Why do modern artists use use the "art is subjective"

>>2772538
Just troll them with your ability to draw anime tiddy in 5-point perspective and accurately render fluids running over various surfaces. Art students are the dumbest motherfuckers on the planet after musicians and easily shitter shattered by anyone more technically skilled than them. Bonus points if you make more than them doing it and don't have student loans. Hard mode: have complete creative control.

File: I_have_three_months_to_live_and_you_bring_me_here.jpg (53KB, 648x652px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 648x652px

Modern art is a money laundering meme

Y'all some normal motherfuckers just like everyone else.
Opinions and shit.

>>2772559
This.

File: Drawing a blank.jpg (16KB, 498x295px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 498x295px

>>2772538
Modern art is art politics.
It doesn't matter how good your artwork is, all that matters is your degree, how much money you have, who you know and how you market it.

Modern art is for people who don't like art.

>>2772746
ahahahahahaha.

>wow look at this white canvas so majestic!

>>2772538
these people are not artists, they are salesmen and women.

>>2772749
>salesmen and women

lol, this is good

>>2772749
How can you be an artist and be this stiff?
You can't tell anybody what is and what isn't art.
You can but you sound like a jackass.

>>2772538
"Modern art" was an art movement created by the Jews to pacify and dumb down the masses, artists in particular were the targets. this watering down was deliberately done to destroy art by turning it into a mindless business venture...

File: Cool-Theory.jpg (12KB, 225x224px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 225x224px

>>2772776

>>2772774
the only jackasses here are the people that actually think this is art. This is not art. This shit is not art in anyway.

>>2772796
theory?

>>2772800
Sorry, astonishing reality professor. You really redpilled me.

>>2772802
you are welcome.

File: 1471243294793.jpg (39KB, 663x579px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 663x579px

>>2772538
>it's another 'I don't understand art and cannot comprehend critically thinking about art' thread

>>2772817
Tell me why you can't make one of these artworks right now in 3 hours ?
What is preventing you from making a work of modern art today and becoming famous in the high brow art scene.

There is nothing to these kind of pieces that your average Joe can't do. It's quite literally, "idea guy art" because that's all it is. An idea communicated with little skill.

File: 1454521803713.gif (1MB, 441x315px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 441x315px

>>2772538
Because society is that way now, OP. I don't know or care why, but these days, you're encouraged to be fat, unhealthy, mutilate yourself, whatever. It's not just art. You've got people legitimately getting hired on their gender, political views and ethnicity rather than their skills and work ethic. And it's getting worse.

We've gone past the point where failure was accepted, now it's encouraged. I've lost all hope for the world, really. It's only going to get worse.

>>2772538
well look at it like this
we live in a world where it doesnt matter what you can do, it only matters who you are
and thats modern art, it doesnt matter if you have 0 skills if you are an artist what you make is art, if you are an artist your dinner leftovers are art because you are an artist and you made that.
Its very orwellian

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

392KB, 1536x2048px

>>2772821
I could make them, but I didn't come up with the design or ideation to make them as they are and then put them into a gallery. It's not as if there is no though put into them. I think you don't understand that craftsmanship is only an aspect of art, and art does not need craftsmanship to be art. Modern art explored this a lot, and contemporary art has been influenced by that exploration into the balance of idea and craftsmanship. While the works in the OP certainly took craftsmanship to make, in terms of their design, layout, how the paint was applied, how the pieces were arranged, etc. A lot of contemporary art exists in order to put the question to an audience about craftsmanship as it relates to art- taking it to an extreme balance sometimes (ie ready-mades).
Shifting the balance of craftsmanship is certainly not a new concept as pic related shows.

>>2772827
You call it shifting the balance of craftsmanship, I call it being bad at what you do and making pseudo-intellectual excuses for it.

Either way, the pieces themselves, without context, are universally garbage. A pile of garbage piled up in a funny way is still a pile of garbage.

>>2772827
please explain to me what the point is then in going into one of these museums and looking at the art, what will one of these pintings like in the op tell you?
its just the equivalent of just a prank bro you came in here and thought we put work and a message into our art
if modern art is not meant to be watched or enjoyed then whats the point of an exhibition?

File: wiley-installation-view-michael-jackson-brooklyn-museum-12.jpg (69KB, 404x465px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 404x465px

>>2772829
Well then you're fundamentally and intentionally closing yourself off from understanding and appreciating the questions raised by those concepts. Why does art have to viewed without context? What makes art garbage? Is thinking of certain art pieces as garbage entirely subjective?
I think it's kind of a waste to just say, "no it's garbage, I don't want to think about it any farther than that" when you could explore these things
Another thing related to craftsmanship is the idea of the studio, which is particularly related to this picture. Where the artist doesn't even paint there own works and simply comes up with the concept. Or perhaps paints only certain aspects of it, yet the painting is still considered theirs. This practice has been going on for much of the history of western art.

>>2772840
i think that if you could remove every single thing in that rom and it would have the same effect ten its garbage

File: James-Turrell-Las-Vegas.jpg (101KB, 2000x1334px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 2000x1334px

>>2772833
Perhaps that might be a point that an artist explores in their works, that it can hold the same inherent value both when viewed in person or viewed digitally. However from my experience with a lot of modern-contemporary art pieces, you do get a different feeling when you actually experience the work in person since you are viewing the works as their were made - in scale, in place, in the correct color etc. This is particularly relevant to something like a rothko, where when you actually look at it, you get the feeling as though you are much closer to it , like it is invading your space, a sort of ominous world of simple shapes and colors. Another good example would be anything by James Turrell, where the point of the shows are that you experience the environment that he has created with his art.
Why does art have to be enjoyed? Does it have to be watched? What are the limits to defining "watched"? Is art 'better' if it is enjoyable?
As far as the works in the OP, seeing them in full scale, the correct color, and the heights that they are placed are experiences that one could only get at the museum. I haven't been there, so i cant testify to how exactly you might feel or what you might interpret from that show though

>>2772848
Well usually with art galleries, that certainly isn't the case. Even the presence of a blank canvas changes the meaning and feeling of the gallery room. And wouldn't it be interesting if an artist explored art that simply did not matter if it existed or not, some sort of existing non-existing thing that makes no difference on anything. That would be a fascinating show in my opinion.
You're still being so close minded, and I honestly think that you are just missing out. Whats the point in just dismissing something instead of exploring it? It's not like you'll lose anything if you try to understand, read, learn about art or even go to contemporary art galleries

>>2772855
>>2772853
>>2772840

Not a single thing you mentioned has anything to do with art. It's philosophy and you interpreting things a certain way. You can call that art all you want, but any artist worth his salt will tell you you're retarded and a hack.

>>2772856
Are art and philosophy mutually exclusive? isn't how a person interprets art an aspect of the artwork and related to the artists intentions? Is art really only meant to be viewed instead of experienced or interpreted?
>any artist worth his salt will tell you you're retarded and a hack
Like who? Any of the artists that I've discussed/posted? Those guys are pretty well known and respected in the artist community. Turrell said, "my desire is to set up a situation to which I take you and let you see. It becomes your experience" and Wiley said, "Almost as though the painting itself becomes the embodiment of a type of struggle for visibility, and this might be considered the main subject of the painting".

>>2772855
>wouldn't it be interesting if an artist explored art that simply did not matter if it existed or not
no, not at all
if something could very well not exist at all and itwould make no difference then im pretty sure it doesnt belong in an exhibition
and the same goes by anything that could be eplaced by a blank canvas, an empty pot is not dinner and a painting thats not there isnt art

>>2772559
>>2772746
>Talk about art with normies age <25
>Say you don't like modern art when prompted to give an opinion
>"OMG are you really saying you don't like Warhol"
>Explain how contemporary art thrives on placing a burden on the viewer, effectively exonerating the artist from any degree of competence and creating a catch-22 scenario where if you don't understand it you're the one who failed.
>Hipster guy saltily remarks that he actually loves contemporary artshit and "art's been portraying the outside for centuries, now it's time to portray the inside" and that he feels things when he looks at modern art
>People claiming they feel things when they see Pollocks
>People claiming they feel things when they see Rothkos
>People claiming they feel things when they see Miròs

I never felt so alienated

ITT: "I don't get it so it must be shit."

>>2772538
What tends to bother me about modern art is how it lacks development. Immediately you are able to make a piece with the same technical skill that could be seen in a modern art gallery. It then breaks the notion that any modern artist could be better than each other because your art isn't about your work its about your ideas which can be measured. On somewhat of the same tangent, modern art does not achieve the same levels of development in a person, through traditional art you learn patience, you develop a critical eye to see details that were not apparent to you before so you grow with your art. Besides that its just kind of a jealousy thing that modern art can get so much attention and appraisal while other artists work so hard for years to get near the same recognition.

>>2773026
*can't be measured

>>2773023
>ITT: "I don't get it so it must be shit."
Ladies and Gentlemen, contemporary art!

File: children-baby-toddler-write-writing-writer-rde3666_low.jpg (33KB, 400x438px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 400x438px

>>2772827
>art does not need craftsmanship to be art.
>writing does not need alphabet to be writing

>>2773045
Poster of >>2773010
You can't imagine the eye rolls I got when I said art is a craft. It was like I said the most stupid thing imaginable.

Some girl said "whatever" like "I'm done listening to this moron" while I talked about art history just because I was slamming contemporary art

>>2773048
I blame ''art classes'' every kid receives in kindergarten

they are, subconsciously, taught writing is a serious business, with rules and such, while art is playing with colors to ''express yourself and put emotion on paper'', free of any constructive rules

>>2772799
Prove that it isn't art.
You can't because it's just your opinion.
That's why art is cool, cause I can call a plastic cup art and you really can't do shit.

File: downs-baby.jpg (8KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 300x300px

>>2773077
>Contemporary art stands on the same grounds as religion

>>2773077
There is no such thing as art. Anything in the world can be classified as art therefore art is meaningless just like that shit stain on canvas you're all praising

File: artornot.jpg (72KB, 509x763px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 509x763px

>>2773077
definition of art
the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.
we already know there is no beauty in this, now i will give you the benefit of the dobut because it is possible that there is emotional power in this i can not see
so explain to me what emotions you experience while looking at this painting by andy warhol

>>2773135
it makes me a little hungry if I think really hard about it

>>2773139
hunger isnt an emotion but i did skip breakfast

>>2773135
>bottom ellipse isn't even well drawn
is contempt an emotion

>>2773145
we already established modern art isnt about skill so no

>>2772538
>Are they right?
No, they are all extreme leftists. This is why they are so retarded.

File: 1_billion_dolar_artwork.png (69KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 1000x1000px

you people are all stupid
look what I created in a tedious process of 20 years. I had to watermark it because I know you faggots would steal it. I actually have taken part in multiple art galleries and presented my artwork. No wonder you plebs are all jealous. I browse this board 8 hours a day and have never seen something even close to my level off skill.

btw: pic related sold for over a billion, i am rich as fuck and could buy your mom (not that I would need to, she would come for free if i would allow it, but all my other whores are blocking the area)

>>2773135
I didn't know it was possible but you're more pretentious most modern art could ever be.

>>2773172
>its not art its pretentious
>its art you are pretentious
contrarians

>>2773176
I think there's a middle ground somewhere.

>>2773177
there will never be a middle ground because there will always be art that fails to be art and not art that manages to be art
thats why we ignore the definition until shit gets so blatant we can use it

>>2773178
Yeah I'm good with ignoring the definition.
Sounds good.

>>2773183
nono, we ignore it until now
its useful now

>>2773170
I approve this message... I bought this Pic with no Watermark for 1 billion dollars

meme thread

>>2773026
Good art says and is more about you and your values than about artist himself.
Art ought to be seen and viewed, but if all you get from it is "aww shiet dis guy is soo skilled I feel inferior"
than what is the point of creating anything since all classical artist already gave us the
"aww shiet dis guy is soo skilled I feel inferior" feeling?

"Fuck you classical artist! I can mass produce shit and people will hang it on the wall!", has pretty good emotional power in it. In other word, turning someone's belief upside down is quality statement.

>>2773178
Nothing fails to be art, it just fails to be good and meaningful art. Just like you can't fail to be human, but you can be shitty human

File: SOPHIST.jpg (486KB, 1204x718px) Image search: [Google]

486KB, 1204x718px

Is this art?

>>2772538
>>2772746

Whenever I see this kind of stuff I don't even react negatively. I am like 'yeah thats cool/smart/hilarious' for a few seconds and move on.
I just don't get all the pretentious shit around all of it. The pieces are way too big and the rooms way too empty, how these type of shows can entertain anyone for longer than 10 seconds is beyond me.

>>2773010
It resonates with their own narcissism. The purpose of contemporary art is having those kind of discussions - it gives a lot of opportunity to make yourself seem more interesting.

>>2773204
>feels inferior instead of inspired
the weak should fear the strong.

All modern art is, is putting a complicated reason behind why you made a very simple easy as shit drawing that just seems to click and make sense about what that easy as shit thing is about

So if you want to make millions of dollars with modern art. Get a philosophy degree. Make stick figures and say they are akin to old cave paintings and explain this really deep philosophical significance behind what the stick figure drawing is doing

And then they'll feel like the intention behind that stick figure is on a level that you couldn't reach even with 4 years of art school and the strokes behind those intentions will be seen as brilliant and genius and you will revolutionize the art industry

Etc etc

>>2773010
The point is literally 100% so retards like this can feel like they understand something other people don't

>>2772538
There are two aspects of art, technical and creative (objective and subjective).

In classical art, both aspects are taken into account.
In modern art, people believe that the former limits the latter, chaining it to this world's rules and perceptions of how art "should be done."

In classical art, the value is backed by the technique. In modern art, you have to believe it has it, no one can prove whether it has or hasn't. It's very much like money made of solid gold and paper money.

The problem with modern art is that it has crossed the line. In the past, people used it to convey their ideas and emotions (Dalí, Picasso etc.), because they were still under the influence of classical art. Nowadays, people only know modern art and thus have a very distorted perception of its purpose, which results in a lot of people doing their art randomly without any deeper meaning - land art, installations, performance art, it all usually starts with a dumb sentence like
>"How about we do something no one has done yet?"
>"You know what the folks in the gallery might like?"
>"How about I do this... yea, that looks original."

File: NotADeadBird.jpg (126KB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 1280x853px

I'll just leave this video here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN9iJCZ5Il8

>>2773212
Wow, this must be a rare Basquiat.

>>2773045

>writing does not need alphabet to be writing

Actually this is true. Chinese doesn't use alphabet and they have very complex and long tradition of writing.

So maybe you are simply uninformed and should consider that your first statement also could hold true?

>>2772541
fpbp

>>2773786
He meant any method of communicating speech on paper. If you do not use sentences you do not have a story.
Technique is the way you communicate art on a medium. If you do not have the necessary skills to communicate your art then you do not have a piece of art.

Art is not an idea. Art is the execution of an idea and to say that modern art does the best job at expressing an abstract concept is misguided.

If this weren't the case then consumers would be buying modern art in droves and we would have artists getting rich on simple lines on a canvas.
Modern art is not what the consumer wants, modern art is what the untalented university professors do to try and prove to the world that they deserve the positions they hold.

It is not a reflection of the feelings of humanity, but a forced style created by the superficiality of the modern upperclass artists residing in ivory towers.
It is a reflection of the corruption of the modern era where those at the top are not always best suited for their jobs and a society where the best gets sent to the bottom for challenging the establishment.

It is an art corruption and deceit. A vulgar art that should be erased from history.

File: stock-vector--chinese-vector-characters-series-v-22595527.jpg (33KB, 450x205px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 450x205px

>>2773786
>. Chinese doesn't use alphabet

reminder this is the kind of ppl who defend abstract ''art''

>>2773895
>An alphabet is a standard set of letters (basic written symbols or graphemes) that is used to write one or more languages based on the general principle that the letters represent phonemes (basic significant sounds) of the spoken language. This is in contrast to other types of writing systems, such as syllabaries (in which each character represents a syllable) and logographies (in which each character represents a word, morpheme, or semantic unit).

kys

File: cri147925-w600@2x[1].jpg (49KB, 500x287px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 500x287px

the fact that you made this thread and are talking about what is art means they are winning

>>2773899
so they have a set of symbols which is not named alphabet, but something else, based on different units of measure (basic sounds/ syllables/ word, morpheme or semantic units). Who fucking cares? You are grasping at straws.

The idea is that a system is set in place, where you need to learn it's fundamentals to use it. Painting without knowing jack shit about construction, perspective, or whatever is illiterate painting.

but here, let me rephrase myself to be more inclusive, for, oh, I have offended the chinese ppl for not thinking of them
>writing does not need alphabet, syllabaries or logographies to be writing

File: 1481398555483.jpg (651KB, 1263x1914px) Image search: [Google]

651KB, 1263x1914px

The avant garde has been completely absorbed into contemporary society, so trying to create conceptual art with the intention of breaking the rules is completely delusional. I feel like it is necessary for a revolution in art, as I believe that institutions have completely drained the fever of modern art, and possibly it is time to return to tradition, thus breaking the facade of contemporary idealism. This thread itself just proves that art isn't dead, as any discussion on the meaning of art proves that it still exists, or it is there for us to take.

It just seems strange for us to make tradition out of contemporary art. It was created in order to break tradition, and now it has developed into a necessity and a complete joke. We need a michelangelo or cezanne of the modern age. Fuck contemporary art and its overused irony. We seriously need a revolution.

>>2773931
>something else, based on different units of measure (basic sounds/ syllables/ word, morpheme or semantic units)
How the fuck do you think Chinese works?

>>2773981
>cezanne
I'm about 90% sure that everyone in this thread complaining about modern art would say that Cezanne is just bad at painting

>>2774011
I knew I made a mistake writing cezanne, but my idea still stands. I'm also positive that a majority of people complaining about modern art have vary basic opinions on art history anyways. They have all the wrong ideas about it, avoiding the real issues of contemporary art.

>>2773135
Wasn't Warhol's whole shtick about making a statement on the commercialization of art?
He factory made "art" using other peoples labor to draw attention to other people doing it.

File: 1444987049242.jpg (31KB, 436x436px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 436x436px

>>2772746

I'm surprised this isn't posted more often.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tMtV5p0s4E

>>2774111
I used to watch this over and over in school and think "yeah man fuck them!" Now I watch it and it's so....cringey... it seems so insecure and odd, especially coming from a painter as skilled as Burdick.

Why do we treat art this way? Do we make these kinds of huge divides for different genres of music? There's 8 billion people on this fucking planet. More than enough audience for every imaginable goddamn niche of art you want to make- even if you demanded there be no overlap.

I always think of the opening line to The Story of Art by Ernst Gombrich- "There is no such thing as art. There are only artists."

File: feels-good-man.jpg (22KB, 340x370px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 340x370px

>>2772827
Readymade art is the only really academic kind of art that I think anyone here can readily understand, because we see it all over the internet since it works just like meme shitposting

On the internet you can very quickly inflate the comedic and cultural value of almost any snippet of content just be publishing it in a different context for an audience that is in on the joke.

Pepe the frog is a very good example of this.

The difference is that unlike the art world, netizens don't call the people who produce content in this way "artists", and don't create cult of personalities around them. In fact these authors tend to be unknown or anonymous nobodies, the entire process of creating meme art is a remarkably democratic and laissez-faire free-for-all, which is counter to the monolithic, personality-obsessed art world. Probably the reason why pepe the frog as an artistic object is being overlooked by the art world.

The idea of readymade art as understood by elite art folk today is outdated. Memes are the future of art.

>>2772746
They always have to include someone looking at the picture. There's rarely a direct shot of the work itself. It's like they're trying to say that since someone else is looking at it it cannot be that bad

>>2774144
I fucking love memes. They're almost magical.

>>2774092
Yes, but most faggots here are completely uneducated about context and intent, or even think that these things are irrelevant.

>>2774590
They are irrelevant

>>2772538
>I feel stupid that I cant prove them wrong
You need a great deal of rhetoric to argue against even entry-level relativism in general. More so since it's the norm nowadays (basically taught in school).
As a philosophy graduate, my advice would be to just ignore them, stop asking yourself pointless questions and just paint/draw instead. Or you could subscribe to a philosophical system that appeals to you, which will provide counter-arguments against relativism. However I have to warn you that most people are simply not open to change their ideas on the subject of relativism and will likely not listen to you no matter how sound your arguments are. Also it's more than likely that in order to understand your position on the matter they would have to know your entire philosophical system, and most people won't be bothered to read books just to argue with you.
So yeah, just do art instead.

>>2773056
underrated post

>>2772776
this1

>>2774144
only good post itt