Art thread

File: 1454071526175.jpg (67KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 720x720px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-EfW7gYzns

File: 1448879823422.jpg (406KB, 1576x2017px) Image search: [Google]

406KB, 1576x2017px

>>933122

File: Pieter_Claesz_-_Vanitas_Still_Life_with_the_Spinario,_1628.jpg (263KB, 1600x1390px) Image search: [Google]

263KB, 1600x1390px

>>933138
Love this one.

File: 1446138364790.jpg (645KB, 2246x1778px) Image search: [Google]

645KB, 2246x1778px

>>933141

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

735KB, 900x645px

Satan's last supper - Unknown.

Found in a apartment in the 1950s

File: 1449155668315.jpg (770KB, 1600x1216px) Image search: [Google]

770KB, 1600x1216px

>>933145

File: 1451128850032.jpg (145KB, 593x800px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 593x800px

>>933149
This subject has been done to death but I'd still like to hear /his/'s opinions: what makes a piece of art good? I was just discussing this with a friend; I said that art should be a mixture of beautiful and emotional, she said it's all relative and every artwork is good because there is at least one person who thinks it's good.

File: 1447856444151.jpg (2MB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1200px

>>933155
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHQVtYzjLao&list=LLDEw2sFw4CF5U6d8WlmDPLQ&index=71
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJr5Gzaa2ig&list=LLDEw2sFw4CF5U6d8WlmDPLQ&index=61
Which rendition do you guys prefer?

File: 1447883653922.jpg (579KB, 1279x1920px) Image search: [Google]

579KB, 1279x1920px

>>933167
https://www.google.com/culturalinstitute/home
Is this the ultimate /his/ site? What are some other good /his/ sites?

>>933155
Both beauty and emotions are historical and sociological contingent.

>>933148
>Satan's last supper
great.
Any more info?

>>933238
There is not that much info on it. I have looked.
There was pictures of a few other painting found in the apartment. Apparently the it was made by a schizophrenic around WW2.

>>933395
Got a link?

>>933889
No. There was a thread on /x/ with the pictures and a website with some info.

>>933155
For a work of art to be "good", there needs to be a possibility for art to be "bad". This is obvious.

What's not as obvious is that there is a question prior to whether art can be "good" or "bad", which is whether art can have value in the first place.

Value is often considered something subjective but there is a difference between making statements and making art. Art comes from the Ancient Greek "tekne" meaning "art, skill, or craft". The idea here is that the difference between a work of art and a work of nature is that humans make art. If we assume that art is always an object in some sense (this is easy with a painting or a sculpture) then art objects can have objective qualities, even if these qualities are basic and not that exciting. For example, the sculpture in your picture has its dimensions and weight.

The way we use "art" these days is not really like the Ancient Greek "tekne". Where something as simple as a cup was art on "tekne", today "art" implies some deeper value, like "beautiful" or "inspiring emotion".

There are a lot of different ways that an art object can have value. Obviously, there are the simple ones, like dimensions, cost, materials, etc., but there are also the complex ones: cultural value (the work of art is held to be a representation of a culture with regards to the spirit of current times or historic ones), technical value (the art reflects a very nuanced understanding of a craft on the part of the artist).

The most common value of art is the aesthetic value, which has to do with the encounter between audience and art object. This is obviously where a lot of subjectivity comes into play. A child's drawing is art, and it can be charming to one person but bring the parent to tears.

(1/2)

>>934046
(2/2)

More recently, there has been a paradigm shift in aesthetic value away from the intentions of the artist to the subjectivity of the audience. This is because postmodern critical theorists couldn't figure out how to reliably interpret a work of art in such a way that the artist's intentions can be known. Plus, somewhere along the lines, realism became fascism.

So, on this paradigm, the value of a work of art rests in its ability to really make you think, which is why a lot of contemporary art relies upon "modality" of interpretations, which is why a lot of art these days is straight up ambiguous.

I have to go right now but I'll return to the thread if you want to discuss this further

>>934090
>>934046
?
Is this Kant? Don't pretend you came up with that stuff on your own.

>>933122
how long did these mosaics take to make?

Personally, I try to decide the value of art based on quality of expression. That is to say, how good it is at expressing what it's trying to express. Some art is just trying to express beauty, some art is trying to express political or otherwise ideological messages, and lots of times it's just trying to convey raw emotion. Most art tries to convey many things at the same time. If art manages to convey its message(s) accurately and in an interesting and/or creative way, then that generally makes it good art.

File: Crusader Kings II Art.jpg (1MB, 1920x1440px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1440px

>>933122
I like the Symbolism in this one. The leader is crushed not only by defeat, but the loss of so many of his men in the bloody conflict.

His opponents bear the cross and such, but they seem to just use them as a means of destruction.

He carries this burden as he bends a knee to the enemy commander. Check out his shadow as he does this. It appears to look like a man carrying a cross: much like Christ did back when he was publicly shamed by the Jews on his way to his own execution.

I could be crazy and over-analyzing the piece... but I like to think there is some deep beauty in an otherwise general video game art piece