Modern, abstract art is pure bullshit

Slow day at /ic/

>>2276091
This thread is pointless because you will have a bunch of these contemporary art snobs lurking here in /ic/ coming out telling you that /ic/ is fucking shit for only liking that korean guy or that ruan something or that sakimi girl.

Let people wank to a blue errrr sorry "Bottom of the oceania hue" canvas with a semen strip on it.

>>2276113
kekd

0/10
just let people waste their times doing what they want fucking nazi.

>but is crap
so what?
let them do what they want, it's not like they're forcing you to like it.

>but they call it the pinacle of art
sure, it's the pinnacle of THEIR styles, not the pinnacle of realistic painting.

Fucking newfag OP.
apples and oranges.

>>2276091
who give a fuck

if there are fags retarded enough to pay money for this shit then let them waste their money.

>i spend a trillion years on my work but people paid trillions for a literal blank canvas!

sounds like you are just being salty.

>>2276091
After the invention of photography the collective art world had a stroke. Abstract art is that part of art which has the face that droops a little and has a hard time finding words for things.

Don't hate them, take pity on them. Push their wheelchair to a sheltered, sunny spot and let them be for a while.

Have you ever been to a modern art museum.

>>2276165
This

Calm down OP.
It dont matter none

>>2276091
well, do you want art to only be concrete representation?

Because if you make it that way, then it really REALLY will be obsolete. Like that is the nail in the coffin for art as a whole.

>>2276186
This desu
I hated modern art for years until I went to the tate modern. Holy shit that place is so fun and interesting.

>>2276208
Same for me, tate modern was also my first proper introduction to modern art
Fucking love modern art since that day

>>2276186
and leave the basement? unthinkable.

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

Everyone should watch this

File: shruggin' link.jpg (65KB, 500x466px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 500x466px

>>2276258
>it's like an experience 'man' you could just like fall into it bro lmoa

This, along with the phenomenon of talentless art directors making bank while the artists beneath them starve should prove once and for all that the pen is far mightier than the brush or stylus ever will be.

>muh words

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PiqC-vfYLw

File: pollock_rhythm.jpg (310KB, 1192x584px) Image search: [Google]

310KB, 1192x584px

Pro tip: If you're comparing a Pollock to a Rembrandt, YOU are the idiot.

File: dorothea.jpg (128KB, 1118x1536px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 1118x1536px

>>2276091
cry moar

>>2276272
I'm always tricked by the thumbnail of this painting into thinking it's some sort of dark fountain in the center with sculpted heads or something on top and two white cloaked figures in the background. It looks great as long as I don't expand it.

File: dorotheatanning.jpg (402KB, 1536x1009px) Image search: [Google]

402KB, 1536x1009px

>>2276276
what do you not like about it when you expand it?

>>2276281
That I can't see shit anymore. I don't dislike it though.

File: dorotheat.jpg (121KB, 452x600px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 452x600px

>>2276285
Fair enough. If you like her work, she's got a lot of surreal stuff that's more representational.

File: dorotheatan.jpg (732KB, 1280x1768px) Image search: [Google]

732KB, 1280x1768px

>>2276288

File: gorky.jpg (150KB, 1060x800px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 1060x800px

>>2276091
I agree with you if we're discussing color field painting and minimalism.

But I've got a soft spot for action painting and lyrical abstraction.

>>2276285
It's a black guy with his arms around two white women.

>>2276113
>if you're someone who stands on their own two feet you should consider buying this piece
I think he realises that it's not that great. He's not setting the bar that high for customers.

File: IMG_20151014_164233.jpg (724KB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

724KB, 3264x2448px

I took pic related the other day at the tate modern in London, I didn't like the museum, only like 2 or 3 paintings.
Then I visited tate britain and I was impressed, so many beautiful paintings, waterhouse, sargent and many others I didn't know about.

Can someone explain to me why pic related is supposed to be good? Is this the /ic/ equivalent of Merzbow or something?

File: IMG_20151014_164245.jpg (1MB, 2448x3264px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2448x3264px

>>2276220
>>2276208

You serious? Tate modern is boring as fuck, at least moma in new york or pompadour in paris are fun to visit, this is another pic I took at the tate, yes I'm cherrypicking but the best paintings were not too complex or impressive or entertaining either.

>>2276091
nah you just dont get aesthetics

have fun doing cheezzy fantasy art

>>2276991
To get a real explanation for that you'd have to look up if the artist or a credible critic wrote anything on that piece.

I don't really hate abstract art or anything that seems out there, some ideas here and there struck me as kind of clever, or at least humorous. But during the brief time I was studying art movements of the latter half of the 20th century, at times I found myself feeling like some of it was bordering on just being a lot of wankery.

>>2276992
>>2276091
Is there an art board that is actually cultured?

or is it just all anime porn here

File: 1409959272645.png (6KB, 252x256px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 252x256px

>>2277005
>"culture"
>white line on blue paint
>black paint
>3 white canvas, framed
>would rather look at that than waifus

>>2276186
Im willing to bet not many frequent visitors of ic have seen abstract art up close. For the longest time I too viewed naturalism as the only real form of art. But over the past 2 years after visiting various museums in my travels I have really fallen for abstract work. Its strange that nowadays I'm honestly turned off by work that is too realistic.... maybe I finally "get it" or I'm just brainwashed...

>>2276991

Are you stupid ? Theses are just empty frames ...

>>2277009
Sometimes it does certainly feel like I'm brainwashed to liking this stuff, but in a way I get it. Contemporary art is made for us. Medieval art is made from the people of that time. I can like medieval art, but I don't relate to it. Contemporary art is made in my culture, I can relate to blocks of colours on a canvas.

When I go to a museum, I also like to watch the people to go there and their behavior and what I noticed was how at museums with pieces by Rembrandt, Vermeer, Steen, etc. the audience looked at the piece for on average a couple of seconds before moving on to the next piece, but at a contemporary art museum people are happily willing to sit through an 18-minute lasting art installation that just is a couple of lights going on a off and things slowly spinning. When I was at a contemporary art museum, people were actively discussing without each other thinking about how the artist made the piece. It's easy to dislike contemporary art and that's a shame.

>>2277013
On the internet it might look like some empty frames and they probably are.
It's about the whole experience of the gallery and that is something you can't recreate on a screen.

>>2277056
Well, before the 20th century art was made for nobility. Now its made for plebs. It shows.

File: N01543_10[1].jpg (305KB, 1536x1183px) Image search: [Google]

305KB, 1536x1183px

>>2277056

Yeah I'll tell you how it felt when being there in front of those "paintings"

>Security guy in each room looked bored as fuck, probably from having to look at that shit every day
>Just some asians and ugly chicks passing by spending 4 seconds max on each painting
>People sometimes smiling when looking at that shit holding their laughter
>Some guy was actually looking at a museum map dispenser thinking it was an art piece
>Only good "experiences" were dark lit rooms with deep colores paintings with gradients, it felt more mystical, but other than that the museum was overall shitty

meanwhile at tate britain:

>Hottest girls I've seen
>People spent several minutes in front of paintings
>People were talking about art and history in front of the paintings
>Beautiful impressive classical renderings everywhere
>Almost cried just by staring at a Waterhouse painting, pic related, has nothing to to with the real thing tho, you have to see it to get the full experience

>>2276991
>>2276992
The fact that you take photographs inside of art galleries proves to me that you are incapable of taste.

>>2277066
>Some guy was actually looking at a museum map dispenser thinking it was an art piece
topkek

>Almost cried just by staring at a Waterhouse painting, pic related
Seen it in person too, one of the most powerful paintings I've ever seen. Definitely does not hold up as well in reproductions.

>>2277074
>not taking photos in galleries
>never gonna make it

>>2277066
>>hottest girls I've seen
The hottest girls I've seen were in contemporary art museums, but I guess it just depends on the situation and the type of girls, I prefer prepubescent. Besides that in general people prefer going to museum with classical art because it's normal to like that and normal to dislike contemporary art. In your post, you said you did have some enjoyable experience in tate modern, I don't like everything in a contemporary art museum either. I also don't like everything in a museum with classical art.

>>People spent several minutes in front of paintings
I guess people at tate britain are more interested in art than the average person I see at the Rijksmuseum.

>>People were talking about art and history in front of paintings
I do too when I visit an art museum without someone, but that's mostly just background information about the painting. In contemporary art museum I find more discussion, than just explanations.

>>2276992
>>2276991
>minimalism isn't a movement worthy of inclusion in an art gallery and Gerhard Richter isn't an interesting artist

What a fucking pleb you are

>>2277066
Just because the people you saw in each place reacted differently has nothing to do with the value or importance of the art, art isn't democratic.
Personally I much prefer the Waterhouse, but that doesn't make the above pieces you posted worthless.
The Modern is more of an intellectual exercise and you should be reading about the paintings and understand them in the context of an artist's work and in a continuum of changing movements.

>>2277082
So if I painted a canvas red right now, added a bit of flavor text about how it represents the bloodshed in middle east or something, It would be amazing art worthy of a place in a museum.

>>2277066
>liking pre-raphaelite trash
Your taste is too shit to make your artistic judgements worth anything

>>2277089
Amateur contemporary art also sometimes get shown in art museum, so yes, you can get shown in a museum.

>>2277089
It's possible.
You'd have to work to prove how worthy your work is.

>>2277089
no because there's nothing new about that

*sips from a retardidly overpriced glass of wine while listening to some Schoenberg racket and nodding intently at a Pollock-esque piece of shit or solid color canvas or whatever*
Hrmmm yesssss. I'm soooo much smarter and more cultured than everybody else. *upturns nose*

Because sometimes there is a deeper meaning behind it.
>but its just a white piece of paper!
and if it inspires artistic discussion about various topics then maybe it was successful in what it was created for. Maybe the artist wanted to inspire discussion about what art constitutes or how they think a pure white page is the most beautiful thing they see.

yes, this isn't always the case, but sometimes it is, and part of marketing yourself to the artworld and to plebs is the ability to convey what you want, and these people are far better at it than you will ever be.

>>2277216
There is nothing wrong with that when the idea is original. But modern art has been stuck in this rut for decades, still running in circles because it refuses any foundation. It's old, it's boring, it's pointless, tasteless, shameless. In other words, it's cancer and it makes all artists look bad. Keep in mind I'm not referring to abstractism in general, I'm talking about these trivial vague uninspired pieces that require little work or though. Just make up some bullshit meaning (or hire a critic to do it for you) and you're good. It's not about how good the art is, it's all about making yourself a name through famous critics. Plus most of the people who buy this stuff don't even like it; they only do it as an investment, so that they can sell it to rich showoffs later. I don't care if people want to waste money on this, but the intrinsic artistic value is null; in 300 years most of this stuff will be worthless. Only the actually innovative works will still be relevant.

>>2276109
To be fair Ruan Jia is pretty damn amazing.
Oh, and 'modern art' is garbage.

>>2276991
>>2276992

I sometimes feel like the point of pieces like these is that they have a certain aesthetic whilst hanging on a wall. Just three white squares with a black border hanging in a row like that. Big black fucking rectangle on a wall. It looks clean. Hang that shit in your super chic modernist living room.

>>2277208
>retardid

File: mrturner.jpg (177KB, 680x855px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 680x855px

>>2277090

>>2277226
That's fair, but it's not exclusive to modern art. ALL artforms have stopped developing during the last century. Postmodernism's been the newest thing for how long now?

Look at this entire board. Everyone's trying to do realistic concept art paintings. If painting how people did three hundreds of years ago is not stagnation, I don't know what is. So what if it takes more skill? You're still doing the same old shit that stopped developing as a genre hundreds of years ago.

Art is fucking dead. There's only commercial illustration and money laundering left.

>>2277226
>stuck in a rut
its always stuck in a rut because its "modern"
any art from a period always tends to be the same shit over and over again with a few people innovating, if the innovation sticks then everyone does that. Once that happens it gets stuck in the rut again and becomes boring stupid shit.
its just a phase like anything else, and in 300 years they're going to be saying the same shit you are and how 300 years ago art was so much more progressive and interesting.

>>2277234
Good of you to notice my misspelling. But have you pondered the reason for it? What is it's meaning? What does the 'i' invoke? What is it's relationship to the proper letter, 'e'? Is it a coincidence that an 'e' can sound somewhat like 'id'? This is what I strive for in my work. To get people to ponder the blah blah blah blerh blergh bluhhh

File: 5357009174_095dbfcaf6_o.jpg (1MB, 2526x3580px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2526x3580px

>>2277276
a lot of people with no idea what they're talking about like to claim all abstract art is 2deep4u pompous bullshit, but that's because they're actually retarded.

let's take the example of the artist you mentioned, Pollock. he wasn't trying to be deep, he didn't write long-winded essays about his work. in reality, he didn't even give his work real names, instead he called it "1A" or named it after the date it was made. His work is paint on canvas, nothing more and nothing less, you like it or you don't. but pretended that it's an unsuccessful attempt at appearing deep and meaningful is just flat out wrong.

>>2277232
That's something that I never liked.
I always thought that it was in poor taste to hang something up in a museum if it would have the same effect in a house.
Or is that the point it's trying to make?

>>2277303
>poor taste to hang it in a museum if it would have the same effect in a house
its not really about the effect, the museum takes it because its a piece of history they want to keep alive and available for people to see.
It might not have the same impact, but being able to see and learn about it is important for our future young artists.

A gallery on the other hand is a different matter, but those aren't the same things.

>>2277296
Wasn't really trying to link Pollock to the deepfags from artschool. But thanks for the history lesson, anon. I can get behind paint for paint's sake. Too bad Pollocks look like shit.

>>2277208
If you owned a pollock or a rothko chances are you'd be a good deal smarter than anyone ITT

File: 38620whn559.jpg (48KB, 394x406px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 394x406px

>>2277345
>Too bad Pollocks look like shit.

>>2277347
Or a bunch of stock in Apple.

>>2277352
Well yeah thats what I mean. Smart investments.

>>2277352
>>2277355
Art is much more certain to appreciate in value than stock.

File: cultured_dot_com-kek.jpg (139KB, 1000x721px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 1000x721px

>>2277090
What's your beef with the pre-raphaelites, anon?

>>2277347
This is why so many on /ic/ is so suspicious of the modern art world. I all seems like a huge money laundering scheme.

>>2276109
>korean guy
>ruan something
>that sakimi girl

anon pretending you dont know peoples names doesnt make you look "above the trivial matters of peasants", just like a snob.

>>2277356
>>2277360

Yeah. It's not easy to hear as an artist doing the grind and trying to live off your work, but price is a huge factor in modern art.
Here in the UK Charles Saatchi just touches you with his magic wand and suddenly you're a millionaire. And Saatchi is never going to do that to anyone doing complex or technical work. He likes shit that idiots find easy to understand. A fucking shark in formaldehyde is striking and anyone can understand it. When I went to see his exhibition a few years ago it was full of fascinated children, and there's something to that.
I don't even dislike Hirst, I have a print of his diamond skull framed above my computer right now, but I know I'll never do anything like that, and I'll never sell my work for millions, and that's not a happy thought.

>>2277362
To be fair, I dig Ruan's stuff but have trouble remembering his name.

Korean guy = Min Yum, I guess?

>>2277370
Ruan Jia

Jia is hard to remember.
Get your shit together anons

>>2277360
You think owning a Rembrandt or a Monet is any different than owning a work by a famous modern artist? Work by any famous artist is a sound investment.

>>2277377
I can only keep so many Asian names in my brain at once. Min Yum, Khang Le, and Feng Zhu came first. Feng Zhu seems like kind of a hack though, so maybe I can clear an opening for Ron Geya.

File: sellout.jpg (579KB, 830x1191px) Image search: [Google]

579KB, 830x1191px

>>2277365
>I have a print of his diamond skull
this one?

File: Hirst-Love-Of-God.jpg (30KB, 280x400px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 280x400px

>>2277389
No this.
I dunno what yours is.

>>2277394
It's a parody. When work sells in a gallery, it's usually indicated by a red dot. Note the title in the file name.

>>2277396
Oh I see.

For the love god is self parody anyway, so sellout seems to have missed the point imo

File: 1443028004215.jpg (118KB, 640x1136px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 640x1136px

You have absolutely no understanding of modern and contemporary art and you are not willing to put effort in understanding it. Please read some books on art and aesthetics before you open up another pleb thread. Times have changed and so did art and so did the ways of seeing and understanding it.

>>2277448
hahaha that image fucking hell.
Banksy fucking got roasted

>>2277005
Yeah, it's on reddit. Where everyone shits their pants over someone making a realistic portrait of a celeb and a piece of paper.

You should go there

>>2277303
Well I think no matter what it is, if you hang on a wall it will have a different effect depending on the environment it's hanging in, be it a museum or a living room. I think the examples in this thread would look nice in a home, whearas Caravaggio would look out of place...and vice versa.

I think more the point I was trying to make but failed to articulate well is that I think a lot of modern art is simply about how it looks. In this case, take for example again the three square
canvases outlined in black in a row...just the impression the group of them makes graphically (which can change depending on how you decide to hang them). Hopefully I explained what I mean better idk...

>>2277448
the absolute madman

>>2276094
>>2276100
>bumping on a snail's pace board
>bumping at all

how about you fucking end your life

>>2277066
Honestly an amazing piece of art. Its a shame some people would rather look at scat on paper.

>>2277513
Que the realistic pencil drawing of an eye... which four pencils laid out on the finished piece and photographed.

>>2277208
Have you even tried Schoenberg?

>>2277857
Do you even Webern, bro?

>>2277795
>>2277513
this is what you guys do

most of you have no appreciation of art history, art aesthetics and modern art