Tech and the New Renaissance

>I think art will start bouncing back from painting a canvas a single color because that's all we have time for
>I think art will start bouncing back from painting a canvas a single color because that's all we have time for

The biggest flaw in your absurd, naive rant.

Do you actually think that famous artists paint single color canvases because it's all they have time for?

>>2783945
god damn, you are an idiot. unfortunately you're not the kind of idiot that I can quickly point out why you're wrong because you are wrong on so many levels it's kind of impressive.

ironically I don't have time to tell you how wrong you are because I need to go practice 10 hours of art to make it, so in that way you are right I guess.

sage

>>2783955
yes. there's a fear in people that they need a gimmick in order to create the most expensive art they can as quickly as they can.

Artists have a fear of death more than ever, and think at any moment they could be ripped from their comfy world of creating artwork and thrown into the workforce. There's a fear that people don't need artists.

So with all of the distraction and fear comes a need to produce the most leisurely paintings they can. To sell things that embody the idea of a masterpiece can be a single brushstroke on a canvas. Capitalism and meritocracy, basically.

Once there is no more fear of working, or fear of providing for themselves, artists will create good artwork again.

I mean look at that Irakli Nader guy. He doesn't even paint. But he creates things with as many shortcuts as possible because he needs money to survive

>>2783959
>You're wrong, but I don't know how
>Lock her up
>Build a wall

Okay donald

>>2783963
>>2783945
Hello. I'll try to confront you in a logical and friendly manner, because I condemn the hate that's present on these boards (don't really know why I'm still here).

While it's great that you are thinking about the history of art, its present status and the way it is going to evolve, simply thinking is not enough. It seems your whole rant is based of a preconception you created yourself that is absolutely false. It is evident that you have paid exactly 0 attention to any art history books or any other source of knowledge about modern art (first of all, terms. Modern art is not the same as postmodern art which is also different from contemporary art).

Many things you said are completely off, but I'd like to focus on your "artists don't have time nowadays, so that must be the reason for minimalist art".

The majority of the artist who are considered the big names of modern art were trained in realism and all sorts of techniques. Their art did not come from a lack of time, but from many different ideas and philosophies. Willem de Kooning, known for his "rough" abstract paintings, was a master of realism before he went on to do this. Also, he was paid shit. Just because these paintings sell for milions nowadays doesn't mean they were desired back in the day they were made. So they were not made for money, their authors were actually extremelly idealistic individuals who chose to starve and live in small studios in order to create what they thought was good art. And they did it all day. Their day was 24h long, and so was Michelangelo's - the only difference being that Michelangelo was an engineer, an extremelly rich guy, a poet, an architect, a sculptor and a painter. Modernists were usally dedicated just to one craft and they sacrificed all else for the sake of art. So they had more time for painting.

>>2783963
I mean, basically your whole comment is the exact opposite of what happened in the beginning of the 20th century.

There was way more profit, comfort and certainty in painting traditional, academic art. But artists knew that such means of expression are not representational of the processes that went on in their heads and in the evolving society, so they left the risk-free and boring academic painting behind to pursue something else.

File: crybaby nigga.jpg (27KB, 388x384px)

27KB, 388x384px

>>2784017
>I condemn the hate that's present on these boards

lmao

>Modernists were usally dedicated just to one craft and they sacrificed all else for the sake of art

That just makes the asinine retard art credited to these irreverent, not-philosophers all the more hilarious

>"DUDE, COMPOSITION, LMAO!"

Good god

File: 15645614_1689446457747565_1110273162_n.png (25KB, 740x396px)

25KB, 740x396px

>>2784028

There's more art being made now than ever before in the history of humanity, with larger access to the tools required to make art and a wider platform to easily share said art. As most people are not incredibly talented artists on average this creates an increase in all art, both good and bad. But because of the disproportionately larger amount of low quality art coming from inexperienced artists who would not have had access to these tools or these platforms 100 years ago many people perceive the quality of art in general to be dropping.
I'd argue there are still a huge number of artists, most likely more than ever before that are making beautiful, skillful, truly innovative art.

There are already likely hundreds, if not thousands, of artists alive today painting and drawing at levels far exceeding those of the old masters.

File: pDWkkRy7W_600w_v1-1.png (84KB, 388x231px)

84KB, 388x231px

>another 'i dont understand modern-contemporary art and that makes me mad" thread
>bu-but muh craftsmanship that is totally not evident in any modern art is the only thing that makes art be art
I know this thread will just devolve into shitflinging about conspiracies and simple-minded refusal to critically think about art since that's what happens everytime stupid people on the Internet talk about art.

>>2784130
i think too many people are commenting in regards to perceived skill though.

"hundreds of artists today painting and drawing at levels far exceeding those of the old masters"

thats beside the point. what im trying to say is the general taste and aesthetics of art will lean more towards what was being done in the Renaissance, where arguably the artists had better taste.

Maybe there are artists who are capable of what old masters could do, but it does not reflect in their taste, and what they are making. I think for the most part the most valued artists in society right now are illustrators. Fine arts are not valued as highly as illustration like they were in the past. Illustration is where art went after abstraction.

What I am saying is there will be a regression, or a progression depending on how you look at it, out of illustration, to abstract expressionism, to expressionism, to surrealism, to impressionism, and back to the AESTHETICS of the old masters. Our drawings and paintings will start to look like theirs again, and it will be acceptable to paint that way again.

Cause if you painted or drew like Michelangelo today you wouldn't sell any paintings. If you painted like Caravaggio it wouldn't be in accordance with what the public wants to see in their art.

Right now the public wants to see Kronprinz and Sakimichan and Craig Mullins and Ruan Jia. Illustrators.

>>2784132
see
>>2784134
a lot of you are misinterpreting my argument. We are a far way away from the aesthetics of the old masters being in favor again, but we'll get there eventually.

>>2784017
>de Kooning is a master of realism

[citation needed]

Just because an artist does a study or two doesn't make them a fucking "master".

File: Whistler-Nocturne_in_black_and_gold.jpg (2MB, 2030x2700px)

2MB, 2030x2700px

>>2784136
>the aesthetics of the old masters
Aesthetics did not make arrists what they were before photography was invented. If anything impressionism is the oldest art movement that even has aesthetics being the central focus. And when you compare impressionism from realism and modern/contemporary from impressiom you start to notice that its pretty similar.

>>2784146
OP here. I'd argue de kooning was a master, but like all artists you adapt to what is fashionable at the time to make money. And at the time what made money was shitting on a canvas.

>>2784148
Would you agree that for the most part art made by the old masters was kind of without movement? There was no unifying attempt at an aesthetic by them when I look at that stuff. Pre-Raphaelites made that point didn't they? That art by Raphael and Michelangelo was purely in service of art and nature and not to mechanically represent the romantic, and they wanted to get back to doing that, even if it wasn't the trend at the time.

File: YOv591.gif (3MB, 400x224px)

3MB, 400x224px

>>2784134
>Maybe there are artists who are capable of what old masters could do, but it does not reflect in their taste, and what they are making. I think for the most part the most valued artists in society right now are illustrators. Fine arts are not valued as highly as illustration like they were in the past. Illustration is where art went after abstraction.

>Right now the public wants to see Kronprinz and Sakimichan and Craig Mullins and Ruan Jia. Illustrators.

It's always depressing to see renaissance fetish people like you insist that we live in this sort of "fallen era" because you think contemporary art isn't exactly renaissance art but then go on to complain about boring as shit hyper realistic speedpainters like ruan jia when that's exactly what renaissance art was.

For the record, I agree with you about the overall quality of art right now being kind of low. But that isn't for a lack of old men doing intricate pencil drawings of other old men. It's because the large majority of "art" that you see is, as you said, illustration, and all these illustrators live identically. They all consume the same ideas, media, experiences, and sit all day grinding out the same things, based on the same things. If there's any one flaw I'd point to as the supposed problem with contemporary art, in illustration, fine art or otherwise, it's lack of unique life experiences that would actually create interesting division between working artists.

>>2783945
go away dude I don't need this depressing shit!!

>>2784188
i think chronologically where we are heading rapidly is back to a sort of revised cubism. I'd say we are about a hundred years from tastes completely shifting to renaissance aesthetics. But we'll see how quickly quality of life improves in the coming years. driverless cars might have a huge impact on easing minds.

File: 1432358890255.jpg (721KB, 853x1200px)

721KB, 853x1200px

what a pretentous and juvenile shit thread

File: de-kooning-still_life_bowl-570x439.png (467KB, 576x446px)

467KB, 576x446px

>>2784150
No, it did not.

also, pic related is by de Kooning.

>>2783945
go away brian, dont you have a whore to give your grandmothers money too?

>>2783945

Nigger. Art it's not only oil painting.

And think what you want, but seems that shitty modern art with no meaning it's the ONLY thing that is being produced in your retarded vision of the world.

Also

>Implying I will not create great works of art with lots of free time thanks to our robotic friends doing the hard job.

>>2783945
don't get your hopes up kiddo, nuclear war will happen in past two years, so your artist utopia has to wat for at least a thousand years, qhile drawing start thinking about how will you survive without the technology, i wildernes or desert

>>2784764
thats not what im implying at all... modern art is fine, im not saying our tastes now are bad they're just much simpler than they were in the past. and I think taste will change and people will demand much more complicated paintings once everyone has free time, or once money starts losing it's meaning because we've all shifted to communism after all the jobs are done by robotics.

i'm saying the average person will be capable of creating pieces akin to renaissance art because it will be socially acceptable to.

>>2784837
i'd love nothing more than nuclear war, but I'm not keeping my hopes up for it. I think within 20 years we'll more or less have world peace.

Art is crap because it is the blind leading the blind at this point. Since the 70s it's been that way. All this artistic tradition that was passed down from masters to apprentices died. People don't think of these times as the dark ages but they really are (even compared to the actual Dark Ages in which they knew more than we know now).

>>2785176
>All this artistic tradition that was passed down from masters to apprentices died.

What. It's not because you're too lazy to go to school that ''traditions died''. Bridgman is till alive and teacher for fucks sake.

It's crazy how people are uninformed in this thread. I can see why people are still struggling with drawing. It's like everyone thinks art = realistic paintings. Open your mind a little.

>>2785176
>even compared to the actual Dark Ages in which they knew more than we know now

Lmao you fell for that. Keep being pessimistic and never improve. That's the faith you chose.

>>2783963
>Irakli Nader
what does he even do though, like where does h get his income? i doubt he does private commissions

>>2785264
>>2785270

I'm talking about composition, probably the most important thing in art. No one teaches the traditional composition methods anymore. And it has nothing to do with realism.

go away brian, dont you have a whore to give your grandmothers money too?

go away brian, dont you have a whore to give your grandmothers money too?

go away brian, dont you have a whore to give your grandmothers money too?

go away brian, dont you have a whore to give your grandmothers money too?go away brian, dont you have a whore to give your grandmothers money too?go away brian, dont you have a whore to give your grandmothers money too?

>>2785696
>>2785697
all my grandparents are dead and none of them left me anything.

>>2783945
Robotics will cause the resurrection of communism mark my words. People want to work, taking that away from them leaves the alienated and hurt, and once that wound is opened the reds will crawl right back in.

>>2785703
post photos of their graves

>>2783965
Hey! This is /ic/. Please leave your /pol/itics at the door :-)

>>2784188
>that's exactly what renaissance art was
get out you fucking pleb, the masterworks of the Renaissance are masterworks because they transcended mere aesthetics and spoke to our intelligence on a higher level. Anyone can draw a pretty picture or compose a pleasant composition but the genius of a Caravaggio or of Bach's compositions are as intangible as they are universal. If you can't see the difference between the old masters and a hack modern illustrator that says more about you than it does about them.