I am of the belief that there is a difference between being an

Also, "Modern Art" is not a real art movement. It is a business disguised as art. Modern artists are merely one man sweatshops producing cheap goods.

>>2902085
Modern Art is beautiful in its own way. Although some people don't get it. I don't like some either, but not all of them are bad.

>>2902090
I don't agree after studying it's origins and it's purpose. It is a racket designed to inccur profits for a few while exploiting guillable artists with a worthless philosophy. All you have to do is research and read.

>>2902085
This doesn't even make sense.

>>2902085
there is truth in this statement unfortunately.

>>2902083
I agree that there is a difference, though the line can sometimes be blurred. I also don't think there's necessarily a difference in value between the two. People like to look down on crafts, but a highly technical piece can have as much merit as a highly artistic one.

>>2902085
put down the ARC® crackpipe

>>2902093
>All you have to do is research and read.
Research what PJW vlog-rants?, read what ARC™©® approved™®® propaganda?

Modern art hate is from traditionalists who want to deny modern art it's place in art history out of some le-wrong-generation rage.

>>2902083
A painting can be only learnt technique and still be art. Like any van gogh painting. Same for illustration.
You're an artist when you do creative work.
To be aknowledge as an artist is another thing, i guess it's a statue you acquire with time.

>>2904498
common it's mainly bullshit. Young modern artist usually are just able to talk shit about what they have done. And they're is the hype which make them sell. They also produce in massive amount in order to give importance to their work.
Give me a white room, i put a glass cube of 3x3m in the center and in that i put the ash from all the cigarette i've smoked for 5 years.
I'll say this is about ocd and depression, how destroying you're life is a way of living etc
This is the type of shit that's produced everyday in modern art

>>2904517
It's a very powerful message, but no, that's not really modern art. That's just symbolism.

>>2904517
Pick up an art history book retard, this is seriously embarrassing. You're misusing modern art like a common pleb. Here's some homework, besides learning the difference between modern and contemporary art. Understand the relationship of modern art and modern design in historical context and I guarantee your bullshit notion of "modern art" will crumble.

File: 5609e6fcc7e3919b35299e82250fb5b3.jpg (17KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 500x375px

>>2902083
most people here only seem to be interested in becoming concept art drones for cucky game companies. So yeah they're working towards communicating "I can draw" first and foremost. That said most modern art seems to express little more than "I can con people into thinking I'm brilliant".

Modern art exhibits are like children looking at clouds. All the pretentious fucks who gather there see what they want in the pieces when the truth is there's nothing there in the first place.

>>2904546
>All the pretentious fucks who gather there see what they want in the pieces when the truth is there's nothing there in the first place.
And who says there's nothing there? You? God?

>>2902083
>While having technical skill is great, is it really art or is it a display of learnt technique?
There is a difference between an artist and an illustrator. But you cannot be either without technical skill.

File: Capture d’écran 2017-03-18 à 19.48.37.png (1MB, 599x798px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 599x798px

>>2904524
It's modern art when people say it's modern art

ex : David Ostrowski.
Can't do anything, say he will do random shit
sells for thousands of dollar

Lucien Smith
Develop a painting technique with an extinguisher
1 painting 15min
does dozens
says that an extinguisher cause the fire die out like rain drops but in a mechanical way
use the word "appropriate"
says it's like replicating mother nature
says it's was really inspired by jackson pollock
sells for thousands of dollars

To be an artist you have to have ideas, personality, be non-conformist and also efficient at shocking/unsettling/wowing/driving people instantly from mundane towards unknown. Btw it's not only modern and contemporary art characteristic, but also art of ages past. Hey, see at Mona Lisa - the main phenomenon on that particular piece is "oh, another painted lad-wait a second, is she smiling? She isn't...is she?!"

To be what /ic/ aspires to be you don't need any of that, you just have to be obedient monkey with fast workflow.

>>2904533
i rectify myself i'm only talking about contempory art, my mistake.

this >>2904568 is also me.

File: 1485151473734.png (27KB, 326x327px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 326x327px

>>2904547
Who the fuck is anyone to say they see, let's say "frustration with government" when someone wipes their ass and smears it on a canvas?

>>2904575
Congrats on the cursory google friend. Perhaps if you dig deeper you will realize that your opinions are nothing new. This conversation was happening at the time, there have even been counter movements.

>>2904568
Ever think that your examples you're posting may very well be the rebuttal to the "critique" you're supposing?

>>2902083
You can't have art without an extremely high level of technical skill. That being said, illustrations and paintings aren't inherently art.

Then again, art has become an utterly washed out and meaningless word.

>>2904498
>Modern art hate is from traditionalists who want to deny modern art it's place in art history out of some le-wrong-generation rage.

It's the opposite. Modern/contemporary/conceptual art isn't art. The art community was destroyed by left-wing ideology that stripped the craftsmanship and technical requirements from art, so that ideas took precedent over everything else. In other words, it's a worthless classification, and only easily manipulated idiots buy into it. It functions much in the same way as a cult.

>>2904630
ARC APPROVED THINKING™® please make sure your membership payment info is up to date thank you. Also we're sorry to say but we've rejected your ARC LIVING ARTIST®™© status. We look forward to your re-application!

>A $75.00 non-refundable application and processing fee.
An annual membership fee of $300.00 for all artists accepted into the Living Artists Gallery. This fee is due every January and includes one free update a year to add new images and information. (with the exception of full ARC Living Masters™ who only pay the $300 membership fee the first year.)
A one time set up fee of $200.00 is charged to help offset the costs involved in preparing the artists gallery.
Additional images may be included in an artist's gallery at $10.00 per image during the initial set up (only applies if more than 30 are submitted and accepted).
If the Artist wishes a second update a year in addition to the one that comes with the membership, a fee of $150 will be charged.
If accepted as a full ARC Living Master™, the membership for the Living Master's Gallery is free, except for the first year, and the update fee is reduced to $100 after the first year.
There is no additional fee for submitting information on exhibitions for our exhibition page.

Seems like a lot of butthurt hac- er I mean, Modern "Artists"...coughjewscough, excuse me, are in this thread. Art history proves that Modern art is degenerate art created from the financial support of jews. the ideology behind modern art and the ones funding the ideology is evident, like Rotschilds creating MoMa...and the Gughenheim...stupid modern "artists"

File: 75e78a8f-64df-4d22-87d0-679a058ab47e..png (218KB, 720x1280px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 720x1280px

Rockefellers...excuse me.

>>2904981
the Rockefellers created a New York institution??? you don't fucking say. Keep grasping brainlet, in your googling for confirmation biased "evidence" you might actually learn something!!

>>2902083

The only difference I see is that you can be an artist without ever doing any painting.

If you want to push that notion further, you would have to define art, which would probably lead you to oppose art to nature, resulting in art being a product of human workmanship, then you'll go full circle because painters and illustrators also classify as people producing human workmanships.

Don't hope to find help with the etymology of 'artist' either, its use for fine art isn't older than the 18th century. Most civilizations before ours didn't make that distinction.

People have more than often been happy reproducing the same patterns for centuries and taking their influence straight from the past.

We just happen, in the previous century, to have developped a particular interest in originality and personnal expression, but this may not last. It seems rather petty to seperate the artist from his mediums just because of a temporary change of taste.

>>2905143
>confirmation bias

shhhh jew, shhh

>>2902083
Most self-proclaimed artists don't produce art and make a mockery out of the word. Some who wouldn't call themself an artists have occasionally been worthy of the praise.

Creative + Technical Skill = Artist

Creative + No Skill = Indistinguishable from average layman or child

Not Creative + Technical Skill = Monkey See Monkey Do

Not Creative + No Technical Skill = Art Critique

>>2905300
>Not Creative + No Technical Skill = Art Critique
Really got me thinking

File: 75785786.png (96KB, 540x305px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 540x305px

>>2905300
>Not Creative + Technical Skill = Monkey See Monkey Do
>tfw i'm this

All those modern art apologists who seriously believe that 'you can't be an artist unless you have creativity, an illustrator is just a monkey without originality and not true artist!!' are forgetting renaissance art was all about technical skill: before academia, art was almost exclusively commissioned.
Good job with reducing most artists before the 19th century/romanticism to monkeys with your shitty arguments.

>>2904533
Kek, true.

>>2904546
Uhg, i like the idea of /ic/ hateful criticism as to become a better artist, but i havent seen much of the i wanna work for a game company mentality. I see alot of people getting fairly versed then shilling themselves out for monies, which is kind of the point.

Ha, the shallow contemporary art shit thats going on. Its really disgusting. Anybody can be an artist just smear shit on a canvas and pretend youre more emotionally attached to making art as an analogy fo why you suck as a person.

>>2905176
I really liked your full circle art analogy... im stealing it. Thanks anon ur the real artist here!

>>2905300
>Not Creative + No Technical Skill = Art Critique
Savage

>>2905548
fucking millenials.

>>2902083
lel it's just a word dude. none of those labels are really quantifiable in any consistent way.

>>2905250
>Everything I don't understand is a conspiracy

>>2904546
>>2904568
>>2905397

>>Modern art exhibits are like children looking at clouds. All the pretentious fucks who gather there see what they want in the pieces when the truth is there's nothing there in the first place.

You people are the worst. Youre conflating your lack of information on the context and importance of the work of contmporary artists with the art itself lacking any meaning.

No shit people don't know what its about. The common person (including 95% of this thread) doesnt put in an iota of effort into understanding the art in front of them. The art shouldnt have to explain everything for you and it displays of technical ability are complete shit. (WoW! you wasted more of your life than i did on drawing)
You people are EXACTLY like the salon goers of 19th century France.

>>ex : David Ostrowski.
Can't do anything, say he will do random shit
sells for thousands of dollar

You ever bother to look up his life in an attempt to understand why anyone would buy his art??

>>All those modern art apologists who seriously believe that 'you can't be an artist unless you have creativity, an illustrator is just a monkey without originality and not true artist!!' are forgetting renaissance art was all about technical skill: before academia, art was almost exclusively commissioned.
Good job with reducing most artists before the 19th century/romanticism to monkeys with your shitty arguments.

Holy shit its so painful how little you know about art history. Yeah 99% of them were fucking monkeys 99% of the artists during the 19th and 20th century were fucking monkeys too. And the ones who are remembered (have you ever even heard of Velasquez?? Rembrandt?? Hals??) when they werent monkeying around or in the case of velazquez even when he was making FUCKING STATE SPONSORED GOVERNMENT ART decided to take "Artistic Liberites" and paint the way he wanted to paint. Hell Titian was the biggest fucking monkey of them all but hes not remembered for being a monkey.

>>2907855
shut the fuck up,
About the monkey shit, you're saying what the quote says. Fucking retard

also about david ostrowski. Have you bothered looking? Because i did you fucking fat fuck. He is young, got out of art school, someone saw his work and made him a rockstar.
The man is not basquia. He just doesn't give a fuck a people say wow ok i'll buy
like the episode of south park where they make a business of doing nothing.

kys you dumb fucking cunt