https://youtu.be/67EKAIY43kg What the fuck is this women

>>3082135
Why do you look at things to get mad at instead of drawing?

>>3082137
Can you explain this idiocy please? Is this authority in art?

>>3082135
it would help if you clearly articulated which part of the viewpoint she explains is hard to understand for you.

>>3082159
Why is she trying to validate and intellectualize insufficient and lackluster art?

>>3082168
So...you're upset with someone who labels something as art that does not quite match your notion of the term?
I get that post-/modern/contemporary art isn't for every one; but i personally wouldn't call mondrian insufficient or lackluster.
It's just that those artstyles are more about concepts and ideas, about breaking with traditions.
Honestly, i don't always understand contemporary works either.
But i wouldn't deny that it can be art to others.

Alright lads here's my breakdown okay?

1. the first picture she shows is the ol' squares (Tableau 1 by Piet Mondrian)
yeah, i can see most people being able to do this. Maybe not on their first try but on the 4th or 5th try. I don't even know if Piet himself did this on his first try.

2. School of Fontainebleau by CY Twombly
She says "the quality and character of his line work is astounding. The restrained use of color is exquisite."
She's basically saying; "I honestly have no idea what makes this good. But it's popular so it MUST be great, right? here's some Word Soup fellas. Doesn't that sound poetic? Please don't think about the fact that his linework is literally replicated by children with crayons on a daily basis and that restrained use of colour is something that's not only easy but achievable by people of all ages, but bathe in my fancy word soup."

3. Untitled (pefect lovers) By Felix Gonzalez Torres
This clock piece is great because of the title and the story behind it. The title and story behind it make it all one piece- If you remove the title and the story it's just two fucking clocks. Needless to say, anyone could do this. you don't have to have your gay partner die of aids to write a story about your gay partner dying of aids.

TLDR; yes you could do that. and no, doing something first doesn't make it any better.

>>3082185
Also i'd like to add- Everything is art. there's no line that you cross that makes something not art. But god damnit if it's gonna be in a museum hung on a wall there better be a fuckin good reason it's up there, and not some dumb reason

>>3082187
>>3082185
also-also it doesn't matter HOW IT WAS MADE. What matters is the end result. I can paint a single dot over the course of my entire lifetime and what do you get at the end? a single fucking dot.
That's why the clock piece, without the title and story, is just two fuckin clocks. That's why it doesn't matter that you painted this thing with your vagina if the painting itself is a mess of garbage that you could have easily done with your hands. Its the end result that matters.

File: 17759764_838965029586424_8370520060984797546_n.jpg (26KB, 423x472px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 423x472px

>>3082135
>>3082185
>>3082187
>>3082188


and you know WHAT? I don't like her haircut. she needs to ditch straight bangs. that's all i have left to say i think.

File: sisley92.jpg (110KB, 750x575px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 750x575px

>>3082185
>This clock piece is great because of the title and the story behind it.

But it's more of a sentiment than art.

It's not something you're going to want to see again is it? It's ephemeral and lacking substance. I think it falls short of being called an 'idea'.

>>3082185
>>3082189
>>3082239
OP here. The very fact someone's innante response to a piece is "oh I could do the same" is an alarming indication of the quality or degree of the work. In a objective sense, those pieces require bare skill to create. Like one of you said, an art piece is a product, a product on its own. A narrative or psychological manipulation does not increase the significance or splendor of the work. If in years there's no one to explain to a bystander looking at it, he most certainly could mistake it for juvenile work or more so actual trash that should be disposed. A good example of this modern artifice being exposed can be seen on National Geographic when an art critic is impressed by a piece that was in fact drawn by a primate. This has been done before and really reveals the preposterous nature of authority in art seeing as that it can easily be abused. The only authority in art is eternal criteria, a respect towards tradition, not necessarily adherence. Art veterans as far as I'm concerned are the only ones worth listening to and if they are sober, they will point out that the quality of the work is what dictates it's greatness and standards are for reference. Art is for people, not for agendas. People can't be fooled.