I love guernica

File: picasso don quixote.png (154KB, 552x823px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 552x823px

Picasso is great.

Never met a person who doesn't like Picasso but had good taste in art otherwise. They're either realism nazis or trashy kitsch-loving basic plebs and weebs.

>>2909984
he is pretty great
i remember being young and looking at shit like the OP pic and just thinking "so what's the point? the point is it looks bad?"

after having drawn a lot i look at it and see so much creativity in the approach to the image

Picasso's not my cup of tea. I like his pottery though.

>>2910009
Mind explaining?

File: joie-de-vivre.jpg (126KB, 1200x559px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 1200x559px

How can you not love him?
Dude, just look at those tiddies.

I didn't think marxist infiltration and degradation would make it's way to /ic/

get the fuck out you traitor commies and go commit cultural suicide somewhere else

>>2910041
I didn't think /pol/ would completely ruin this website but yeah here we are.

>>2910041
>not liking modern art
only dumb niggers hate modern art, it's not a jewish art form it's about as White as it gets.

>>2910052
did you type that with your nose?

>>2910073
hope you had a nice time at the /ic/ museum, you can ride the short bus back to /pol/ now

>>2910073
degas hated jews, keep up the good work though buddy.

File: head_of_a_woman.jpg (31KB, 400x282px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 400x282px

>>2909956

Little white man bleached the real thing and threw away all religious or social significance of the original parts, keeping only the superficial form, akin to a weaboo copying his favorite moonrunner's comic.

File: AP1966_08_MAIN1.jpg (126KB, 600x760px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 600x760px

>>2910102
Too bad cubism doesn't look anything like it. How's that rock music working out for you though? Straight from the nigger's dick right into your mouth... "tastes good to me".

>>2910102
that's a stretch loooonger than loooongcat.

File: received_1980486372176008.jpg (19KB, 480x762px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 480x762px

>Go at Guernica
>The painting isn't here
>Just some glass and printed stuff to imitate the original painting.

File: 987d8f196c087941f0b7f121eb2f51ae0cfd9926.jpg (77KB, 1200x630px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 1200x630px

>>2909984
>Never met a person who doesn't like Picasso but had good taste in art otherwise.

The funny act is when I saw the thread I thought immediately about a french youtuber/cartoonist who dislike him just because the meme of "burk it's ugly why people like it so much".

Pict related of his work.

>>2910028
theres a pun to be made here... somewhere

>>2910140
This guy is just deeply retarded, and his art is shit, Caljbeut if you wanna know

>>2910140
oh my god did he take one of the arms, copy paste it and mirror it
jesus fucking christ.

>>2910140
That image makes me physically ill

>>2910140
Personally i don't really
get" picasso works, however when I look at them, they make me feel strange emotions.

>>2909956
look up picassos sculpture, it's good shit. i encourage anyone who's not really feeling his 2d stuff to check it out.

>>2909956
OMG SO DO I

>>2909984
And I've never met a Picasso fan with an original thought in their head. They exclusively end up being people who just regurgitate whatever art critics tell them to like.

>>2911028
>a-anon lets go to the museum on a date
>"modern art was invented by the CIA to discredit the russians"
>*fucks off to the manchild section at barnes & noble*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_rb50PIcbY

>>2911061
Nice strawman, faggot.

>>2911093
BORN DIFFERENT,

>>2911097
True. The special snowflake syndrome is one lovers of contemporary and the more esoteric aspects of modern art all seem to suffer from. They're convinced they can see something that others can't, while in reality their whole world view is just one big appeal to authority.

>>2911115
what's your favourite video game?

>>2911115
Picasso is widely regarded as one of the greatest artists of all time. Appreciating Picasso isn't trying to "see something that others can't". Everyone sees it. If you can't see why Picasso was revolutionary, that's your problem.

Ever consider the possibility that you're the one trying to be a special snowflake with your edgy opinions?

>>2911482
I think everyone can see why he was revolutionary, but not everyone enjoys his artwork. I recognize that he was important but I am not personally interested in what he did.

>>2911483
not that guy, but your opinion is more than fair.
nothing wrong with liking or hating his work, I just wouldn't say that those who like him are just appealing to authority though.

>>2911482
Appeal to authority and argumentum ad populum. You sure do love your logical fallacies.

>>2911115
>They're convinced they can see something that others can't
Do you seriously think everyone sees the world the same way you do? If you are really that ignorant, it makes sense why you think people with different tastes are faking it.

>>2911498
Nice fallacy fallacy, faggot. My point wasn't that it was true, but rather that since everyone believes it to be true you aren't the one trying to "be unique" by also believing it to be true. Rather, the people who spout edgy opinions with no further elaboration are the ones looking to be congratulated.

File: Contemporary_art.jpg (117KB, 962x1142px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 962x1142px

>>2911502
I never said they were faking it. People who belong to religious sects or fringe political movements aren't faking it either. That doesn't mean they have any fucking clue what they're doing, or that I'll take their world view seriously.
If you ask an art historian or an art critic why Picasso is considered good, they're not going to tell you anything about the intrinsic qualities of his art, but how he revolutionized art, the impact that he had on art, how he went through many phases, and the technicalities behind how he developed his style and how it contrasts with art from previous generations.
You'll never get an explanation as to why it's good. It's all about ideas. The visual aspect seems to play second fiddle to the intellectual masturbation about his importance and the revolutionary nature of his art.

What modern/contemporary art has done is remove the technical aspect, which requires an enormous amount of talent and skill, and replaced it with an incredibly dogmatic idea of what art should be. I'm not saying that art doesn't have a huge subjective component to it, or that technical skill alone inherently turns something into art. What I'm saying is that it needs to have some sort of objective component to it. Pure subjectivity is utterly worthless. You can take almost any mundane object or piece of art and give it whatever meaning you want by writing a lengthy pseudo-intellectual dissertation about it, but that doesn't mean it has any inherent value. People are simply projecting their own or society's perception of something onto it, and virtually everyone alive today have grown up with the idea that Picasso is one of the greatest artists who have ever lived.

There's always a chance I'm just an obtuse idiot. Maybe I lack the intellectual ability or emotional depth to see the inherent qualities of Picasso's art. I seriously doubt that though, and according to the current trend of worshiping subjectivity, my views are as valid as anyone else's.

>>2911525
The fact that you think it's edgy to not like Picasso is quite telling.

>>2911566
No, I find it edgy to hate Picasso.

>>2911562
IMAGIN MY SHAWK

>>2911115
babies 1st thoughts folks. Be sure to keep them anonymous, don't want people laffin at ur face before you've had a chance to grow out of em'

>>2910140
>caljbeut
oh fuck this

>>2911591
Ad hominem. huh? I'm running out of logical fallacies here.

File: artclub-23.jpg (1MB, 1454x933px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1454x933px

>>2911562
The appeal from Picasso largely comes from how densely pact his paintings are with hidden imagery. Unlike with traditional painting, the cubists made paintings that were incredibly hard to read visually. It doesn't take you long to read a classical painting, you notice everything rather fast and the visual excitement can end pretty swiftly. With cubism, you have to spend a much longer time trying to read what is going on. Nothing wrong with not liking Picasso or modern art in general, but there is a "there" there in figuring out what's going on. You won't find it on wikipedia or in a classroom though. Most art school grads really don't have much of a clue, it's a bit of a "secret club" in the art world to figuring this shit out. Plenty of people who went to art school really have no clue what pop art was actually about. You, generally, don't find the answers to these questions in a class room or on the internet.

>>2910293
>>2911592
Which is the most cringy between him and Shadman ? (honest question)

>>2910334
I didn't noticed but you're right wtf is this lazyness.

>>2911602
i'm sure you could go on my leddit-pilled friend.

>>2911655
Wow, you sure do sound like you know a lot of shit.

>>2911655
Hiding things in art doesn't necessarily strike me as being clever enough to be considered the world's greatest artist, and in highly stylized art with a lot of seemingly random components, there's a good chance you'll see things that weren't even intended by the artist. It's like noticing patterns in clouds or in wood paneling. That being said, I'll just accept your comment at face value, as it's not something I've looked into.

I disagree that traditional art doesn't have hidden meanings or symbolism which can be interpreted in many different ways. I also disagree that traditional art loses its visual excitement, as I've found them quite fascinating to study during my visits to various art museums across Europe. People are still fawning over and trying to analyze something that's as conceptually simple as the Mona Lisa.

As far as modern art is concerned, I generally draw the line at Impressionism. It combines the tangible with the intangible, and gives the artist an enormous amount of creative freedom in interpreting and expressing his ideas and the world around him, while still retaining a sense of depth and presence. Unlike other, more abstract forms of modern and contemporary art, it can also be enjoyed by people from every layer of society, whether it's simply for its aesthetic value, the admiration of the technical skill involved, or on an analytical, conceptual level. Contemporary fine art seems to exist within its own tiny echo chamber.

Anyway, I appreciate the mature reply in this sea of shit.

File: 1444667849401.png (108KB, 400x381px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 400x381px

>>2911562
>intrinsic qualities of art

>What modern/contemporary art has done is remove the technical aspect, which requires an enormous amount of talent and skill

>and replaced it with an incredibly dogmatic idea of what art should be.

>What I'm saying is that it needs to have some sort of objective component to it. Pure subjectivity is utterly worthless.

>>2911760
>I know how to greentext, but can't form an argument to save my life

>>2911765
The idea should get across though, you pretty much have the same mentality of the people you criticize

>>2911772
Requiring that an artist should display some level of skill at his craft, or disagreeing with the idea that a literal piece of shit on a pedestal is art, are not particularly oppressive ideas.
I really baffles me that visual art is the only medium that has absolutely no skill requirements. Imagine what the music world would look like if vocalists weren't required to know how to sing, and that whatever horribles sounds that come out of their mouth should be interpreted as a deep personal expression. Then again, we have performance art, which is exactly that.

>>2911746
>People are still fawning over and trying to analyze something that's as conceptually simple as the Mona Lisa.
>implying this is a good thing
>implying consensus affirms quality

>>2911792
And guess who's doing that? The very art critics who over-analyze everything. Way to prove my point.

>>2911789
Can you not enjoy nature? Don't people go out of their way to visit places of natural beauty? That experience has value -- but there's no masterful artist at work.

If people subjectively find value in something, why should the artist's intentions or skill matter at all?

File: 9256.jpg (84KB, 458x370px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 458x370px

>>2911746
>there's a good chance you'll see things that weren't even intended by the artist.
That was actually Picasso's problem with literal abstract painting, he argued that the viewer could make out figurative imagery in randomness if they chose. Anyways, ambiguity is used in other art forms, like literature and film where it can be hard to tell if the author is implying something in the subtext/imagery. Kubrick did this a lot, as did Joyce. Aside from that, I also happen to like Picasso's sense of design, I just enjoy his general sense of aesthetics but that part is entirely subjective. Anyway, "the world's greatest artist" will never be universally agreed upon, that's just not how any art form works.

While modern art might be easier to make, it's harder to read which is where the appeal lies. With classical art, it's harder to make but easy to 'get'. As much as people might try to read into the subtext of a classical painting, they could just as well do the same with a photograph. I enjoy a both classical and modernist painting, but they're different and do different things for me.

>>2911735
uh huh

>>2911655
Sounds like the equivalent of James Joyce for visual art.

Generally there's a big gap between what art expects from the viewer and from the artist. For example, golden age 2D animation was gorgeous and required extreme mastery to create, but any child could enjoy it. A skilled viewer could appreciate all the nuances, sure, but it wasn't required.

The same was true of classical art, it's generally pretty easy to appreciate as a viewer but took extreme skill to create. Modern art goes in the reverse direction, asking for more from the viewer and less from the artist.

Not knocking on people who truly enjoy it, solving puzzles can be fun, but I sometimes wonder how much that sort of thing spreads because people want to show off their sophistication.

>>2911807
>That experience has value -- but there's no masterful artist at work.
We're talking about art, not every enjoyable experience ever.

>If people subjectively find value in something, why should the artist's intentions or skill matter at all?
First of all, I never said that. Second, when did this become about who enjoys what? If you want to measure something's worth by the pleasure it provides, modern and contemporary art would rank near the bottom, while artists like Justin Bieber and writers like Stephenie Meyer would be considered legendary masters. Something being enjoyed by someone, doesn't make it great.

The contemporary art world is incredibly insular, and doesn't provide a lot of joy to a lot of people. My criticism isn't against the people who enjoy it. It's about the people who control it, and the redefinition of art that is paradoxically both narrow and broad. It's narrow in that sense that art has been redefined to focus on the idea above all else, regardless or the artist's ability to express that idea, and it's broad in that this lowers the bar to the point where there is no skill requirement at all to become a good artist. In fact, learning traditional media is actively discouraged and often not taught at all in art academies, while many technically skilled artists are deliberately shut out and even criticized because they're creating figurative art or painting in a style that is deemed unacceptable or outdated by the art community. I wouldn't have a problem with modern and contemporary art existing, if it wasn't for the fact that they're excluding everything else.

File: aw1133.jpg (961KB, 1200x1011px) Image search: [Google]

961KB, 1200x1011px

>>2911829
Found a better version of this one.

>>2911829
>While modern art might be easier to make, it's harder to read which is where the appeal lies.
Except that you can read whatever you want into it. Being vague is often just a cheap trick to goad people into making their own interpretations, and making them think it's deeper than it really is. It's what's commonly referred to as intellectual masturbation.

One example from television is the ending of The Sopranos. People are still discussing the ending, even if the director deliberately made it vague and inconclusive. Did he die? Did he live? Fact is, no amount of discussion, interpretation or hidden clues will lead to an answer, because the author didn't intend for there to be one. It's an artificial way to generate interest and to keep people talking.

With that said, I'm not saying all forms of symbolism, personal interpretations or hidden imagery are bad. What I'm saying is that it's gotten to a point where that's all there is to art. The craft is gone, and all you have left is a million different interpretations that have very little connection to the original work, and people praising the incredible depth of a blank canvas or a picture of a can of soup.

>>2911874
I actually don't mind that one. I also like his bull drawings.

Still, it's more of a novelty than what I would consider the work of a revolutionary master painter.

>>2911894
>Except that you can read whatever you want into it. Being vague is often just a cheap trick to goad people into making their own interpretations, and making them think it's deeper than it really is. It's what's commonly referred to as intellectual masturbation.
People say this exact same thing for Kubrick's 2001: A space odyssey. You either like this kind of stuff or you don't. You don't like it, which is fine. Others do, at this point it's just a matter of taste. I don't like contemporary art, my personal taste ends with modernism but that's just how it is. We're all different, like what you like. Some guys like blondes, some like fatties, some guys like guys, I don't really care.

Warhol's soup can is actually a riff on dada-ism. It's meant as a nod to Duchamp's use of everyday items as art as well as the term "dada"-ism itself being a non-sensical phrase repeated over and over again (dadadadadada), mixed with pop art's defiance against Greenberg's assertion that kitsch could never be high art. You put the two together and you get a soup can repeated over and over again. I don't like pop art or Andy Warhol at all, it's not my thing but that doesn't mean that there isn't something to be read in it. I just don't find it appealing.

Regardless, I generally find /ic/ to be a waste of time and I'm not trying to change anybody's mind. I'm also not getting paid to teach here so I'm done posting about this stuff anymore. Good night.

File: efe826ee932d3b4957ffaa814ab509c3.jpg (389KB, 1600x862px) Image search: [Google]

389KB, 1600x862px

op here, I also love artists like frazetta and kim jung gi.

I like the conversation this threads sparked btw.

File: rozieb.jpg (259KB, 2953x1181px) Image search: [Google]

259KB, 2953x1181px

>>2909956
I have done this when i was 17. It should have been included in the poster for hip-hop event (actually just art school project). My teachers were offended by it because muh ww2

>>2914137
Its not even about ww2.

>>2914137
That is pretty distasteful, I don't know why you thought that was a good idea.

>>2914156
The painting was created in response to the bombing of Guernica, a Basque Country village in northern Spain, by Nazi German and Fascist Italian warplanes at the request of the Spanish Nationalists.

>>2914159
i know. i was edgy kid

>>2911655
An this is the problem with modern and post modern art. Ego. You think you are above everyone else because you've seen some secret meaning in a urinal or a literal pile of trash. If the average person can't read the emotion or the aspect of the human condition you are trying to display in your art, you've failed as an artist. Art is communication. And that anime several have already shit on, those over sized eyes your so quick to criticize, they convey human emotion on an easier to read level than reality. People are able to read that emotion easily, and form a connection to it. That's why you're discussing art on an image board dedicated to discussing chinese fucking cartoons.

>>2914167
Yes i know but that was during the spanish civil war.

>>2909956
This doesn't really make me feel anything or interest me. Do I have to see it in person? Am I just a pleb?

Picasso was the first to use speculation about the value of his works to get rich.
Picasso was one of the first to confiscate art from the plebs to make it an obscure mind-wank.

Fuck him.

>>2914202
>People are able to read that emotion easily, and form a connection to it.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kitsch

>>2914202
You wouldn't have your abstract, chinese cartoon designs without modern art, you'd know this if you weren't an illiterate weeb

>>2911062
This makes me indescribably angry.

File: images (2).jpg (15KB, 380x387px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 380x387px

>>2910140

>>2909984
>>2909956

I don't understand how people can like this. I'm not being condescending, I am confused and would genuinely like to be enlightened on how I can appreciate these kinds of images, too.

>>2915417
Except people don't form a genuine connection to abstract art. It's basically a placebo effect. It's just a random, incomprehensible mess, so people project whatever they want to it, and interpret that as depth.
This really is the whole trick behind modern/post-modern art. The false sense that something has depth or quality, because it's an obfuscated mess that can be interpreted however you want.

>>2915972
we live in a fucking satire from the 30's

>>2911062
That's a hilarious response tho.
Someone should edit a standing ovation in with the cringiest trash ever. If that wasn't the video already

>>2916078
What did he mean by this?

>>2916074
this isn't true at all
sage this fucking thread already

>>2916043
relationships between shapes

talking about picasso on an art board where people spend more time playing video games than drawing is a bad idea
sage

>>2914574
ok