-almost-100000-because-art/?utm_term=.46f6df5803a5

remarkable shitpost

File: beksinski1.jpg (60KB, 600x536px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 600x536px

>>3367490
I love Beksinski

File: tumblr_nrq8taXtUu1tfg1qgo1_500.png (109KB, 500x471px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 500x471px

>>3364838
Lolis are the highest form of art.

>>3367886
>did they simply do this from memory
This brings up even more interesting questions given that they didn't have HD porn channels or possibly even mirrors (I believe they didn't make the sort of huge wall mirrors you could watch yourself fucking in until around the 18th century) so they're memories of watching other people fucking in front of their nose.

>>3366578
>I'll tell you a secret: audiences do not care for traditional art.


Fucking this. People just say "yeah, it's good," but they never explain why it's good.

>>3368146
What is it with that guy and everything looking like fused bones? Is it just because it's creepy?

File: 1500195554024.gif (817KB, 557x605px) Image search: [Google]

817KB, 557x605px

>>3367854

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAExa9P7hME

>>3366578
if they make shitty art they shoudl starve, and most do, they probably failed their classes too which is why you can't even make an argument other than im too smart for you. You act like they're so great and are in the tradition of bach when their tradition is almost complete pomf and bach was the equivalent of katy perry back in the day and any real artist knows they still are now. Composers were never the musical elites you claim, and are in fact pathetic because music is the lowest of the tradiontal five form of arts, and the qualities that a person who is experimenting with their art would fall flat on their face because none of the people you mentioned would be smart enough to actually use ANY cosmic fundning because your elitest demogaphic are literally demagagouges. This message is proven when actual people who innvoated with cosmic funding suffered their whole lives and then killed themeslves like kurt cobain after losing everything except their money and fame.
>>3366578
their is no 'craft' in art you fucking idiot, you just keep proving you dont know ANYTHING about music and have failed to name a single actual concept in music that would defend the use of torture-music that punishes humans for beileving in the exact kind of trite you beileve in. On top of that I could tell which were pieces in the use of more experienced people in the art of writing the trite that are compositions, but that doesn't mean they'll actually be any better or sound better. Most artists sputter out when they do music and get worse and worse, but a person whose young probably doesn't even ahve a degree or udnerstanding of music, like your stupid ass

>>3368263
Let me answer you thoroughl-
>and bach was the equivalent of katy perry back in the day and any real artist knows they still are now
Eh, any argument would be wasted on you. Have a nice life

>>3368166
t. disgruntled artist
:^)

>>3368263
is this a pasta? if it isn't good job, you've just created a new one.

>>3368263
I lost brain cells reading this.

>>3366709
>needing an education in order to appreciate music
W E W
E
W
It's no wonder populism is on the upswing.

>>3368400
When it comes to classical and contemporary music, without ear training you're missing 99% of it. It's the difference between reading a book and reading the summary on wikipedia.

>>3366578
>Composers don't care about the public
So why are you surprised when they say it's shit?

>>3364838
Unironically, capitalism, paired with the equally ironic in nature democratization of technology. There is not enough cultural pressure to reliably produce the same degrees of high culture as seen in the past, and the fact that access to media has made us all crack-riddled junkies for content has ensured us a quick Promethean death, stewing in our own narcissistic feces of self-certainty and false conviction.

The market as it stands has normalized art. Exclusivity is gone, making the pressure to produce specialists almost entirely void. Why try and push your child to be the next mozart when worldwide prestige can instead be easily obtained through the outsourcing of resources, networking, a viral 2 minute track and the right ghost-written lyrics? There is more money in writing for the 2 minute - 3 minute 30 second radio spot, than in trying to become a virtuoso. There is more visibility, more fiscal return. This is objectively more appealing, ultimately producing the shitshow that you see today (and this has been culminating for the past 100 years, no joke). It's the same thing with the film industry and the art industry. Instagram fundamentally undermines the cultural pressure that once produced legendary visual artists. Why? Because anyone can buy a camera phone, anyone can flood the website with whatever memes or content they want, and the content that resonates most with that lowest denominator will always reap the highest degrees of prestige and acknowledgement. So why put in the effort? Why try and be the next Kubrick if audiences would rather tune into Youtube? Even studios don't want to fund anything that isn't wholly formulaic and that can't guarantee a substantial fiscal return-- hence the age of reboots.

>>3368430
I'm surprised because there are people clueless enough to associate their personal feelings to universal judgements on purely aesthetical grounds. The fact that the subject were contemporary composers was irrelevant, I could have made the same argument for people saying that sushi/poems/pottery are shit.
You're free to not like any contemporary music, but if you start giving judgements while knowing that you are full of shit, don't get surprised when people start calling your act out.

>>3368447
>>3368400
1st world high-tier education paired with extremely specific living circumstances are the only things that produce the cultural pressure needed to achieve high art that can equal the past. The modern great artist leverages their scorn and spite for the modern age through an extreme deep dive into the aesthetic values of the past, as all great artists before them, ultimately producing counterculture content that defies that which surrounds them. That deep dive can only occur with extreme degrees of privilege and opportunity-- no fucking black kid in an inner city is being taught to competitively sing Mozart.

>>3368452
You sound like a movie director that uses ever more sophisticated and expensive special effects and gets enraged when nobody is going, because the storytelling is shit.

File: beksinski cross.jpg (126KB, 490x604px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 490x604px

>>3368168
He basically gives continuity to the surrealist movement. What he does is to represent dreams and nightmare, in a similar way that Dalí and Giger used to do.

He doesn't do it because it is creepy, but because it has an unconscious expression in it. Some people will find it creepy, others may go deeper and recall its own sole imagination experiences.

>>3368478
Nice unrelated and useless mental picture. Have you got anything else? Maybe something with cats and clowns.

>>3368472
Not really, in the 20th century most great pianists and violinists started poor, and financial misery has been the absolute standard for composers for 500 years.
In Europe especially there are music programs virtually everywhere, and theatre tickets are usually dirty cheap. If anything classical music has never been more democratic, at all levels.

File: Death-_Grips-feature.jpg (37KB, 585x350px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 585x350px

>>3365211
Oh, so they like Death Grips

>>3368500
>the 20th century most great pianists and violinists started poor, and financial misery has been the absolute standard for composers for 500 years.
That's irrelevant. They still had access to instruments and education. That's immense amounts of privilege and wealth.

>In Europe especially there are music programs virtually everywhere, and theatre tickets are usually dirty cheap. If anything classical music has never been more democratic, at all levels.
Read my previous post. The democratization of everything in the modern age has allowed for a more accessible market, yes. But because of this increased access, there is far less pressure to produce high degrees of technical ability.

>>3368309
becuse you ahve none other than snuffing your nose
>>3368375
eat shit sophist

>>3368534
>That's irrelevant. They still had access to instruments and education. That's immense amounts of privilege and wealth.

Not for Western standards. If your father or your mother was a instrumentists (and this is almost always the case) all you need is an instrument (which the parents own already, probably).
My 4yo cousing has just started playing the piano. It costs 30$/mo to rent the instrument, and that's about it (my aunt teaches him).

>But because of this increased access, there is far less pressure to produce high degrees of technical ability.
Objectively false, 18th and 19th century instrumentists were donwright BAD, compared to the average 2017 one. Truth being told, what happened is the opposite: to find a piano virtuoso is trivial, you can find many of them in virtually every piano class of virtually every conservatory of virtually every developed country, from S. korea to Hungary. The same applies to composers: people may hate Boulez, but he was a certified genius when it came to Harmony, just like Webern was a genius polyphonist, Stockhausen a genius counterpointist and Messianen an authority in rhythm. You can complain about the opposite of your point: contemporary musicians are (not acording to me, but certainly accorsing to many people in this thread) overtrained. They know too many things and in every bar they account for too many things, were that "too" is given by the lack of attention span of the public.

>>3368558
>sophist
Go back to your board (Molyneux's youtube comment section).

>>3364838
>muh greeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeks
Fuck off, cancer.

>>3365226
>muh systematics

>>3367404
Because it's popular art, none of it has any actual aesthetic value.
Greek ideas are cancerous.

>>3367436
>art should invoke a sense of beauty in the person viewing it. plato wrote about this many thousands of years ago
>normative statement
>appealing to the biggest hack of all history
gr*Ek cancer, everybody
>>3367886
Models, always. Classically trained sculptors are taught how to sculpt a body first, but still require somebody to pose because their goal is naturalism.
Modern and post-modern sculptures still even use models, they just deviate from the form.

>>3368590
crying for a safe space when poeple call you out on being a shallow and gullibe dickrider si mroe proof that you're a sophist

>>3367667
you're just making equally an arbitrary definition of art to the modern one

>>3368590
>not for western standards
>My 4yo cousing has just started playing the piano. It costs 30$/mo to rent the instrument, and that's about it (my aunt teaches him).
>that's about it
Your whole post reeks of the very privilege I'm talking about. Access to an instrument AND the learned conviction to play and master it is an insurmountable amount of privilege. That is fucking huge. There are billions in this world that will never have access to that, or any form of culturally-set predisposition towards it.

>Objectively false, 18th and 19th century instrumentists were donwright BAD, compared to the average 2017 one. Truth being told, what happened is the opposite: to find a piano virtuoso is trivial, you can find many of them in virtually every piano class of virtually every conservatory of virtually every developed country
Dude I'm very clearly not talking about trained monkeys. I meant there is less pressure to produce less technical creative ability. I'm talking about the production of original content and ideas, not the propensity to dispense performances of age-old composers for a fiscal/prestige-driven benefit. Besides, the fact that you say there are so many "virtuosos" proves my point. Higher access. But how many of them compose original scores as competitive entities in the marketplace? There's hardly any demand-- instead, the emphasis is on using the knowledge for producing recitals and generations of educators. It's all in the money.

>>3365253
You don't even like classical music what the fuck are you on about.

>>3368430
Green Beans taste like ass, carrots are yummy, faggot.

>>3368647
I like the good pieces, wrote them too

>>3366733
Do you conform all of your opinions to the general public? You're literally only using that argument because you happen to agree with them. The general public thinks you're a faggot.

>>3368639
>Access to an instrument AND the learned conviction to play and master it is an insurmountable amount of privilege.

I've told you that to get access to the instrument his parents pay 30$ per month.
Now, this may be too much in Liberia, but in Italy is something that only homeless people can not afford (well, they technically can, but they would have no place ro store it). For western standards it's peanuts.

>There are billions in this world that will never have access to that, or any form of culturally-set predisposition towards it.
It doesn't matter, I have prefaced my previous post this way:
>Not for Western standards.
If you live in the West and your parents can afford rent and food, this opportunity is not precluded from you.

>Dude I'm very clearly not talking about trained monkeys.
I'm not either.

> I meant there is less pressure to produce less technical creative ability.
This is something YOU are saying.

>the fact that you say there are so many "virtuosos" proves my point.
You're probably used to modern popular music, and not to classical music. To put it bluntly, the bulk of the Western musical canon is meant to be played by absolute virtuosos, wether it's the perfect polishing of Mozart, the throlling virtuosism of late Liszt or the mastering of one's own tonal production of late Scriabin. The fact that the term virtuoso turns you to skepticism is funny, since virtuosism is the first prerequisite for the classical instrumentist.

>But how many of them compose original scores as competitive entities in the marketplace?
How many did 100 years ago? 200 years ago? This tradition died in the early 19th century, yet I don't see no one here complaining about Schubert, Schumann and Wagner.
Also
>competitive entities in the marketplace?
Worthless indicator of value.

>There's hardly any demand-- instead, the emphasis is on using the knowledge for producing recitals and generations of educators. It's all in the money.
It's culture, not money.

>>3368656
"I like Bethoveen's 5th, Mahler's 8th, and Dvorak's New World Symphony, they're my favorite"

>>3368671
Dont put words in my mouth you projecting idiot. Im not going to bother listing of the pieces that actually were inspired pieces for times worthy of commemmoration like 1812 and four seasons. But rattling off like you can read my mind is more proof that you're desperate to reafirm your retarded world rather than actually have an understanding of contemporary art, or classical music.

>>3368675
>so philistine that he can literally only listen to Gebrauchsmusik
Hilarious

>>3364838
Art is clarified by the lens of time. When you look on classic works of art, you are looking at the pieces that were deemed meaningful enough to be preserved. All of the tripe has been weeded out over the years, and what is left is the best of the best. When you look at modern art you are looking at the chaff still in the wheat, and are calling it inedible.

There are many great modern works of art, but until we've had a few centuries to choose what is worthy to keep, you'll have to search for them among the tripe.

This is true of any medium, whether it be art, music, literature, or film.

>>3368666
>For western standards it's peanuts.
No shit Billy, and I'm telling you that the quality of life and spread of wealth on a person by person basis in the modern age is so immense compared to the rest of the world that the average 1st world individual lives a lifestyle that used to be exclusive to the highest royalty. Shit, even our poorest are the richest in the world. You're undervaluing just how many forces go into alignment for the production of an intelligent mind.

>marketplace: worthless indicator of value
>it's culture, not money
>being this naive
Jeez I don't want to dismiss you entirely because you appear to have some knowledge on your classical music, but if you can't see that market demand drives culture demand drives market demand drives output, I don't know what to say. Value is literally indicative of demand. If no one wants it, it is fucking worthless. You sound like a bitter artist man. Get over the reality of things.

>>3368675
I'm not the one who claimed to know the "good pieces." And as far as I can tell, if Im replying to the right person, you have very little understanding of the concept of art, its applications, and the difference between its subjective and objective natures, let alone the classical music and contemporary art.

>>3368684
Some of the only good classical music, most of which is trite. Rattling off buzzwords don't change the fact that it actually was inspired and had a high amount of intellect written in it. Unlike bach or whatever dickriding garbage christian dogs liked litsening to.

>>3368696
I have more credit and a better understanding of Art than you or anyone else on earth ever has or ever will short of becoming a mystic. There is no subjective nature to art itself other than basically not reafrimming people's worlds. I actually have understanding of art that goes beyond your trite of doubting and condemning and demanding that I prove my legitimacy to your faceless dick-riding idiocy.

>>3368659
no, this is not what I meant, but what makes a artwork great is the potential to communicate with all human beings without the need of any language, and what I meant by general public is people that are not reading books on why some art is great and just enjoy/feel whatever is available.

Most modern artists can't connect in such way, even tho their art could be considered an universal vernacular, free from cultural restrains, most people see it and wonder "is it supposed to mean something?"

I like modern art, but not only. However, not everything that is enough for me. I can't get the fever over guys like Hirst. Just because something is "daring" and "eschatological" doesn't make it good.

>>3368695
>Shit, even our poorest are the richest in the world. You're undervaluing just how many forces go into alignment for the production of an intelligent mind.
For the third time, it doesn't matter because from literally the first sentence I've specified that I was only talking about developed countries. Saying that people in Liberia have it worse is irrelevant, my first sentence takes care of it.

>Value is literally indicative of demand
In products, but not in Art, otherwise we would not remember Bach, who, just like 99% of the composers of the past, was popularized posthumously by critics, artists and musicians. This is how culture continues. The appreciation of the public is irrelevant, for they will forget and they will eventually die. So far, all the artists we remember of are remembered because not only the amateurs but, more importantly, the expert, voracious erudite listener (usually a trained musician) can appreciate. How many beautiful paintings, but why should I look at a Raffaello's one? You are looking at a Raffaello's painting and not to his contemporaries only because a person you've trusted told you it was good, so you've followed through and actually though and contemplated the painting. As you can see, those advices, which are the guidance for every theatre's/museum's audience, are not derived from the audience itself.

>but if you can't see that market demand drives culture demand drives market demand drives output, I don't know what to say.
Study music history, and find out that 80% of the composers we know of died as borderline anonymous people, and that 20% who was succesful was always less famous than other hacks that we have now forgot.

>If no one wants it, it is fucking worthless. You sound like a bitter artist man.
Here's 3 examples of "worthless" music that is now overplayed: Beethoven's last sonatas and quartets, Schubert's entire symphonic ouvre and every Webern's composition.

>>3368738
You're so thick.
>Here's 3 examples of "worthless" music that is now overplayed: Beethoven's last sonatas and quartets, Schubert's entire symphonic ouvre and every Webern's composition
Yeah no shit, that means it's not worthless anymore. We now recognize those individuals as valuable creatives, and their works and ideas are extremely competitive in the marketplace.

You keep throwing out your superior understanding of music history as if I'm some uneducated pleb, meanwhile you have not even an inkling of an understanding of how economics work and drive literally all human product. These people you're talking about could not produce the content they make without the institutions that they were spawned in, the markets they had access to so as to obtain their tools, nor the opportunity for demand amongst the people and the culture of their time that then propelled them into the singleminded drive towards mastery.

Why wasn't there a Mozart 50,000 years ago?

Because there was no fucking market
There was no education
Modern man had just emerged
There was no premise for it. There were no music teachers. There were no courts that would pay considerable sums of money for entertainment that, with the right degree of ability, could then be wholly taken advantage of. That state of mind wasn't even fathomable because there weren't governments.

You sound like a fucking fairy right now, but you're talking to a person that's been studying music hardcore for well over a decade. You want to talk about art as if it's some spiritual, magical entity that can't be defined, but that's not what it fucking is. It is a manifestation of the times, of access to resources, both culturally and economically. Money drives it. Free time drives it. Opportunity drives it. Michelangelo's works were fucking commissions. People don't make high art in a vacuum. It requires pressure.

You're a CHILD trying to talk about this shit without taking it to the economic sphere in which it LIVES.

>>3368777
>It is a manifestation of the times, of access to resources, both culturally and economically. Money drives it. Free time drives it. Opportunity drives it. Michelangelo's works were fucking commissions. People don't make high art in a vacuum. It requires pressure.
i can tell your idiot with no understanding of art because this whole statement is retarded

>>3368794
L M F A O
what a fucking argument. Go fuck yourself and keep jerking yourself off with your half assed "artistry" you uneducated piece of shit.

>>3368820
The Gods anger those they intead to destroy, like your stupid ass gushing over what just might be the shittiest genre of music imaginable. And thanking humans' deciding to eat avocado toast for creating art movements

>>3368777
>Yeah no shit, that means it's not worthless anymore. We now recognize those individuals as valuable creatives, and their works and ideas are extremely competitive in the marketplace.
Now, 200 years later (in the case of those 3 examples you had to wait 40 years). This mean that the audience that composers can interact with is useless to make predictions of any sort, since, as I've said myself, people forget, then die.

>These people you're talking about could not produce the content they make without the institutions that they were spawned in
I've mentioned 3 masterpieces that were either kept secret from the public (Webern, Schubert) or simply dismissed, quite brutally, by it (Beethoven's last sonatas and quartets).
Now, either Beethoven knew how humanity at large was going to evolve, or maybe, and just maybe, you are wrong.

>Why wasn't there a Mozart 50,000 years ago?
The material conditions were not present. They are now, and I can't see why artists should fetishize them and elevate them as the essence of music itself.
As weird as it may sound, I know almost no musician or composer that is moved by financial desires that go beyond mere survival. Music is a field dominated by passion, not money, otherwise they would all become engineers or guitarists.

>but that's not what it fucking is.
How outsiders decide to use art is irrelevant. A composer can simply choose to defy everything you've just said, which has been the case for at least 100 years now.

>Michelangelo's works were fucking commissions
And Wagner's compositions weren't. What's your point?

>People don't make high art in a vacuum.
Said pressure is often governed by delusions of grandeur. Almost no composer dreams to be rich, but everyone dreams to be as eminent as Mozart and Webern. Said status can't be gramted by the masses, but only by fellow artists and critics. It's an aesthetical matter, not an economical one. If then there are other people who profit over it, is beyond the point.

>>3368845
By the way I'm not this guy >>3368794

>>3368820
>study economy for a few years
>now you can't possibly imagine someone composing for spiritual and artistic reason

Let's cover our eyes and let's imagine that nothing happened since Romanticism.

>>3368845
>>3368853
Well kudos for the dissemination but your arguments are just as equally as romantic as his. Art is an economic manifestation, and no matter how much you want to talk about >muh passion or >muh spirtuality, it is not produced without some form of suitable marketplace with corresponding demand. How does Wagner get his tools? How do you account for the infrastructure in which his ideas were spawned?

You cannot separate the money from art.

>>3368878
>Art is an economic manifestation
compeltely untrue, art dictates economics more than economics dicatates art as econ is a weak social-science and art's laws are as unbreakable as theological ones. numbers and empirical evidence or understandings have no bearing on art

File: tumblr_lz88xhU3so1qi2cym.jpg (66KB, 414x261px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 414x261px

>>3364838
>>3364914
>>3364916
>>3364917
>>3364920
>>3364922
>>3364923
Eye-candies that give nothing to ponder about. Can't really blame them, people 2000 years were probably clinical retards by today's standards.

>>3368888
Can you read?
How do you make art without tools?
Do artists make all of their own tools? Do they professionally educate themselves? Do they magically spawn into free housing with free food? No?

Fuck off

>>3368911
The good ones do, the rest go to college like your stupid ass. Ever heard of self-taught? You really want to answer my questions for me? You that deseprate to ahve your retarded world of money-grubbers deciding what kidn of art gets made? I bet you do because you some idiot of thinks his salary isn't pathetic

>>3368897
How are you going to simply dismiss hours upon hours of sculpting with a clear aesthetic purpose as mere eye-candies by retards when today we have exhibits composed of literal trash in our museums?

>>3368921
Lmfao weak trolling pce man

>>3368926
keep crying for your safe-space faggot

>>3368878
>Art is an economic manifestation
A cause does not imply essence. The alphabet is an economic manifestation, but you would not say that writing is inherently economic in nature, only because you can write something that can be sold or something that can facilitate business. It's true, but it's a non-entity for who writes or for who composes for non-financial reasons.

>it is not produced without some form of suitable marketplace with corresponding demand.
I've made the example of 2 composers who composed mostly for themselves, Schubert (only his symphonic and chamber works) and Webern. The marketplace was not present in their lifetime, so they died without ever hearing their own music. Not even a theatre was required, only pen and paper.
Now their music is worth something, but the historical context in which this music became famous were completely different from the one's they experienced in their lifetime. Had they speculated in the same way you did now, no one would remember their music anymore.

>How do you account for the infrastructure in which his ideas were spawned?
Wagner does not have to account for that infrastructure, and if its existenxe gives him certain signals, he could simply choose to ignore them, which is what he has always done.

>You cannot separate the money from art.
You can once the artist does not have to think about the infrastructure anymore. You can't when talking about Handël, you can when talking about young Satie.

>>3368944
Not having to think about the infrastructure does not change it's goddamned existence. Just because you don't think that pen that he composed his music with was obtained through the market does not change the fact that it was. Just because they don't acknowledge the infrastructure does not change the fact that it is only because of that infrastructure, the culture from which it spawned and the cultural pressure that it places on its people is any less true. Satie is not an artist in a vacuum. No man spawns themselves into existence.

Plus, do you have any idea how incredibly expensive free time is in the grand scheme of civilization? Do you know how many historical and economical developments have to collaborate to allow for a high caliber artist to both have the disposition and capacity to produce? 50,000 years ago, if you couldn't run you didn't fucking eat. As we started living in communities and started creating markets backed by agriculture, the doors fucking opened.

But throw that all out the window because "they're not thinking about that when they're doing it". How the fuck does that matter?

>>3368978
Not him
>How the fuck does that matter?
>when talking about Art

I don't know man, it may be likely that literally every piece of Art you've ever seen just flew over your head. You can't be THAT oblivious.

File: IMG_0319.jpg (349KB, 750x1334px) Image search: [Google]

349KB, 750x1334px

>>3368991
Oh lord, another braindead romantic has emerged

I run an art blog and instagram as research right now in the background as I'm building to my fourth studio project, so fuck off with this >you just don't get it elitism you're trying to leverage on me. This shit is my life, and you dumbass hippies are trying to act as if art and money have absolutely nothing to do with one another. The market is literally how the mediums with which the art is produced are obtained, and not a single one of you has said a single fucking thing to discredit that goddamn fact.

>>3369009
im not suprised that the shit you posted isn't even art and you are a poser. being a money-grubbing sell out subhuman who probably failed his classes

>>3369009
Let's say that I am a homeless man. One day I find a classical guitar on the streets, I pick it up and I play it in secret for the rest of my life, does money have anything to do with it?
Let's say that I have a decent job, and when I come home I compose piano sonatas for my own leisure. People along the line will find them and sell them at great prices. How much were money involved in those first compositions?

And if your point is that using these tools directly correlate this activity with financial motives: is there any tool for which this does not apply? And if every single human activity is related to economy, why would you point it out in the first place? If everything is economical, why is important that Art is economical too? And if this is the case, why do you think that if money are part of this game, no type of romanticism is possible?

File: 1477793539301.jpg (423KB, 1078x1470px) Image search: [Google]

423KB, 1078x1470px

>>3368148

>>3369030
>Let's say that I am a homeless man. One day I find a classical guitar on the streets, I pick it up and I play it in secret for the rest of my life, does money have anything to do with it?

YES. Do you know why?
Because the industry that produced that classical guitar is the only reason you found it. Just finding such a thing is worth anywhere between $10 - $50+ dollars, which translates to months of food in the third world. What a fucking rich find. Do you see?

>And if your point is that using these tools directly correlate this activity with financial motives: is there any tool for which this does not apply?
Nope. Our first priorityy as organisms is to survive, and the market is there to ensure we do, and the modern market makes sure we do quite comfortably.

>If everything is economical, why is important that Art is economical too?
I mean that's why I posted here in the first place. The artist that is cognizant of the economic structure that spawned him is first and foremost extremely educated, but also possesses a vast awareness of the system, its faults, its oversights, and his ability to leverage those faults and oversights for something profound, sublime. That the next thing might resonate with his soul so madly that it will do the same in the marketplace of IDEAS-- and that which is extremely valuable there is extremely valuable to the species. The artist is the hero. On a smaller scale, those economic considerations are how the artist can leverage larger and larger degrees of capital for more and more ambitious scales of projects. You don't just paint the Sistine Chapel without tons of prestige and vouched for capital from investors.

That's how the artist has to think if they want to be lasting, if they want to produce high art. But even if they aren't seeking that, they are still leveraging those same economics to an extent because their capacity to create is a direct manifestation of the privilege of civilization.

>>3366578
>Well, maybe you were not part of the picture in the first place?
Then there are composers like Two Steps from Hell, who makes beautiful "trailer music", which you'd call shitty pleb tier garbage because it's not made by and for some retarded clique high on field recordings.

>>3367357
After Piet it all went to shit

>>3369090
>Dude everything is just money lmao!
No, you got that backwards you jackass, money gets its value from its ability to be used as a medium for exchange, if they couldn't be used to gain material goods they would be worthless, thus money gets its value from goods, goods don't get their value from money.

>>3369208
I wouldn't call it anything, I wasn't describing the quality of any music, rather I was talking about the behaviour of contemporary composers.
Why the fuck does everyone have to be so defensive?

>>3368978
Then I guess I was agreeing with you from the start and I was just misunderstanding the extent of what you were saying.

>>3369218
I'm the guy who he was responding to.
As far as I know, a guitarist can produce great art that can attain value over time. What he can't do is to create the classical guitar before composing his cg music, which means that he was dependant ln both materialist factors (the existence of the guitar, the ability to play it and study its dynamics) and cultural ones (the fact that music is not considered immoral or obscene, the fact that there are places in which people go to listen to music, the fact that great eminent men of the past were great musicians).
This does not devalue Art in itself, rather it recontextualizes it in a real human framework, rather than a romantic one.

>>3369090
>That's how the artist has to think if they want to be lasting
>An artist must shill and do everything for money if they want attention, because money is necessarily the goal

>>3369227
what you're spouting is at this point is marxist trite. Consider suicide, you ignorant animal

>>3369227
Yeah, but that's not money, you could argue that those things represent a more meaningful materialistic contribution as it required the thought and labor of a man rather than faceless, sterile money.

>>3369208
field recordings that don't involve machines are dope

>>3369232
>marxist trite
There is no mention of any economic system in that post.

>>3369237
I have talked about money not even a single time. Here's what I've talked about:
>materialist factors (the existence of the guitar, the ability to play it and study its dynamics) and cultural ones (the fact that music is not considered immoral or obscene, the fact that there are places in which people go to listen to music, the fact that great eminent men of the past were great musicians).

>>3369239
>he is dependent on material factors
literally a concept from das kapital you Godless abomination

>>3369249
>he thinks that only Marx talked about material conditions
I love the fact that you think that the statement "to have a guitarist you need guitars to exist" is controversial.

>>3364922
was hoping to see some back lip, scrolled down, woefully disappointed

>>3369262
your argument was that people need to cowtow to every money-grubbing abomination from th pleb to the east india company is retarded. As your argument crumbles you start reatreating into the idea that people cannot make art without your demagogic people's permission, which is absolute garbage. You don't need an economy to make a guitar. People can make their own guitars and have in the past.

>>3369231
Capital and what men do with it produces art. Refute this or shut the fuck up.

>>3369279
I won't even answer, since you have mixed my posts and that other anon posts in one, and then strawmanned it. If you want a response, write a serious answer first.

>>3368182
more videos like this?

>>3369279
>You don't need an economy to make a guitar. People can make their own guitars and have in the past.
And how do they learn to make those guitars? Where do they get the materials from? Who educated them on how to craft the wood? How long did it take? How much did it cost?

You're either trolling or a 12 year old

>>3369285
God decides who gets to be an artist or make art, not you or your retarded ad-hoc economic theories and apologist marxist garbage

>>3369290
God provides and teaches
>more baseless insults
Im not the idiot who has no concept of art, and at best posts garbage artwork that wouldn't even be allowed to be used as videogame concept art

>>3369290
He is baiting, ignore him.

>>3369293
But this threads' retarded bougiouse vs proletarian argument for the formation of art is 100% serious discussion, right?

>>3369297
Yep

>>3369297
You've heard the words material conditions and then you have downright IMAGINED a fake scenario in which me and that anon are staunch Marxists discussing the vulgarity of art. Too bad that there is no mention to political allegiance, nor it is mentioned any preference when it comes to economic systems.
You've made it all up. As I've said earlier:
>I love the fact that you think that the statement "to have a guitarist you need guitars to exist" is controversial.

>>3369312
you're literally antifa. Trying to hide your bullshit arguments through a transparent guise when your literally rattling off the labor theory of value

File: piet10.png (226B, 108x123px) Image search: [Google]

226B, 108x123px

>>3367357

File: the_oath_of_horatii.jpg (129KB, 960x755px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 960x755px

>>3364838
it's a reflection of our civilization

in the peak of our civilization we had romanticism

and as>>3364847
says, in this modern decaying rotting corpse of our civilization we have modern art

>>3367267
We had horses.

>>3364887
>we're getting richer
Who are you referring to?

Because you're comparing art filtered through time and the tastes of mutiple differing cultures to unfiltered product with internet access so you are more aware of the bad stuff

>>3369436
>romanticism
>peak of civilization

Might be the most pleb opinion I've ever heard