Abstract Art

File: I have a $75,000 art degree. I am more intelligent than you could ever hope to be..jpg (200KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 1000x750px

Fun fact. Nobody really "gets it". They're all a bunch of debt-ridden brainlets using big "esoteric" art words like "composition" inappropriately to sound smart.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Clothes

>>2814207
>I've also been told that what I interpret from time to time isn't what it "means"
If what you're interpreting is "this part kind of looks like a horse" that makes sense, it's not supposed to represent anything concrete (for non-objective art, not all abstract art). if you get a different emotion than the artist supposedly intended that's fine.

>But is the art really good if it does not speak for itself?
No. Pollock would agree with this sentiment more than anyone. He didn't want to convey some try-hard message, his works are just paint on a canvas, neither representing nor pretending to be anything else.

>Does it really require a lenghty education in the subject to "get" it?
No, it can be immediate, or an acquired taste. Education helps a lot of the time because people have a lot of preconceived notions about what art is or should be, and that colors their engagement with a piece. So you need a broader look at art and art history to understand art has had many different forms, defined differently by different times and cultures, and doesn't necessarily need to fit a certain mold. Learning about art history doesn't mean you will or should like everything that you learn about, but it can inform your judgement and broaden narrow views by deconstructing the barriers that we put up due to personal or cultural definitions of art.

This anon is correct >>2814212
The whole "modern art"meme is just people saying "If you don't get this you aren't smart," and everyone pretending to get it.

It's actually just shit and yes a 5 year old could do it. Actually use your brain and look at some of Pollock's "work" and try and find a way to call that art.

>>2814212
I feel like this is a large number of people engaged with abstract art, but I feel like on some level their must be some legitimacy to it if any.
>>2814235
1. It's an emotional interpretation, not symbolic or concrete. My issue there is that somehow the feeling it evokes in me can be considered invalid.
2. Well that's good. The thing about Pollock for me is until somebody explained it to me, he was just some dick who splattered paint, didn't make me feel anything. But I can appreciate that stance.
3. Hm. While I feel like one can independently can do that if they are self aware enough I can see that being helpful to some people. I feel like education as an institution can actually narrow people into that "right" way of seeing art rather than experiencing it independently, you know? A culture in itself.

>>2814212

This + money laundering.

File: pollock.jpg (384KB, 1393x977px) Image search: [Google]

384KB, 1393x977px

>>2814207
Since you posted Pollock, we'll talk about that artist specifically. I will try to give you the best answer i can.

First, and very importantly, you don't have to "get it". There is no hidden message in the artwork. It doesn't work like a rebus or a puzzle. What makes an artwork is the diversity of different analysis and interpretations you can make. For example, in Pollock's drippings, you can analyse the relation of the artist's body and the artwork. This dimension of his work is very important because the body of the artist was never shown before in art (with the exception of self portraits), and more specifically never taken in account in the process (it was like, to simplify a vessel of the artist talent). Pllock drippings put the artist's body in the center of the process, and it's the process that makes the art in his drippings. This (artists body + importance of the process) is a ground breaking novelty that will heavily influence the artists of the next decades that will do bodyart, for instance. That's why Pollock drippings are considered very important.

But you could also analyze it in the relation of the chamanic trance Pollock was during his drippings. That make his work linked to the subconscious. He was influenced by Jung's psychology and his theories about collective subconscious (it's very explicit in his previous works, often linked to myths and archetypes). Pollock and other abstract expressionists (ex: Barnett Newman) were indeed very interested by the questions of the elementary, essential aspects of the human mind (or life itself).

There is other directions to analyse (ex: the reaction against european geometric abstraction that was dominant at the time) but i'm far from a specialist on the subject.

File: DUDE, ART. LMAO.png (727KB, 894x1102px) Image search: [Google]

727KB, 894x1102px

>>2814955
>For example, in Pollock's drippings, you can analyse the relation of the artist's body and the artwork. This dimension of his work is very important because the body of the artist was never shown before in art

>But you could also analyze it in the relation of the chamanic trance Pollock was during his drippings. That make his work linked to the subconscious. He was influenced by Jung's psychology and his theories about collective subconscious (it's very explicit in his previous works, often linked to myths and archetypes). Pollock and other abstract expressionists (ex: Barnett Newman) were indeed very interested by the questions of the elementary, essential aspects of the human mind (or life itself).

lol

File: terry rodgers.jpg (252KB, 2000x1599px) Image search: [Google]

252KB, 2000x1599px

>>2814955
Wanted to clarify a mistake: the importance of the process in art is not a Pollock discovery, it has been there since the invention of ready-made by Duchamp, but Pollock went further in that direction. But i insist on the fact that the artist body is central to the piece is a Pollock invention, and it had a HUGE influence on performance artists. If performance/body art is considered a major art medium today, it's certainly thanks to Pollock.

I also wanted to add something, for your /ic/:
I have the feeling that people who completely reject abstract art feel like abstract art is in competition with figurative, realistic art. It doesn't have to be. There is contemporary artists that do realitistic work (pic related). But their work is nurished by the art theories surrounding abstraction and modern art in general. When you study modern art, art history and art theories in general, a new horizon opens itself to your artworks, you can give them a new depth.
I also wanted to say that the 19th academic art so revered on /ic/ is conceptual to an extent, too. They often represent mythological/biblical themes, that have their interpretations and philosophic implications. For example, when you see mermaids, sphinxs, Salome, Delila or other dangerous female mythological beings, those themes are not chosen randomly, it may be a statement of the artist about women and the apparition of feminism at that time. And yes, those themes were wide spread at the end of the 19th century.

>>2814955
>>2814972

Abstract art is full of mental gymnastics, fallacious thinking, and sheepish people like your posts. Ask random people what they see in Pollock's paintings and you will get different answers. Also, Jackson Pollock's success is largely owed to the CIA.

I have no problem with abstract art, the problem are people like you who insist abstract art is bigger than it is by citing extremely subjective psychological bullshit.

>>2814997
>spend time to write a decent answer
>/pol/shit conspirationist response
>random people know better than people who studied the subject

Never change, /ic/

>>2814955
Good points, on the subject of the artists body, some of his paintings even have handprints in them (1A for instance)

>>2815011
>implying there is anything to study in abstract art

>>2814955
But who gives a fuck? His paintings are trash. Pretty much every artist mentioned in Art History 101 is garbage.

>>2815056
he just showed that their was in his lengthy post. Jung, as well as existentialism, played a big role in the formation of abstract expressionism. The subconscious/unconscious mind and the struggle of expressing something with "authenticity" were central to the movement. And sometimes it's not about there being something to study, but about learning g the actual context so you don't judge the work on the basis of your misperceptions (i.e. the assumption that Pollock tried and failed to "be deep" and convey a tryhard message)

>>2815099
there was *

Really though the anti-art history agenda of this board is just silly, even if I fucking hate a work or movement I still recognize that studying that movement, era, and artists will contextualize the work and better inform me of its intent

>>2815103
It's irrelevant. Every artist has their intent. Having intentions doesn't make you not shit. I don't know why you are assuming people haven't read about Pollock.

File: nam jun paik.jpg (298KB, 666x501px) Image search: [Google]

298KB, 666x501px

>>2815177
>implying their intentions are not perceptible in their artworks

>>2815177
>I don't know why you are assuming people haven't read about Pollock.
I'm not
>Having intentions doesn't make you not shit
ok?

I never said you have to like the work, just that crying "hurr it's irrelevant" any time someone brings up historical context, nascent philosophies, and the popular forms of art that various artists reacted against is beyond retarded. Even more so when you pretend it's all intellectual masturbation with no basis in reality, as opposed to a sober assessment of the facts.

File: 3dbcabb2753006a40e0863338db9fb7acfca501f_hq.jpg (56KB, 451x337px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 451x337px

>>2814207
>Oh shit, OP woke as fuck.
Welcome to the art world where the rules are made up, and the points don't matter until they are liked by a high profile critic or bought by a rich as fuck collector.

>>2814207
If you don't get it, you don't get it. Conversely, if you get it, you get it. You don't win any prizes. Art is a playground for ideas. The physical artwork itself as an expensive commodity is just a byproduct.

And it's not about being "smart", that's just people on both sides being insecure.

>>2815011

CIA used tax payer money to buy Pollock's painting, if you actually read about Art History you world know.

>>2815317
It's well known that the government greased the wheels of abstract expressionism because of its importance as a distinctly American movement. But this doesn't mean the movement or Pollock specifically wouldn't have succeeded without them, that they weren't popular or sellIing before the CIA got involved, or even that the CIA played a more influential role than donors like the Medicis, popes, and wealthy patrons played in previous eras.

>>2815381

Yep, Pollock was so successful that the CIA had to interfere to prop up the illusion that he was a great artist.

>>2815234
>just that crying "hurr it's irrelevant" any time someone brings up historical context, nascent philosophies, and the popular forms of art that various artists reacted against is beyond retarded.
Dif guy here.
Why is it relevant? It's interesting, but one of OP's questions was why can't the art speak for itself? Personally, I think it can. If you need intention clarified for you, then the artist didn't want his intention known or was not skilled enough to make his intention known in his artwork. Of course I get why this is more difficult to do for older works when one doesn't understand the time and place in which the work was created. But what's called "history" is conjecture and storytelling. There's no telling if you're appreciating the artwork or are just primarily interested in the context which is constructed around the artwork.

>>2815417
It should stand on its own. If it doesn't, if it needs a manifesto, it fails. But that doesn't mean manifestos, or an understanding of, say, the political and cultural climate of Vienna in the 1700s, can't increase your appreciation for a painting or an artist.

>>2815403 #
>Yep, Michelangelo was so successful that the Pope had to interfere to prop up the illusion that he was a great artist.

The US policy of cultural imperialism isn't the only factor here. They didn't scout skid row to find the next big thing, they looked at what was already happening in the art world. Is soviet realism invalid simply because it was also funded by the state? Or Michelangelo, or any of the Venetian or Florentine painters? All were funded in part by state governments to increase their prestige.

>>2815434

You're comparing apples and oranges. Pollock is invalid because people didn't buy his stuff until the CIA created the illusion that he was a great artist. Before that, he was struggling like other abstract expressionists because most people didn't like it.

Michelangelo didn't need to cheat like Pollock and he was successful because people genuinely liked his work.

>>2815447
>people didn't buy his stuff until the CIA created the illusion that he was a great artist.
Got a citation for that?

>>2815452

I read it in an art history textbook, which I sold after I finished the course. I can't prove that nobody bought his piece, but the attitude toward abstract expressionism was on the negative until the CIA came along.

>>2815457
He was successsful by the early 1940s. In 1943 he sold "Mural" to Peggy Guggenheim, which got Greenberg's dick hard. When did the CIA start supporting him? Fabled textbook says:

>>2815468

That's the main method by which the CIA funded abstract expressionists. They gave large amount of tax payer money to rich philanthropists for them to buy abstract expressionist paintings.

>>2815471
When did they do this?

>>2815473

I think the discussion on when the CIA funded abstract expressionist is irrelevant. It doesn't take much googling to find out that most people disliked abstract expressionism, but public perception suddenly changed seemingly overnight as the CIA started funding abstract expressionists. You really underestimated the power the of the CIA if you think they didn't have a massive effect on abstract expressionism.

Sometimes it can make a decent addition to an interior design

It holds however, no artistic merit

>>2815485
>I think the discussion on when the CIA funded abstract expressionist is irrelevant.
I think it shows you don't have an answer and are basing your entire argument on very vague information that you got second hand.

>>2815505

Answer to what? When CIA funded abstract expressionism is irrelevant, what matters is public reception to abstract expressionism was negative until the CIA came along, some rich guy who bought Pollock's painting before the CIA started funding abstract expressionism is irrelevant. The CIA aimed to change public perception, not some random rich guy's perception.

File: 1438547001534.png (407KB, 570x489px) Image search: [Google]

407KB, 570x489px

>its /ic/'s daily "I just came home from highschool and I don't understand modern art" thread
Take a class, read some literature, learn about critical theory in art. Too many people on this website are so anti-intellectual

>>2815514
you're fucking dumb lmao

>>2815508
>people didn't buy his stuff until the CIA created the illusion that he was a great artist.
>some rich guy who bought Pollock's painting before the CIA started funding abstract expressionism is irrelevant
kek

>>2815563

>Brainwashed by CIA in 2017

kek

File: Got my BFA did, fam!.jpg (374KB, 703x1227px) Image search: [Google]

374KB, 703x1227px

>>2815514
Anti-pseudo intellectual maybe.

>Critical theory in art

Go back to bed gaylord Adorno is wait. I hope you're enjoying your $30,000 a semester "anti-capitalist" art school you fuckin' tardmaster LMOA

>>2815566
>Anti-pseudo intellectual maybe
Not that anon, but we've literally had breads where people shit-talk art history itself. Anti-intellectual was the right term, if you think you've found an intellectual community of aspiring young artists then you are a sweet summer child.

>>2815573

> but we've literally had breads where people shit-talk art history itself
>we've literally had breads
>breads

kek

>>2814207
I work in an artists studio, he browses and so does the other assistant and we all stand around and laugh about how you autists on this board don't understand anything. Cool drawing hobby, hope your continued life as a wagecuck treats you well. :-)

>>2815739
There was a thread yesterday with a retard comparing historical buildings with random companies' offices complaining that architecture has lost national identity and shit like that. Useless to say that when I showed it to my architect friends they cringed hard.
This board is filled with /pol/tards and weeb shitters who are here just to shitpost

>>2814207
I think most of Pollocks stuff just looks nice and I like to look at it. No further reason needed.

>>2814955
>you can analyse the relation of the artist's body and the artwork. This dimension of his work is very important because the body of the artist was never shown before in art (with the exception of self portraits), and more specifically never taken in account in the process

Why can't you say the same about the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel or any hundreds of large murals? It doesn't make much sense to compare the artist as he explicitly appears in a self-portrait with what can only be inferred through secondary sources in the case of Pollocks work.

It just sounds like you're trying to hard to find something to talk about in what is mostly random noise.

abstract art is all about aesthetics.

>>2815739

>> hurr durr he doesn't like it so he doesn't under stand it

We understand it, we don't care, and we don't like it.

>>2815930
>I showed it to my architect friends they cringed hard.
Yeah, at you
Protip: Don't show 4chan around at school/work, kid

>>2816364
>We understand it
-elected representative of /ic/ who speaks for every user

look up the different abstract styles.....neoplasticism, abstract expressionism, minimalism, etc..Formally, the art is completely abstract but it can still be evaluated in some of the ways other art is....technique, composition, use of color and other elements...and then comes the tone, or the feeling you get from the piece. This is an important part of a lot of abstract art. Neoplasticists believed in using basic elements, like pure color and straght lines to create harmony. Abstract expressionists used abstract forms to express their emotions. Some art is very abstract but still makes references to the outside world. In those cases there is more content to consider. So if you want to "get" abstract art, read about the famous movements/artists, look their art, and just decide what you like or don't like.

>>2816497
>Being in this much in denial that people like some art but not others.

In every abstract expressionist thread, there are CIA shills trying to explain abstract art. If that's what the explanation is, and people still don't like it, please stop shilling and let this thread die.

>>2815508
>public reception to abstract expressionism was negative until the CIA came along

not him but I'd like a source of that

>>2817709

>abstract expressionist shills claiming to know art history
>doesn't actually know art history

Google is your best friend. Read "Cultural Cold War" by Frances Stonor Saunders. Nelson Rockefeller co-founded MoMA, was used by the CIA to push abstract expressionism. MoMA had a history of connections with the CIA.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html

>The connection is improbable. This was a period, in the 1950s and 1960s, when the great majority of Americans disliked or even despised modern art - President Truman summed up the popular view when he said: "If that's art, then I'm a Hottentot."...

Please shill more.

>>2817724
>Would Abstract Expressionism have been the dominant art movement of the post-war years without this patronage? The answer is probably yes. Equally, it would be wrong to suggest that when you look at an Abstract Expressionist painting you are being duped by the CIA.

kys

>>2817724

Woke as fuck

>>2817745
>ignoring the effect that CIA had on modern art movement.
>can't handle knowing being a CIA sheep all along
>Abstract expressionist shills on suicide watch.

That part is the authors' opinion.

pro-tip: He doesn't have a time machine and doesn't live in the 4th dimension.

I don't think the stream popular movements in the art world are any indicator of the true value of art, but abstract art can be pretty great. Communicates more subtle themes. I prefer fine art but it's not particularly challenging in terms of engaging the senses and making you think and feel. Abstract art, even if it's shitty, is a million times more interesting than soulless industrial-level illustration or concept art.

>>2817745

>can't tell the difference between opinion and fact.

kek

>>2817768

I have nothing against abstract art.
It's the snubbish pro-abstract art people.

It's how pro-abstract art people like to claim you need to learn art history, when they only know about the history the CIA wanted them to know. Then when you show it to them, they deny the effect the CIA had on modern art movement chucking it up to conspiracy theory.

It's how they can't accept that some people may not like abstract art and that it isn't the all glorified Holy Grail of art.

>>2817781
No one is denying the CIA had an impact on the proliferation of abstract expressionism. The conspiracy comes in when people claim the CIA is wholly responsible for the success of the movement and the individual artists, and that abstract expressionism would have floundered without their benevolence. All because they read it somewhere online five years ago.

>>2817785

CIA had a larger impact than you think. Pollock, de Kooning, etc are all abstract expressionist sponsored by CIA who used MoMA to further their success.

Guess what, Pollock, de Kooning, and etc are the same famous and popular abstract expressionists people like to quote.

>>2817781
so some poeple used abstract art to prove that the US was more sophisticated than russia...and most art through the rennaisance was funded by tyrancial kings and pedophilic chruches...so who cares?

>>2817800

CIA purposefully funded modern art movement to change public perception when most people hated modern art.

The other things you quoted are not agencies trying to brainwash people.

>>2817810

Brainwash people into liking realist art, to be more specific.

>>2817787
>CIA had a larger impact than you think
How much larger? Have you quantified it? Do you know specifics about how the CIA aided these artists? Even basic dates to show these artists were not successful before the CIA became a catalyst in their careers?

I'd honestly like to read your source, because I've yet to find anything that proves this conspiracy.

>>2817818

Saunder's book on declassified CIA documents. Your answer:

>>2817724

>>2817810
>change public perception when most people hated modern art

This is false, modern art was a big thing before the CIA boosted it

>>2817826

Source?

>>2817826
Not with the general public. And it still isn't today, nor did anyone ever expect joe he plumber to start jackin it to Pollock. They were successful, before and after the CIA, with rich artfags- collectors and critics

>>2817836

Correct. To add on to your comment. The money laundering scheme came as a direct result of the CIA boosting the price of abstract expressionist pieces.

>>2817836
is the average person expected to care about any art beyond a painting of their wife or a local duck breed

>>2817849

That's why the CIA had to get involved. They were successful because people are sheep. They were so successful that human and animal shit and vomit became art.

>>2817856

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEhSk71gUCQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sno1TpCLj6A

>>2817856
Those are all things that the general public hated and still hates,so how were they successful? And how did you make the leapfrom abstract oil painters (acrylic in pollocks case) and conceptual artists who can their own shit?

>>2817910

CIA was involved not just with abstract expressionism. They want art that was American, so they pushed modern art as a whole, but abstract expressionism was the first wave that redefined art and started a trend of lowered technical standards. This led to exhibitions of animal and human shit as art.

CIA are successful because now every art school has abstract expressionism, every textbook has Pollock as a great artist, European classical art museum threw out their classical art to replace them with modern art. They were successful because money laundering MoMA has better funding than Metropolitan Museum of Art. They were successfuI because actually want to get an art degree to become an abstract artist. I can list a lot of other things.

>>2814207
It reeaaallly depends which artist you're talking about. Lots of people also just ignore 3d abstract, photomanipulation, and surrealism. Abstract art is pretty general and has to do more of an aspect of art; the expression of abstracted forms and line in a composition. Pollock borderlines on mood pieces and minimalism, where as others artists like Dali whom use abstract motifs and form in their subject matter. Yes there are the people who are all "its so deep" and shit, but theyre post modern tools.

>>2816335
>Why can't you say the same about the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel or any hundreds of large murals?

i already answered here:>>2814955
>it (the artist's body) was like, to simplify a vessel of the artist talent

>inferred through secondary sources in the case of Pollocks work.
The photographies, that you call secondary sources (which are, because they are not the artwork) show us the process. One of the characteristics of modern art is that the process make art. It was reinforced greatly by Pollock's dripping.

>>2817781
I have nothing against naturalistic art.
It's the snubbish pro-naturalistic art people.

It's how pro-naturalistic art people like to claim you need to deny art history, when they only know about the history /pol/ wanted them to know. Then when you show it to them, they deny the effect /pol/ had on naturalistic chucking it up to CIA conspiracy theory.

It's how they can't accept that some people may not like naturalistic art and that it isn't the all glorified Holy Grail of art.

File: Edouard_Manet_-_Luncheon_on_the_Grass_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg (1MB, 2260x1756px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2260x1756px

>>2817925
>abstract expressionism was the first wave that redefined art and started a trend of lowered technical standards