What has become of us

>>3034076
I never get why people expect the artistic academia to write landscapes and portraits with them. Aren't they supposed to do everything in their possibilities to bring the art form forward? In that case something like the sculpture in your pic is to the artist infinitely more interesting than any good landscape that has come out from deviantart.

What also annoys me is the fact that complain the most about contemporary art are also, usually, people who don't support the new art that fit their standards. People complaining about a Rothko NEVER care enough about art to support an artist that, to them, could be the next Raphael. They bitch about avant-garda only because yes, they are producing art, but not for plebs like OP, who, to appreciate art, needs to find the name of its author on a history book or a wikipedia page.

It's the same with music by the way. People bitch vostantly about composers from conservatoires, who compose mostly for the academic community (a Boulez sonata is worthless to the public, but infinitely useful to performers and composers) while still being unable of supporting not even a single artist who uses the tonality they so much like. Ultimately, it appears that this sort of conventional art is not truly interesting to anyone really. People want to go to go in a museum and say "that looks nice", and will end up worshipping competence (even in its most basic form, you don't need to be Rembrandt or Beethoven to truly amaze your audience, a realistic representation or a tonal piece with nice rhythms will be enough) far more than the essence itself of the art they're contemplating. It makes for a much shallower appreciation, so much that they won't ever bother looking for or supporting art of a similar kind.

Sorry for the rant, but as far as I'm concerned you're the worst person on this board.

>>3034177

You shouldn't be sorry for what you wrote, actually I am thankful for your post because it captures the essence what I and I hope bunch of others on this board also think.

>>3034177
Why I'm pissed off at post modern/contemporary art is there's a massive drop in standards now that anyone can be an artist by overthinking and shilling some last minute art project. These (con)artists are hardly trained in the fundamentals and traditional disciplines and foster in a circle jerk PC environment (just go down to any western uni art school) where they pretentiously shit paint and objects around a canvas.

If these postgrad art students or some contemporary experimental artist were to draw a simple landscape or portrait pencil & paper it'll most likely be in the callibre of the /ic/ beginner thread. You don't truly bring any art form forward by abandoning the fundamentals.

>>3034177
you've managed to type an awful lot without asctually saying anything.
there are modern artists who are respectable, why you tried to claim that there arent, or that i believe they arent, i dont know, perhaps you just wanted to look like you "won" on a viet sand pattern forum. you have claimed that the modernist degeneration of traditionally held values of quality is progress yet the results of these do not stand on their own for their objective quality and only are seen to have quality with relativity to their degeneration of the classical standards. this process does not create progress. you have claimed that they are to be shielded from criticism for the fact that they produce in quantity whereas the matter at hand was entirely one of quality. you have claimed that people do not enjoy high art (historically untrue) and that for this reason high art and the classical standards have zero value, this does not logically follow as you have tried to claim it does. you have claimed that because many people have lower standards that the piece is therefore to be accepted among pieces that those with high standards would praise, this is false.

>>3034177
>>3034773

Fucking rekt

>>3034177
GB2 bed gaylord Hundertwasser is wait

>>3034773
then explain why postmodern art is remembered and studied, while comtemporary traditional art is costantly glossed pver by both critics and the publics.
People like you have just not seen enough art. anyone who has really studied art history eill truly know how exhaustes the classical style is, and how meaningless every innovation can be now.
>b-but what about beauty
In the long run no one cares about beauty alone. If Raphael was born in 1987 almost no one would care about him. He would porbably be a small time commissioner, or at worst a copyist. If accidentally you were to see a contemporary traditional masterpiece in a gallery, you would be amazed for a maybe one minute, and then you would go on with your life. That's why this art does not enter the curricula anymore: because once you explore the actual characteristics of the market and the public, both specialized and general, you will quickly discover that no one REALLY cares about it, certainly not in the way people cared about Raphael's art in his lifetime.

Stop being a LARPer, and if you're so desperate for realistic religious art, just seqrch for it instead of complaining about pieces of art thtat offended you (as if this was not intended).

>for their objective quality
There's no such thing. You can make such a judgement as long as you're in a specific style. Once you're out of it statements like these stop making sense, and just reveal a weak mind filled with prejudices.

>you have claimed X,Y,Z
Nope, you've just made it up. I've claimed none of those things.
>this process does not create progress.
You can track the progress of countless contemporary and postmodern movements. It's not a progress in the classical style, but they were not meant to be so in the first place.

Typical reactionary drivel of people who are scared of other people's tastes, while being unable of supporting the art that, apparently, they so much care about. Charlatans.

>>3034076
man that's shitty ( ° ʖ °)

>>3034894
>then explain why postmodern art is remembered and studied, while comtemporary traditional art is costantly glossed pver by both critics and the publics.
this is a completely fabricated claim. modern art sells more for the fact that some people enjoy looking as if they might have taste. everything you said here is false.
>People like you have just not seen enough art. anyone who has really studied art history eill truly know how exhaustes the classical style is, and how meaningless every innovation can be now.
trust me guise im an oldfag XD
>In the long run no one cares about beauty alone
false, thats the most important factor people care about. why do we remember the beautiful paintings of centuries past when we will never remember the praised modern art for even a decade, because once it loses its social context it loses all value.
>the market is a judge of aesthetic quality and not a judge of monetary value
false
>criticism of certain pieces isnt valid because other better pieces exist
false
>no such thing as objective quality
this is mostly untrue although this is the first thing you have said that is somewhat reasonable. relativity is not an absolute, you seem to have a dedication to defending what is transparently ignoble simply for the fact that it openly denounces the things that you have a prejudice against.
>you have claimed XYZ but i didnt
if you arent going to be honest with the points you made when you are called out for them then there is no point in having a discussion in the first place.
>there is progress within modernism
there is progress in statements made but no progress in aesthetic quality.

>drivel, scared, once again claiming that i dont support any artists, charlaton
ad hominem

>>3034914
>modern art sells more for the fact that some people enjoy looking as if they might have taste.
Is this an argument? Artists support the art they support because they just ''don't get'' traditional art? Do you think that the average contemporary art enthusiast is that shallow, ignorant and naive?
>trust me guise im an oldfag XD
>traditional art is THE BEST!!!! but I'm not willing to look at the traditional art of the past, even though I would need to live 5 lives in order to experience all of it
>why do we remember the beautiful paintings of centuries past
Because they achieved beauty through certain innovations that brought the medium forward. It's why you only know of Raphael instead of any of the other thousands of perfectly competent, if not virtuosistic, artists. Regardless, the general population can really recognize what is truly outstanding in Raphael, for they do not know what is truly outstanding in his craft in general, therefore sheer beauty is not the most relevant factor or their fame
>false
I was just pointing out that when you look at the role that post-modern art in the art market, you should notice an absence, not a monopoly. Said art is directed to certain people, and you may not be in this group. Does the mere existence of this art bother you? If it's about the role it has (basically non-esistent), I've just pointed out why in galleries you'll basically never find traditional art (I was not judging it asthetically through the masses' taste).
1/2

>>3034934
>you seem to have a dedication to defending what is transparently ignoble
I'm defending its existence, not its supremacy, which you are costantly implying. Also I have not claimed its superiority over traditional art.
>for the fact that it openly denounces the things that you have a prejudice against.
You're the one riddled by the prejudices, for you're concerned by the sole existence of certain pieces of art. Pardon me the buzzword, but you're a textbook reactionary.
>if you arent going to be honest with the points you made when you are called out for them then there is no point in having a discussion in the first place.
You may try to read them in the first place.
>no progress in aesthetic quality.
Only from a classical point of view, which is beyond the point.
>ad hominem
No argument was attached to that. It was an attack on your character.

File: thumb_1920x1080_c505451a7be2ddcdc242a0251653c137_1448427944.jpg (98KB, 740x1080px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 740x1080px

>>3034894
You do not watch movies, animation, play games or listen to music.

There is objective beauty that cares rats arse about modern art. That is quantified by how many people are willing to pay to see or hear that piece.

How many of these shit pile artists have made millions from millions of people paying them?

Pic by the professor of painting in Finnish Academy of fine art. You actually think this somehow brings anything to art?

>>3034953
>That is quantified by how many people are willing to pay to see or hear that piece.
This goes against your point.

>How many of these shit pile artists have made millions from millions of people paying them?
The one in OP's pic, for example.

>You actually think this somehow brings anything to art?
I'd leave this opinion to the experts, who apparently cared enough about it to give tenure to that professor.

>>3034894
>then explain why postmodern art is remembered and studied, while comtemporary traditional art is costantly glossed pver by both critics and the publics.

>something is good because a lot of people that have a vested interest in saying it's good say it's good

lol

>>3034934
>Do you think that the average contemporary art enthusiast is that shallow, ignorant and naive?

Not him, but considering the plurality of them are debt ridden verbose retards fresh out of college and white collar criminals in need of something convenient to wash their south american drug money with I absolutely believe that.

The sooner you stop being impressed with meaningless art buzzwords and trivial narrative pertaining to an artist's boring and unremarkable life story the better. While it was novel for a decade or two, today this kind of Duchamp and Pollock art only exists because the government pays for it to exist. It's thinly veiled economic welfare that happens to double as a ponzi scheme for the rich and powerful who want some way to project their wealth and evade taxes at the same time lmoa

>>3034958
>I'd leave this to my appeal to authority fallacy, regular little people's opinions don't count lmoa

kys urself fgt

>>3034958
I don't need to hear the opinion of experts that think modern art is ok to waste our taxpayers money on. I went to the academy graduating students gallery show.

The highest rated artwork was a photo of the student with a bucket on her head, and a pony toy next to her.

It's trash. They teach trash, that brings no value to this world, wasting our collective money when the new graduates who have been taught trash find they have no marketable skills and go to kela to get money aid.

Modern art is literally sucking money out of Finnish society, and produces nothing to show for it. No beauty, skill or products.

Also, you're arguing against two people, at least.

>>3034962
>>something is good because a lot of people that have a vested interest in saying it's good say it's good
We were not talking about the aesthetic value of said art, rather we were talking about the characteristics of art appreciation, from the point of view of both the public and the art community (the former does not support for shit, the latter does).

> Not him, but considering the plurality of them are debt ridden verbose retards fresh out of college and white collar criminals in need of something convenient to wash their south american drug money with I absolutely believe that.
Sure, it is easy to dismiss 100 years of arts by stereotypes. I guess traditional art was made by old white men who wanted to propagate patriarchy by painting religious sceneries. Do you really consider this arguing? I mean, when your thesis implies that 99% of the experts of a certain that have walked on this planet in the last 100 years were all retards, while you instead have it all figured out, maybe you should at the very least brush your arguments once more.

>It's thinly veiled economic welfare that happens to double as a ponzi scheme for the rich and powerful who want some way to project their wealth and evade taxes at the same time lmoa
So the rest of the argument is just more conspiracies and stereotypes? Ok.

>>3034963
Caring about expert's opinion is authority fallacy? Also for a fallacy to be present there have to be an argument. I've only stated the fact that experts decided to give a tenure to that artist, and apparently this was enough to trigger you.

>>3034968
It's not conspiracy when drug lords literally change all the paintings in their house once a month. Guess what kind of art works best for this money laundering? The kind only "experts" can see value in. Modern art.

>>3034974
Rich people keep the best art in their house? That's new!

>>3034177
Amen.

>>3034981
It's so best that whenever possible, it should be sold.

>>3034988
Basically how the art market has worked for centuries?

>>3034958
im not him

>>3034992
Indeed. Funny how artworks find homes whenever a normal, rich trough legal means person buys them, but drug cartels and other people who need to launder huge sums of money sell and buy art like Pokémon cards.

>>3035001
Again, you're describing a very common thing in art history. Art dealers are as old as artists.

>>3034981
>something is automatically good because it costs a lot of money and also because a small cadre of "experts" whom couldn't possibly be financially entangled with the criminals that exchange pieces for millions at a time on a weekly basis say so lmoa

You should probably spend this time working at paying down your debt instead of wasting it here college boy. This board will never treat this kind of art with the "reverence" you think it's due and that's a very good thing.

Art and books used to be made/written by intellectuals. Common people were paying for the stuff being created by them. Hence why the intelligent few could make a career out of it. Over time, the common people started to dislike not being able to fantasize about reaching these levels of perfection and started withholding their money+ started adoring art that didn't require skill.

This has progressed in such a manner that now everybody can make art, nobody still pays for art and no contemporary art is worth watching. In fact, the art itself isn't even important any more. People pay for a personality(like sashimi-chan), not the work being created.

Hence why people keep making more outrageous work and becoming more entitled, whiny, feminist cuckolders to promote themselves as a sell-able brand, rather than create something of incredible value.

We have no more boundaries to the art market, so expect the art itself to become more bland over time until it completely dies out.
Maybe then we'll have a chance of going back to the intelligent few, but I doubt it. With the artrenewal schools producing constant shite, deviantart producing shite, there's virtually no avenues of excellence left.

It's what the people wanted, it's what they got. Now everybody with a mental illness can be a poor, starving artist.
I'd suggest just sitting back, relax and watch it all burn down around you. :)

>>3034177
>Aren't they supposed to do everything in their possibilities to bring the art form forward?

They aren't supposed to do anything. It's their own choice that they pursue art and if all they can do is shit in a box and beg for attention then homeless people are artists.

It's up to us /ic/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAExa9P7hME

File: 18-paul-mccarthy-deflated.w710.h473.jpg (128KB, 710x473px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 710x473px

>>3035069
Some people aren't putting up with it.

File: PicsArt_06-21-11.53.23.jpg (268KB, 1413x1413px) Image search: [Google]

268KB, 1413x1413px

>>3034177
I'm with you on this one Anon, These people irk me greatly.

>>3035008
Nice reading comprehension.

>>3035165
They are supposed to do so because they operate inside of academia. If you want art to be pleasing and easy, you should look in other places: there are countless traditional artists out there you can support.

>>3035069
I love when people try to riff about art history while knowing nothing about it, as if the death of the classical style has not been documented extensively for a century now. But sure, keep believing your half-assed, reductionist conspiracies, while pretending that you're talking about something mystical and nebulous, which can be achieved only through your (shitty) intuitions, instead of, you know, just getting educated. Even from a conservative point of view your analysis is pathetic, you're not doing a great service to your cause.

>>3034076
To be honest this piece of art is pretty dense. There are many very specific elements we could discuss her for hours. I find it very suggestive.
Also I'd say that the craft show absolute competence. Why does this piece bother you? Is it its subject?

>>3035815

I'd say you're pretty dense yourself. And my cause doesn't need supporting, you'll see for yourself eventually. This type of art will slowly make the craft of making art die out. Because eventually, nobody will keep buying the hot potato that is nonsense art.

And art history is documented by idiots like yourself. Same reason I don't trust Vasari's fanboy stuff about the old masters.

If you take money away from an industry, it gets filled up with retards and the best of the rest type of people. Not the pragmatic, smart, thriving young individuals of before.

So while the market is over-saturated by mouth-breathing progressives like yourself, it'll keep spiralling down.

So take your peeing policewoman like a good little cuck and put your mouth beneath her anal cavity. If you're a good little progressive mouthpiece, she might take a nice, long shit you can gobble up.

And this is spoken as someone who had to endure 5 years of this horseshite to get my masters for teaching.

>>3035851
>And art history is documented by idiots like yourself.
Art history is documented also by people who hold similar views to yours. Do you think that you're that special? People like you (reactionaries) started writing books against contemporary art from the moment it started. I guess you're too ignorant to know that there are intellectuals against postmodernism in the fist place. It's all a big conspiracy, isn't it?

>So while the market is over-saturated by mouth-breathing progressives like yourself, it'll keep spiralling down.
Basic acceptance of postmodern art means that I'm a mouth-breathing progressive? I'm not an enthusiast. Unlike you, it's mere existence simply does not trigger me.

>cuck
Of course

>So take your peeing policewoman like a good little cuck and put your mouth beneath her anal cavity.
Sure, keep examining all art only from a traditional point of view. Insights that come from people like you are worthless, at the end they're just observation about wether a piece perfectly comform to your set of values, which I are mostly moral and political. Look for your party's art elsewhere.

File: Umberto_Boccioni,_1913,_Dynamism_of_a_Cyclist_(Dinamismo_di_un_ciclista),_oil_on_canvas,_70_x_95_cm,_Gianni_Mattioli_Collection,_on_long-term_loan_to_the_Peggy_Gug.jpg (416KB, 1280x928px) Image search: [Google]

416KB, 1280x928px

>>3034177
You are right.
I was much like OP before I entered arts uni, but after a while, I have to admit art is bigger than traditional beauty. I have to admit a lot of repulse stems from pure lack of understanding, rather than from actual dislike.
My classmates are not like me- They enjoy some bland realism, romanticism, disney shit, etc- plebeians, no other term could describe them better.
Im not saying old styles have no value- I do like some. But limiting art to neoclassicism is like wanting to revert physics back to Newton.

>>3035815
art comes from crafts. It's the pursuit for higher aesthetics. Attention whoring like shitting on floors require no skills however. It's not art, as simple as that. It's not a matter of feelings or subjective opinions nor what some hack with a modern "art degree" tries to sell. People like you are going to be a laughing stock when people in the future puts our present into a historical perspective.

>>3035921
That pee puddle required refined craft for it to be renditioned realistically. I mean, if we're talking about craft, why are you not talking to the sculpture itself?
You're talking about the subject, not the craft.

>>3035925
more like you are talking out of your ass because you like the smell of your voice. Do you go sightseeing through public toilets downtown checking out the bowels to spot artistic talents of your caliber? I'm sure that when some baby starts playing with its diaper it is the artistic highlight of any exhibition for you.

Can we get a hd zoom on the pussy?

>>3035956
See? You're keep talking about the subject of the piece, while attacking its craft. You're a bit confused on your own opinions, my friend.

>>3035998
*you keep

>>3034177
>>3034530
/ic/ has fallen

>>3036006

It was only a matter of time before the normies and deviantarts came shovelling their intellectual dishonesty here. It's best to just ignore them like the rest of the world does. They feed on attention, they think it'll enhance their reputation and get their drivel sold so they can finally move out of their parents basement and tell them "I told you mama, I'm an art-IEST after all. Some Russian guy gave me 5 bucks for my painting if I also took it up the ass. Now I can stop sucking off sailors for pennies with bachelor degree in fine art. It's the high life for me, mama."

>>3036050
>tfw this anon was a clichè 100 years ago

>>3034177
see>>3035331

The answer is Jews

https://vimeo.com/128428182
https://youtube.com/watch?v=lNI07egoefc

>>3036152
>Prager U
What does it feel like to be mentally retarded?

>>3036154
You're the one with the logical fallacies, you tell me, also post work.

>>3035998
How can you be this stupid?

>>3036783
I guess you don't know what craft means, and I'd say you're dense for attacking this aspect of this piece, since that piece is a fucking extremely realistic painted sculpture.
What bothers you is the subject (a policewoman urinating), yet you haven't explained why you're hating it. So far you've just said that it is a sign of poor craft, without really saying why.

File: unphased.gif (2MB, 395x313px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 395x313px

you gotta be a special kind of snobbish retard in order to believe most modern art is actually art and not a fucking business

they're just trying to do what's currently popular in the art world, if it's painting with menstrual blood, most of them will do it, or take it a step further and paint a painting of a rich obese man with african baby HIV blood and sell it to some retarded snob faggot hipster who inherited a fortune for a million dollars

there's nothing genius about that, nothing, I can come up with retarded kind of shit like that in the spot, /b/ which is cancer full of children can come up with thousands of bizarre ideas a day that those genius modern artists could never even dream of thinking

it's lovely that some of you actually buy into that kind of bullshit, but at last don't expect everyone else to do so either

it's a scam, a cheap business of fake art for snobbish hipsters, a bamboozle, it's not serious, stop getting meme'd

>>3036896
>I can come up with retarded kind of shit like that in the spot
do it

>>3036874

well crafted does not equal worthwhile.

>>3036928
You're the one talking about craft here, for fuck's sake.
>>3036896

>I can come up with retarded kind of shit like that in the spot
You can probably come up with ideas that are at best derivative and old, for you apparently know nothing about contemporary art.

People like to bring this sculpture up and not discuss its meaning.
I know it's supposed to be making a statement on vulnerability but i'm not sure if its supposed to be showing a figure of repression as human and worthy of compassion or if its to show them as flawed and being weaker than they appear.

>>3036998
it has no intention of meaning either. it only exists for the purpose of shock value and attention seeking

>>3037009
Why are you so sure about that?

>>3037009
because those statements do not have artistic value, and therefore are not the reason the piece was created.

>>3037052
Care to explain yourself? I'm not trying to be patronizing, I genuinely don't understand what are you exactly criticizing here.

>>3037113
i believe there are some statements that have artistic value although i cant think of any that come to mind im sure they exist. if there are however, this one is certainly not one of them. the statement itself strikes me as something thatonly exists as an excuse to pull out if anyone claims the only motivations are simply shock value and attention seeking and also as a method of baiting plebeian pseudo-intellectual discussion for the punters.

>>3037130
I'm not that anon.
So, this is not art because you (a, and you admitted it, completely uneducated spectator) don't feel like they're art, and you've heard stories about art that is only made for shock value. This is it? Why are you writing it in the first place?
It's worthless, you're just telling us that there are things you know nothing about you don't like. What should we do this information? And would you respect someone who would trust and internalize these statements at face value?
You're full of shit.

>>3037132
>admitted uneducated spectator
saying that in theory blatant sub-subtle messages in art can have artistic merit but i cant name any off the top of my head doesnt mean that i am uneducated on the matter, seems that you wanted to reach for that conclusion.
>why are you writing
you asked you shit
>only saying you dont like it
i said more than that, read the post again
>what should i do with the information
think on it a bit or dont
>respect, full of shit, simplification, etc
nice ad hominem bud.

>A thinly veiled Chunbum thread

To maybe actually take part of the discussion:

In the classical music acadamia world, it seems as though there is a subjective, "intellectual" divide between those who have studied classical musical theory/performance and those who have studied jazz theory/performance/improv. I always hear that one is more superior than the other, and the gigantic flame wars that occur when one is more "highly represented" in a situation. Jazz people say that classical music is too stuctured, or stiff, and is usually devoid of much complexity in relation to "Jazz. Theory." Classical musicians say that jazz is too organic, or that it isn't as respected as classical/baroque music needs/should be...a bunch of bs hobbled into a single album. People argue as if there's some sort of purpose trying to keep the two ideas separate.

But after an open view through the history of music, one might find that those who are remembered/written down in history are the composers who actually enjoy the creation of music. Whether it be a focus on how a singular note is played, or by how many 7ths, 9ths, 11ths, 13ths you can add on a chord while making it still sound good.

I feel there's a similar construct within the visual art realm. Once people start appreciatating the fact that artists are actually making art, and we can start having actual critiques that aren't taken personally, we can begin to have a better board.

>>3037138
>saying that in theory blatant sub-subtle messages in art can have artistic merit but i cant name any off the top of my head doesnt mean that i am uneducated on the matter, seems that you wanted to reach for that conclusion.
It's gibberish and it refers to nothing. You have not talked about the piece not even once.

>you asked you shit
I'm not that anon. Regardless, he only asked to explain yourself, this was your message from the beginning. That you don't like certain things you know nothing about, not even when it comes to the traditional art you're defending.

>i said more than that, read the post again
You didn't.

>think on it a bit or dont
Should I think about your vague, uncoherent and uninfoemed feelings and impressions, which were also presented in a reductionist form that does not give any reference nor to the piece nor to the criteria you use to judge (of which you're still refusing to give any clarification, although other anons have asked to you a bit more clear multiple times).

>nice ad hominem bud.
Not how the ad hominem fallacy works, mong.

>>3037159
>Jazz people say that classical music is too stuctured, or stiff, and is usually devoid of much complexity in relation to "Jazz.

Quite the opposite, jazz musicians always complain about the extensive usage of theory in contemporary music, to the point where to understand it you have to have studied the score extensively before hand.

>Classical musicians say that jazz is too organic
Are you making this up? Why?

t. have been in conservatories since I was 5, you're stereotypes are not even wrong

>>3037175
Okay I was wrong about my assumptions, but that doesn't discredit the fact that there is a clear "rivalry" between musical mindsets.

>>3037159
>>3037262
t. someone who isn't even a musician trying to talk about jazz and classical musicians' relationship with each other

File: 5hsg9yk2onfz.jpg (2MB, 2081x3355px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2081x3355px

i'm a painter, I make my living in the artworld, this thread sucks--

the biggest things yall are missing is that high level contemporary art is linked to the rest of culture in the way that nerd stuff yall make isnt--- contemporary art is related to music, literature, film, and politics in ways that make it exciting for the people engaged with it.

2ndly, most of the art that this board shits on as for being some kind of cancerous vulgar degenerative aberration of modernity isn't actually successful. What you see are a lot of people propping up hustles that in most cases are actually never going to go anywhere.

File: 9.5+Theses+full+cover-galley+006.1.sm.jpg (403KB, 646x646px) Image search: [Google]

403KB, 646x646px

>>3037371
further, this text will be helpful for those who are actually interested in understanding how contemporary art works

>>3034177
You serious with this shit m8? I agree that artists ought to do what they can to drive art forward to progression, and that it's up to individual artists to define art and progression (for themselves) through their work.
But I will always be the first to criticize art like in OP. We used to bitch that shock jocks were riding controversy to get popular. Now said shock jocks have high technical competency and instead of legitimizing their art it did the opposite and only emphasizes their base subject matter.
The problem with art like this is that it's a move downward, because it appeals to the lazy and uninspired "do anything to get out of art block" tendency of hacks and amateurs.
Does OP pic related edify you? Does it make you think? Does it make you question? Does it bring up an issue? Does it make you want to become an artist too?
As far as I can tell, all it says is, look how well I can sculpt a cop pooping lol cops are bad.

>>3037398
>Does it make you think? Does it make you question? Does it bring up an issue?
Objectively yes.

Again, you've complained about the piece while saying nothing about it. Why are you equating this piece to shock jocks? Because a woman is urinating? That's barely obscene, only a puritan would be OFFENDED by it. Also why are you pretending that this is the only element of the piece?
To be fair most of what you've wrote seems to be rooted in stereotypes and prejudices, otherwise you would have been able to actually, coherently criticize this piece of art from either a unbiased or a more conservative point of view. Instead we got muh shock muh morality in art.

>>3037406
>lol u offended m8?
Jesus, you're one of those.
God forbid I expect artists to work towards the betterment of the craft. Art is the only craft that thinks progress is a race to the bottom.
Now respond to my last post like a person who can think thoughts or I'll just assume your a pissy 22 year old art student who just passed contemporary art appreciation with an A because of muh rote memorization.

Here's a hint, take longer than 6 minutes to reply next time, big thinker ;)

>>3037421
>God forbid I expect artists to work towards the betterment of the craft.
You've talked about the subject until now. You don't even know what the term "craft" means.

>Art is the only craft that thinks progress is a race to the bottom.
Do you realize that the fact that a woman is pisisng there tells you NOTHING about the craft?

>Now respond to my last post like a person who can think thoughts or I'll just assume your a pissy 22 year old art student who just passed contemporary art appreciation with an A because of muh rote memorization.
Even more stereotypes (this is, ultimately, what your posts boil down to). Also notice that once again you've said nothing about the piece itself, and the theories you've spouted are uncoherent, since you clearly don't know the meaning of the terms you're using.

File: LactoseIntolerance.jpg (37KB, 598x600px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 598x600px

>>3034076

Only reedeeming feature of this is the effort put by the artist into it - it's very realistic and it can even piss. Other than that...

Artist could have put another colleague hiding her behind her shield, like Queen Maeve protected by Cuchulainn; the irish were a millenia in advance on our art because the queen needed to piss while having her menstrue - artistically a double combo.

But I digress. The initial reaction of the public was the correct one - no reaction, it's just one piece of art out of many, speaking about intimacy (the beholder being, as often, the voyeur here). They had to play the media and dumb politicians to make it "controversial". I have to ask, what pissed them off? (pun intended)

Maybe nude women with little cherubins and roses are Pompier yet art speaking about piss is just as imaginative by now. Even /r9k/ got over their poopoo peepee period, that's how old if feels.

>>3037902
Do you really think that this piece is just about piss? It's certainly an element, but apart from that there are many other details that are, in fact, in complete opposition with that display.

>tfw you know that all of these anons simply don't know how to talk about art in general
>tfw you know that these anons, at best, could say about traditional art that ''it's beautiful and edifying'', without really saying ANYTHING about the piece

File: kunst.jpg (194KB, 666x832px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 666x832px

>>3038225

I'm going to print this out and put it on ebay for $10,000.

Is it art?

>>3038304
How the fuck is this paint drawing comparable to that statue, even on your own uncoherent conservative terms?

>>3038521

I haven't taken part in any conversations here. But you didn't answer my question.

damson.bigcartel.com

>>3037352
Except i am a musician you dense fuck.
No normal person would ever even think to bring up the relationship between two musical groups, let alone even consider it as a comparison to visual art groups. And if you deny that there is no sense of elitism (the point of why i brought it up and why I'm using it to compare to visual art) between the two groups and even amongst themselves ("the real book" being a good example) I seriously question your credibility. There is a certain level of pretentiousness especially within Jazz jam groups, but also everywhere else. I'll admit to having my assumptions a little warped at first but, again, it doesn't mean that there isn't any sort of conflict.

Also you've proven my point. What? Is a non-musician not allowed to critique the inner relationship of a musical group even though they have never taken a musical class? In that case, why can't a non-artist have a say about the complications between fine, contemporary art and the realist, illustrative artwork? Because they don't know any better? Because they don't know anatomy or 3pt perspective or any amount of color theory? Then what would be the point of having a following? "They "obviously" don't know what they're talking about so I don't need to listen to them." I'd argue that a "normie" audience is actually the best way to get a critique. It's funny, because a lot of what we consider "art" is actually out of our hands.
This is the same pretentious, elitist mindset that I've been arguing this entire time. Judging by your reply, you are also incapable of providing an unbiased view within the musical realm because you too have been exposed to the elitism "factor" to which has formed a "pretentious mindset" that you cannot escape. Old habits die hard, and the fact that you've been in a conservatory since you were 5 also helps my point

>>3038735
>And if you deny that there is no sense of elitism (the point of why i brought it up and why I'm using it to compare to visual art) between the two groups and even amongst themselves ("the real book" being a good example) I seriously question your credibility.
Globally musicologists are pretty fine with admitting equality between musical form. Generally shit talking jazz music in a conservatory will get you mocked by your professors and classmates, the same will happen in jazz departments if you shit talk classical music. You're basically arguing on stereotypes that are real only among fanatic listeners for which no real artist or institution care about. What you're saying is false and useless

>There is a certain level of pretentiousness especially within Jazz jam groups, but also everywhere else. I'll admit to having my assumptions a little warped at first but, again, it doesn't mean that there isn't any sort of conflict.
There is literally no sort of conflict, and the two genres are not in any sort of competition, for they all have their own specific meeting points and their own specific public with their own specific expectations.
What are you trying to make an argument over what ignorant listeners thinj? Why not referring to the actual institutions? What you're twlking about is non-existant.

>What? Is a non-musician not allowed to critique the inner relationship of a musical group even though they have never taken a musical class?
He can, but he should actually talk about aaid relationships. You just spouted stereotypes for which you'll never find open support in any musical institution.

>This is the same pretentious, elitist mindset that I've been arguing this entire time. Judging by your reply, you are also incapable of providing an unbiased view within the musical realm because you too have been exposed to the elitism "factor" to which has formed a "pretentious mindset" that you cannot escape.
God, you're unsecure.

>>3038851
Are you serious? It's apparent you aren't aware of the history of jazz, its upbringing, and the context that surrounds it.

Your argument is like saying, "Racism doesn't exist because I see black, white, asian, and hispanic people in my classroom. Your argument doesn't make sense because there is literally no racism at all, and there isn't any competition at all because they have their own specific expectations in their specific, racial world."

Your argument is like saying, "There is literally no conflict between fine/high art and contemporary art because they each have their own specific audience and have their own specific meaning, and their own specific audience. There's no conflict because a world renowned fantasy illustrator and Ai Wei Wei shook hands and said their artwork was cool."

>Globally musicologists are pretty fine with admitting equality between musical form.
Art Historians and critics have a general respect between all forms of artwork. Doesn't mean people still won't argue if Pollock's paintings are "art" or not.

>God, you're unsecure.
Firstly, I am wearing a seatbelt.
Secondly, I think you meant insecure.
Thirdly, those who project insecurity onto others are actually insecure themselves.

I'm not trying to prove my own self worth here.
I'm just pointing out observations and interpretations that I've made from research, education, and from other musicians.

>>3036977
>>3036905
A riot police taking a piss.
>do it

Hum.. the baby HIV blood is already more original and has more impact than what OP posted. So I'll do it again.

A riot police...........................

Wearing a hijab!!! BAM, WOW, THE PEOPLE THEY ARE OPPRESSING COULD BE THEMSELVES, GOD DAMN THAT IS AMAZING AND MINDBLOWING FUCKKKK TOO DEEP TOO LIBERAL HIT ME RIGHT IN THE HEART.

Yeah.. I'll wait for you to tell me how my idea is terrible and not as good as the ones these modern artists have, but if you do you have to explain to me why a riot police taking a piss is of any sort of significance.

This is fucking clownish, the fact that I have to defend my position is ridiculous. Go to any other board that is not /ic/ and try to defend this, or anywhere in the internet really. Only snobbish idiots defend literally garbage art with vague, meaningless whiny politics behind it. No one in this universe that has half a brain would pay money for that piece, no one really wants to have that piece, buying it for a million dollars is just to show how progressive you are.

>>3034076
How does a statement become art? I thought it was supposed to be the other way around.

>>3038949
we haven't made any progress in this thread

File: TheOnlyRealArt.jpg (55KB, 500x667px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 500x667px

>>3038949

Artist statement was an error. It should be forbidden while it's still a recent trend. Artists caught writing one should be stoned to death - stoned with drugs, we aren't savages.

Imagine a Sumerian putting a note below his carvings. That's how silly the idea is in itself.

> Through the process of carving that rock, I
connect with my ancestors along with legions of Sumerian men who carved stones.
> My work is a way for me to honor my father and great-grandfather who carved too and continue their legacy.
> My carvings are inspired by the laws of nature and the forms found in our holy teachings and
the Stone of Hammurabi.
> Just as everything under the Sky is bounded by divine laws, carving is bound by specific forms from my daily life.
> Using these basic forms, I work to represent the meeting of our sacred and profane lives.
> Also, may Marduk protect us from those damn Egyptians and their shitty paintings, it isn't real art

>>3038910
>It's apparent you aren't aware of the history of jazz, its upbringing, and the context that surrounds it.
All the first jazz artists listened to the first Impressionists and Modernists, who are central in the consolidation of the style. Mingus, like everyone else at the time in his infancy spent his days listening to Debussy. Past the '70s Jazz artists fully assimilated Western contemporary theory. Said influences happened in reverse too, many classical and contemporary musicians were inspired by Jazz.
>Your argument is like saying, "Racism doesn't exist because I see black, white, asian, and hispanic people in my classroom.
My argument is that these prejudices are not held by the actual musicians, but only by random listeners on the internet who want to have the upper hand on whoever does not listen the same music he listens to. The inferiority of jazz is not taught, as a statement is supported by no musical community, and once you start studying it you'll discover that there is no foundation for it. You are 100% clueless about what the current musical climate is.
Again, I'm talking from experience, I've studied in conservatories for my entire life. Also what the fuck has racism to do with this? Again, you have no idea about what you're talking about. You think you do, but your statements refers to nothing in particular.
>Art Historians and critics have a general respect between all forms of artwork. Doesn't mean people still won't argue if Pollock's paintings are "ar
Yet you were talking about the academia, and this is what the general global consensus is. Who cares about what "people" say? That's not what your point was.
>Thirdly, those who project insecurity onto others are actually insecure themselves.
you write two extensive paragraphs ranting about elitism only because I pointed out that you were not really saying anything about anything. That's like me saying that there is a feud in academia between realists and abstractists, which is not true

>>3038926
>tfw this anon thinks he is smart

craftsmanship > art