Can someone who actually knows about art and isn't a manga

File: whys.jpg (40KB, 768x960px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 768x960px

I don't get it.

File: jghghg.jpg (78KB, 651x814px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 651x814px

People legitimately pay thousand for this.

File: idungetit.jpg (80KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 960x960px

What is it that I don't understand.

I tried asking my art teachers when I was studying because it confuses me and they just made rude sarcastic comments towards me and never answered my question.

>>2712770
>they just made rude sarcastic comments towards me and never answered my question.
I didn't know /ic/ taught classes irl

Because like a lot of modern art, it has faux depth. You can pull random thoughts out of your ass while talking about the art and seem like an intellectual. The reason her art sells is that she has name recognition behind her splashes while you are just a young starving artist.

>>2712777
This + money laundering.

>>2712770
think for yourself
no spoonfeeding, fag
And stop asking random questions during hour.

This actually aesthetically pleasing, unlike 99% of modern art

would hang on wall/10

File: this-is-real-people.jpg (53KB, 600x726px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 600x726px

>>2712759
i dunno, cause modern art is bullshit

>>2712777
This for the most part. Why spend thousands dollars for a Prada bag when you can buy a cheaper bag that looks similar?

If you look at her CV she has a masters degree in painting and tons of exhibition experience. Whether you think these things matter or not they stand to legitimize her work.

>>2712796
Hey Lara.

Plenty of people have masters degrees but don't even do art as a full time gig anymore.

What makes you different? What did you have to do to get to your level of success.

Imagen how good you must be at talking bullshit, to make this work.

>>2712796
Prada is original. This work is derivative.

>>2712802

This is probably it.

>Talk lots of shit really well
>I also have a masters degree

>>2712764
>>2712765
These are shit. The rest are pretty good. Not 12k good to me, but hey, I'm not rich

You know what's the funny thing?

If it is so easy to throw some paint on a canvas and get $12000 for it, why aren't all those people who complain they can do it themselves not doing it, earning loads of cash and rubbing it in our faces, instead of whining on /ic/ about it?
...Huh...

These threads are stupid. They overlook basic economics to pretend that art has an objective value based on one's own personal idea of "effort". No one cares about your effort. They care about whether or not they can use your piece as an investment to make more money for themselves. The value of a piece is determined by social factors and the rich creating the worth themselves in order to see a pay off into the piece they invest into. Like anything in life, worth and value has little to do with the piece itself, and everything to do with whether appropriate demand is created and if other people are willing to pay the price for it. Which is why professional artists online always tell newbies to stop selling their pieces for $10, because it ruins the overall value of art. This should be common sense, shouldn't it?

>>2714761
instead what is common sense is

''...but you should not expect any monetary payment since you are doing what you are loving therefore is not work''

In my opinion, abstract art is what you make of it. Either you get it or you don't. And that's okay. I understand both sides. To me, abstract art is less about clear storytelling and more about creating a mood. It's sort of like instrumental music. There's no lyrics to know what the story is, but you can pick up on emotions and such. I don't know why it's bought so much though. For me, making abstract art is just for personal expression and I don't expect anyone else to get it.

>knows about art and isn't a manga doodling teenager (99 percent of /ic/ are the latter)
I'M MATURE

Modern art exists basically for to money laundering
I thought this was common knowledge
Shame that plebs actually think that modern art has merit

>>2712794
weeew

She went out and established herself as a brand, you sat and home and jerked it to dickgirls.

>>2714828

That's the worst analogy I've heard this week tbqhwy. I respect your opinion but man...

WEW

>>2712794
modern art ended about 75 years ago so I guess you can stop worrying about it

>>2715044
not that anon but the analogy works. music is inherently nonrepresentational (barring sounds of hoof beats or the pitter patter of rain). so it's a perfect analog for abstract art- is establishes a mood/emotion through color rather than sound. lyrical music is obviously more narrative and thus shares goals with representational art, which is generally narrative as well.

File: William-Adolphe_Bouguereau_(1825-1905)_-_After_the_Bath_(1875).jpg (178KB, 800x1631px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 800x1631px

>>2712759
Think about this: Bouguereau was a highly productive painter who did over 800 works in his lifetime, which is a huge number considering the size and the craftsmanship of the paintings. He created a product that everyone wanted, no matter how rich you were, you'd have to wait years to purchase a Bouguereau because his next works were already bought before he even started them.

This is a terrible situation if you think in economical terms. As an art dealer you wish he could somehow produce way more paintings because the demand was ridiculous.

The impressionists and expressionists were the economical solution to this problem, because they could produce a lot more paintings/sculptures. Picasso produced more than 50.000 works, it's just natureal you want to hire journalists and critics to hype up the new generation of artists.

>>2712787
I agree, most of that is very pleasing to the eye, and >>2712762 actually has a pretty good composition. I don't get tired looking at it.

>>2715121
Man, your pedantry really showed him who was more educated!

>>2712759
Contrary to what most people on /ic/ believe, not all of art is about technical skill. There's also loads of other components like emotion, impact, originality, aesthetics, meaning.

And on top of that prices are not driven by logical reasons always, for instance the value of a piece of art will change dramatically depending on who painted it, so the name attached is important even though it doesn't actually change the piece of artwork. Also art is worth whatever someone decides to pay for it, so if one person buys a painting for 10k it sets a precedent for the value on the rest of that artist's work.

I'm sure there's other things at play like potential money laundering like some anons suggest (though I think this is rarer than you would think), and how good at marketing the person is.

The people dropping out 12k for a painting have enough money that they don't think about it as being a big purchase, it's like pocket change to them. Probably they like the art and their friends have it on their walls and maybe they went to a show and talked to the artist and liked her views on things.

Also lastly, monetary value=/=artistic value. Maybe that's why you are getting confused.

>>2715138
the irony about pedantry is that the using the word itself proves one is pedantic. two peas in a pod, you and I. if you consider any correction of the facts pedantry, that is.

>>2715144
this guy gets it

>>2715144
The thing about originality, though, is that it's worthless on its own, unlike the other values you listed. I just think that's worth clarifying.

>>2715125
>music is inherently nonrepresentationa
god.. no, just no
you probably think the musique concrete faggots actually created "abstract" sounds too

you also probably think colors carry no meanings or semiotics

>>2715125
I should have been more clear. I meant that it's a huge disservice to composers to compare their work, which really is more comparable to representational visual art imo, with the kind of emotional masturbation he was describing.

>>2715160
What does music represent? Do tell. Just because minor tones convey sadness in some cultures or red symbolizes passion in others doesn't mean that notes and colors are in themselves representational.

>>2712759
Because people are retarded and will pay a shitload of money for something if they're told it's expensive art. That's the only reason.

>>2715121
You think the 70s were 75 years ago? Guess I know why you didn't go into STEM.

>>2715144
>Contrary to what most people on /ic/ believe, not all of art is about technical skill. There's also loads of other components like emotion, impact, originality, aesthetics, meaning.
Bullshit. This is just what people in the art community tell themselves, and without technical skill, you can't really have the latter. It's purely a placebo effect.
A visual artist who can't draw or paint, is like a singer who can't sing. It doesn't matter what your intent is, if you have no way of expressing your intent.

>>2715153
Fuck off.

>>2715190
>What does music represent?
It's representative because there is more or less universal consensus in what emotions certain types of music bring out in people, and this transcends cultural barriers. And even if you dislike it, you can still tell what the intent of the music is in the vast majority of cases.

With conceptual or abstract art, there's no such thing. Different people will have different interpretations, and because these people are insanely stupid, they'll believe this reaction is a result of the art being good or that these interpretations are an inherent part of the artwork, rather than the audience projecting their own bullshit onto a blank slate. It's just a massive placebo effect.

>>2715234
But dude, didn't you know that Yoko On is the most important singer of this generation? :>)

>>2715234
>Bullshit. This is just what people in the art community tell themselves
You're really closeminded if you just think technique is the only component of art. Even if it were the only important thing, who says what is good technique or bad technique? Is all art done before the Renaissance shit because they hadn't yet discovered perspective? What about Eastern vs Western art, is one better than the other?

The fact that you're saying all people in the art community are wrong about art is pretty telling.

>A visual artist who can't draw or paint, is like a singer who can't sing. It doesn't matter what your intent is, if you have no way of expressing your intent.
Not exactly. I think a certain degree of skill is necessary but probably not as much as you think. Bob Dylan is a great musician even though his voice is whiny and not all that amazing by most standards. He makes up for it through his lyrics and songwriting, and the fact that his voice is pretty unique sounding which can make up for it a bit.

Good abstract art takes a lot of skill actually, but you dismiss it because it has a different goal and thus different skillsets than representational art.

>>2715249
;-;

>>2715268
>You're really closeminded if you just think technique is the only component of art
I didn't say that, you dumb cunt. I said it was an essential component if you want to create visual art, just like being able to sing is essential if you want to be a singer. It's the tool you use to create art. Without it, you're useless.
Also, the people who use terms like closeminded are the ones who tend to embody the term. Your idea of openmindedness is that you should accept everything, no matter what, which in itself is closeminded. Being able to think critically is not the same as being closeminded. It's the opposite.

>The fact that you're saying all people in the art community are wrong about art is pretty telling.
No, it's just a fact. The art community is a lot like the alternative medicine or new age community. It's full of shit, yet people are throwing money at it. Look, we're never going to see eye to eye, because you're part of the cult I'm criticizing. You believe in it, simply because you've been told to believe in it. It's a simpyl appeal to authority. All you need to confirm you bias is to feel some kind of emotion, because the criteria for art in the 20th century have become so esoteric and vague that it's become meaningless. They've ever done studies on this shit, where people's perception of something changes the moment they're told it's art. It's all placebo.

>Bob Dylan is a great musician even though his voice is whiny and not all that amazing by most standards
That's because Bob Dylan isn't exclusively a singer. He's a muscian. He composes, writes, sings and plays music.

>Good abstract art takes a lot of skill actually, but you dismiss it because it has a different goal and thus different skillsets than representational art.
No, I dismiss it because there are no criteria to judge it by. This puts it on the same level as religion, spirituality, alternative medicine or anything else that evokes a placebo effect.

File: Chu Teh-Chun6.jpg (211KB, 1000x764px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 1000x764px

>>2715300
>you dumb cunt
Wew no need for insults

>The art community is a lot like the alternative medicine or new age community. It's full of shit, yet people are throwing money at it.
The art community isn't one person. It's made up of tons of different artists, critics, fans etc and so of course there will be some shit and some good in it. It's not a homogenous entity though.

>you're part of the cult I'm criticizing
>Your idea of openmindedness is that you should accept everything, no matter what, which in itself is closeminded
I'm not a part of some cult and I'm not accepting of everything. I just like some abstract art, and I don't think it should be dismissed as a whole just because of a few hacks or frauds or whatever some people decide to spend on things. In fact I dislike the vast majority of abstract art and the art movements in the last century, but I am still thankful they happened and there are pieces of things or individual artists I can appreciate.

>I dismiss it because there are no criteria to judge it by
There's plenty of criteria you can choose, the same how you choose whatever criteria you want when analyzing realist paintings. In fact a lot of things like visual interest, composition, balance, brushwork, texture all are a part of both representational and non-representational art. Is pic related a bad painting simply because it isn't a landscape?

>>2715300
I really shouldn't insult people when you're trying to convince them of something. Even when you're right and you're presenting a valid argument (like now), the moment you call someone a dumb cunt is the moment they decide that you're wrong and there's a 0% chance that they'll rethink their existing beliefs. Granted, adults have a very hard time altering a belief once they've decided on it, but at least there's a small chance that they will when you're not hostile towards them.

>>2715313
*You really shouldn't. Don't know how I made that mistake.

>>2715268
What are the "different skillsets" that you're referring to? From my understanding, the only concrete skills that actually go into making a piece of abstract art good are ones that are shared with representational art.

>>2715313
We're on 4chan. You're not going to convince anyone of anything. It's like talking to cultists or the most hardcore religious zealots. You can provide them with as much evidence or as many good arguments as you want, but it's not going to change anything, so it's better to just use them as a target for venting.

>>2715309
>In fact a lot of things like visual interest, composition, balance, brushwork, texture all are a part of both representational and non-representational art.
Nope. Most of these are judged based on what you're trying to depict. Brushstrokes have no meaning if they don't represent anything. However, if you use them to represent something tangible, there are a million different ways to do it, and a million different ways to represent something. That's what makes it art. At most, abstract art can be decorative.

> Is pic related a bad painting simply because it isn't a landscape?
If you didn't know the context of that painting, how would you judge it? Would that be art if it wasn't painted by a famous painter, but by a 10 year old kid off his ADD meds? Does the imagined intent of the artist suddenly elevate it to a different level?

File: defeo-song-of-innocence.jpg (3MB, 3648x2736px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3648x2736px

>>2715320
>What are the "different skillsets" that you're referring to?
Mostly I guess painting without it trying to look like an object. Divorcing the application from showing reality to showing an abstract design is remarkably difficult. Have you ever tried to make abstract art? It's really tough and might give a new appreciation to the artists that excel at it.

Otherwise there's things that have to do with paint application that are different (ie drip painting) or coming up with new ways to approach and invent shapes or textures that haven't been done before, and working in a largely flattened 2d space instead of representing an image in a false 3d space. Something like colour field painting is a bit different, I imagine it would need you to rely more on intuition than anything else but I'm not entirely sure.

>>2715323
>At most, abstract art can be decorative.
And where do you draw the line between decoration and art? A lot of crafts like stained glass or furniture design sits somewhere between the two maybe. What about patterns? I think brushwork even if it doesn't represent anything specifically (such as the side of a nose) can still have a quality to it that it imparts to the viewer. There is a vast difference between the brushstrokes made between an amateur and a pro. Whether a brush is hesitant or bold, controlled or uncontrolled, these things are obvious. Chinese ink paintings show this really well I think.

>represent something tangible, there are a million different ways to do it, and a million different ways to represent something. That's what makes it art
Art is practically impossible to clearly define. I would not want to say that making it look like something makes it art.

>If you didn't know the context of that painting, how would you judge it?
I don't know the context of it. I just stumbled across his work once by accident and I liked it. I have no idea what he intended or whether he is famous, and to me that is unimportant.

>>2712777
contemporary*

>>2712759
With the successful rebellion of Dadaism against the art establishment and the subsequent rapid-fire anti-technical art movements that lasted from like 1890 to 1970, technical expertise no longer became a requirement for private or commission art to become popular.

Perceived intellectual or emotional depth can skyrocket art pieces into the limelight.

Or you could subscribe to the theory that it's all just money laundering.

>>2715240
Conveying a general tone of happiness or sadness is not the same thing as being representational.
Regardless, you yourself seem to believe that both notes and color have the ability to express something, so how is it that you still hold to the "abstract art is bullshit" meme? What is the pivotal distinction between digesting Beethoven and digesting Delaunay or Gorky?

>>2715300
>That's because Bob Dylan isn't exclusively a singer. He's a muscian. He composes, writes, sings and plays music.
He's an artist, just in music rather than visual art. An artist has different roles. Who is just a singer, and not a musician? Some back up singer for Britney Spears? And what is the visual art equivalent? A painter who has no say in the style or form of their art? Someone who designs labels for supermarket products?

What is there point of discussing people like this when we could be discussing art and artists?

Bob Dylan is an artist who makes up for his shitty voice with good lyrics and raw emotion. Some people like paintings that lack finesse yet display raw emotion. There are many ways to make good art, most require a basic handling of technical considerations but beyond that it's a balance of different elements that speak to an audience.

>>2715323
>Brushstrokes have no meaning if they don't represent anything.
lolwut

>>2712759

I really like this piece, it has flat colors in the foreground, but then you have 3D popping out of them into background...kinda, because you can fight the illusion and try perceiving whole thing as flat.

I don't know about you guys, but colors seem dancing for me in that painting in some sort of elaborate composition. It's hard to talk about it, but I like it. It has this subtlety mixed with kitsch aesthetics that I dig.

>>2715358
>Art is practically impossible to clearly define. I would not want to say that making it look like something makes it art.
The problem is, you people don't even try. You're perfectly happy trying to make the definition as vague as humanly possible, so that nothing you say can ever be wrong. If everything is art, nothing is art.

>There is a vast difference between the brushstrokes made between an amateur and a pro. Whether a brush is hesitant or bold, controlled or uncontrolled, these things are obvious.
Which is a retarded argument, because most abstract artists are amateurs. They can't paint. They haven't spent thousands of hours perfecting their craft, learning techniques and working with a deliberate goal in mind.

Why are you so keen to buy into this bullshit, anyway? Why are you incapable of questioning something that has no objective, measurable component? I mean, most things in life that are subjective also have an objective side. You can judge parts of it, even if there is a more emotional or vague side that's more different to comprehend. But they have that objective side. You can judge the performance of an actor, a singer, a musician, a movie director and a figurative painter one many levels. But conceptual/abstract artists are just full of shit.
It really just boils down to people who are easily fooled and experience a placebo effect, or pseudo-intellectuals who want to look sophisticated.

>>2715462
>He's an artist, just in music rather than visual art. An artist has different roles. Who is just a singer, and not a musician? Some back up singer for Britney Spears? And what is the visual art equivalent? A painter who has no say in the style or form of their art? Someone who designs labels for supermarket products?
This idiocy really shows the whole mindset of you idiots. I say a singer should be able to sing. Simple enough. Then you idiots start moving the goalpost, talking about how they're musicians, and are good at writing song or playing instruments, or whatever. I specifically pointed out singer, because it's incredibly self-evident to any sane person that a singer should be able to sing if they want express themselves through song. I'm not talking about their ability to write music, to produce music or to play an instrument.

>raw emotion.
You cunts and your idiotic, meaningless buzzwords.

>>2715512
>If everything is art, nothing is art.
I really don't care if something is or isn't labelled art to be honest. I just focus on what is good or bad art, but what constitutes that is personal to me since I have my own criteria, as does every single person on the planet. I'd also rather err on the side of accepting too much than dismissing too much.

>They can't paint. They haven't spent thousands of hours perfecting their craft, learning techniques and working with a deliberate goal in mind.
Uhm, what? Yes there have been plenty of abstract artists who went through years of school and have painted fulltime for decades with clear goals.

>Why are you incapable of questioning something that has no objective, measurable component?
Why are you incapable of looking at something that is immeasurable? Art by definition isn't science. You don't use a list and tally up "this painting scores 68 out of 100".

>You can judge the performance of an actor, a singer, a musician, a movie director and a figurative painter one many levels. But conceptual/abstract artists are just full of shit.
Some are full of shit, some aren't. You can judge them too based on whatever criteria you want and many of the same criteria as representational artists.

>Why are you so keen to buy into this bullshit, anyway?
I'm not keen, in fact I argued for years how the 20thC was the death of art and how the art world was crazy and I sounded a lot like you. I've since changed my mind though and also realized that art hasn't died but rather has continued to evolve. I also like the effects that abstract art has had on the figurative world. You could never have someone like Alex Kanevsky without having gone through all the stuff you yell at. Anyways, even if I support abstract as an idea doesn't mean I subscribe to it as the ultimate art or anything. I have 50 or 60k paintings and drawings saved to my computer but only a tiny handful are abstract.

>>2715520
>You cunts and your idiotic, meaningless buzzwords.
How is "raw emotion" a meaningless buzz word? It basically means the intent of the artist comes across very clearly even if the technique used is subpar or rough around the edges. It's not something heavily refined but still successful. It's like how many musicians enjoy listening to live recordings over studio recorded versions, even though the sound quality is worse, they may make mistakes, there is audience noise, etc.

Compare Rubens' and Goya's paintings of Saturn Devouring His Son. Two painters doing the same subject matter. Rubens is clearly much higher on a technical level if you were to use a checklist and analyze it on that sense. Goya's version has a rawness to it and is 10x more powerful and successful as a painting.

>>2712759
because they rationalize themselves into believing it's valuable art. they like to have cock measuring contests over who has the most expensive shit.

>>2715359
Nobody on 4chan seems to grasp the difference between modern and contemporary. Correcting them is a pointless gesture.

>>2715144
Ok but lara merrett isn't even aesthetically or emotionally pleasing
I'm totally okay with "abstract" modern art so long as it's nice to look at or it causes feelings in me to arise. But most modern artists are 20-40 year old basic bitches from the suburbs who've never really gone through anything bad in their entire life and can't make art for shit. Investors just waste money on garbage like this

>>2715554
>Why are you incapable of looking at something that is immeasurable?
Because nothing is immeasurable. You need to have a core of something to judge it.

>I'm not keen, in fact I argued for years how the 20thC was the death of art and how the art world was crazy and I sounded a lot like you
It is crazy. Art was basically turned into a political movement in the 20th century.

>>2715557
> It basically means the intent of the artist comes across very clearly even if the technique used is subpar or rough around the edges.
No, it's an empty buzzword. What a lot of ignorant people describe as raw emotion is often just a learned technique. There are plenty of singers who can belch out a song on stage that people will feel is full of "raw emotion", yet the artist can feel uninspired or tired and simply be going through his routine.
Also, Bob Dylan is just about the last person who can be described as having raw emotion, considering his dispassionate, monotone approach to music. And I actually like his music, and have seen him perform.

>Compare Rubens' and Goya's paintings of Saturn Devouring His Son.
I didn't say that technical skill is the only criteria by which you can judge art, but it is something you need to be able to create art. There are plenty of criteria you can judge art by, and some that are more esoteric, but you need something

File: CecilyBrown.jpg (2MB, 1416x1362px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1416x1362px

>>2715613
>There are plenty of criteria you can judge art by, and some that are more esoteric, but you need something
Okay so judge abstract art by how visually interesting it is. I really like Cecily Brown, maybe she can help you understand a bit since some of her work is sort of in between, like it is abstract but has some limbs or figures in it when you start to look closely. Pic related is pure abstract but I really like the colours, brushwork, and variety in it.

File: CecilyBrown2.jpg (337KB, 1400x1153px) Image search: [Google]

337KB, 1400x1153px

>>2715622

File: CecilyBrown3.jpg (1MB, 3273x2532px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3273x2532px

>>2715623
This one is composed of figures and limbs. Also just to let you know since you complained these people never learned to draw, she has 8+ years of art school and then several decades of working professionally as an artist with many shows, and also worked at an animation studio at one point.

>>2715144
>Contrary to what most people on /ic/ believe, not all of art is about technical skill

I fully agree and this argument makes even more sense if you apply it to music. Most of the confusion and anger comes from the elitist art critics and dealers standpoint that there is a technical genius behind a Pollock, Twombly or Picasso. I wish we could just all agree that it is fine and not the point that anyone could do it. Instead of embracing the playfullness and simplicity of contemporary art, it is trying to be something that it isn't by using vague terminology and pseudoscience. It's taking itself way too seriously which is why people find it ridiculous.

>>2715623
Puce Moment (1997)
Puce Moment is a large-scale amalgam of multiple, sprawled human bodies depicted in an intense, orgiastic state. Typical of Brown's early work, this one is crowded with partially abstract fragments of genitals, thighs, arms, breasts, and heads with gaping mouths, all in lurid pinks and reds. In works such as this one, sexuality is rendered as grotesque; what might otherwise be construed as sensual because of the rich application of paint and glossy varnish becomes visceral and repugnant.

Brown's early repertoire comments on and challenges the traditional male gaze in the depiction of the nude female form. According to feminist theory, traditionally, representations of the nude female form provided an image of woman to be possessed by the male viewer via the gaze. In pictures such as Puce Moment, male and female bodies alike are grotesque mounds of flesh, parts assembled in a confusing hodgepodge in which male and female are indistinguishable from one another and sex is repugnant. In such a context, the gaze itself becomes repulsive and the possibility of possession is thwarted.
Oil on canvas - Saatchi Gallery

>>2715647
Yes people will write all sorts of pseudointellectual crap about abstract art, but they write it about representational art too. I never read any of that stuff, just judge the painting on it's own merits and what you get out of it, not what some art dealer is trying to tell you so they can get you to spend more on it.

>>2715652
exactly. if it requires a multi page explanation for the basic feeling to be conveyed, then is it really effective in conveying emotion? i fucking hate abstract art. it's just like everyting else now:celebrity bullshit. It's just about who's the most popular and can peddle their shit for the most. fuck that. Fuck this style for killing decades of productivity. abstract is like the dark ages of modern art production

>>2715520
>>2715512
So much butthurt, you can't even have a normal discussion without throwing around insults like a child. We get it, you don't like abstract art and you can't elucidate why other than to call your opponent a cunt.
>>2715554
Wasting your time, this is neither the board nor the individual for a thoughtful discussion of art and aesthetics.

File: noland-14B766E07500F70D55F.jpg (448KB, 2451x2441px) Image search: [Google]

448KB, 2451x2441px

>>2715512
>>If everything is art, nothing is art.
So there is no one objective definition for it. If we polled a shit-fuck-load of people and came to a consensus we could skirt the whole subjective quagmire. But according to that Abstraction movements are some valid art-forms.

>>2715562
Or it fits a particular aesthetic and would look great in their house. Let's face it, having a nice big representation of $subject is kind of lame. Besides, it doesn't match the chesterfield.

>bullshit. It's just about who's the most popular and can peddle their shit for the most. fuck that. Fuck this style for killing decades of productivity. abstract is like the
How horribly ironic considering the amount of abstraction movements the modern period generated.

>>2715571
Thats a matter of subject. These basic bitchhes can work their mediums but are usually shit artists. C'est bon

>Can someone who actually knows about art and isn't a manga doodling teenager (99 percent of /ic/ are the latter)

Getting mad and throwing a fit like an autist because someone draws and gets payed for something you don't like is pretty damn childish.

>>2712759
/biz/ here.

>I could make something similar for about $300 dollars in a couple of hours and nobody would even pay me more than what I spent making it.

That's because you put zero effort into convincing someone that it was worth more than 300$

it's like diet food. most of it has the same nutritional value as regular food, but it costs more and tastes worse.

>it costs more and tastes worse.

this principle is how you sell people things. Consumers have this need to feel like they're getting what they paid for. If they don't have that satisfaction they fall into an existential despair.

To prevent this feeling of being cheated, we convince ourselves constantly that we got what we paid for, when it really isn't true most of the time.

>this tastes awful. it must be good for me, r-right?

>I paid a lot for this. it must really be art. it has to.

Because we're tradesmen we value skill,

>more skill = more value

but most consumers don't know/care about skill. They care about financial value, convince them it's worth the price, and they'll buy.

>more money = more value

Rich consumers are a whole different field.

>more expensive = more bragging rights

>"I spent so much money on garbage. see how wealthy I am."
>"it's awful, but i think it's great. look at me I'm so deep and sophisticated."

File: Alessandro_Allori_-_Susanna_and_The_Elders_-_WGA00186.jpg (16KB, 280x261px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 280x261px

reading this whole thread has made me praise god that I don't have to be a professional artist. tech work has its own problems but thank god it's not anything like this.

>>2715927
>foreshortened puppets in some cosmic ballet of commercialized aesthetics

>>2715927
You are telling me that if I get the right commercial skills I can sell my crap like gold?

Time to go outside and level up charisma.

>>2715990
>You are telling me that if I get the right commercial skills I can sell my crap like gold?
Within reason, but yes. That's how guys like Noah Bradley are more successful than people with 10x his skills, and that's just within the world of illustration which is more skills-based than the world of fine art.

>>2712759
Jewish money laundering scheme. Seriously.

I'm still trying to figure out how there are so many people who genuinely like Cecily Brown's work: https://www.instagram.com/dellyrose/

File: Cecily Brown4.jpg (284KB, 1500x1430px) Image search: [Google]

284KB, 1500x1430px

>>2716494
She's a bit inconsistent, but some of her work is pretty nice

>>2712759
Because the people who have the kind of money to throw away on art, aren't buying the art. They're buying something special. They're buying a "merrett". Something none of their other rich friends will have. And you're probably thinking "Yeah but it's just a fuckin random splash of paint on a canvas", yes, it is. But nobody is going to give a fuck about your $300 painting. Nobody is going to show off your piece of shit nobody zilch painting at their london flat. They're going to show their lara merrett piece. YES it's retarded human behavior but of all retarded human behaviors why does this one throw you for a loop? How about the fact that countries wage war on each other coz "u dont agre wit me"

File: WilliamMerrittChase.jpg (251KB, 824x1108px) Image search: [Google]

251KB, 824x1108px

>>2716508
>They're buying a "merrett"
Sometimes they buy a Merritt, pic related

>>2716494
You can make it part of your identity and a talking point about yourself. In the real world no one will question why you like ugly paintings, in fact - it will make you more interesting and signals high status and education.

File: autumn-rhythm.jpg (318KB, 1100x549px) Image search: [Google]

318KB, 1100x549px

>you just don't get it

File: mural.jpg (430KB, 1600x646px)

430KB, 1600x646px

>>2716539
There's nothing to get with Pollock. You like it or you don't. The only thing people who criticize his work for failing to communicate some 2deep4u message don't get is that there is nothing to get.

>>2716220
>>>/pol/

File: xcfgvhbjn.jpg (467KB, 1200x1202px) Image search: [Google]

467KB, 1200x1202px

>>2716494
Most of her shit doesn't do much for me but there are a few pieces that I think are really successful

File: d0ebb770672ab4ac230b77aeb12d27bb.jpg (159KB, 747x1024px)

159KB, 747x1024px

>>2717083

>>2717083
>>2717084
These are not abstract, they are figurative. They depict the figure loosely

>>2717475
They sitting sort of in between. I guess they're technically figurative, but they're quite abstract too.

>>2717475
Cecily prefers the term "figural", but they are certainly quasi-abstract.

>>2717475
They're both. What they are not is non-representational

>>2712759
they say the reason Picasso became so popular is because his wife was good at business management. on top of this, jackson pollock was a proficient drawer before he splashed paint on the ground - much, actually, as Picasso was.

stepping back to the artistic wank that is the ~ elite art world~ i would suggest catching up on some popular art reviewers who are a part of that world. find one really thorough one on Lara's work to start with from someone with a big name.

generally, that'd give you a better idea of the marketing and big naming that works around this arts economic shit.

>>2717891
Picasso was a great draftsman but Pollock couldn't draw for shit. I say that as someone who like both of their work.