how can I understand painting?

>>3088402
There is nothing to understand.
It's like a meme but irl

>>3088402
study chemistry

>>3088402
feel the forms

>>3088402
start with the greeks

>>3088402
There's a primitive face in the top left corner

File: Satellite-Image-of-Wheat-Crops-Urthecast.png (3MB, 1389x738px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1389x738px

>>3088402
in terms of composition like, imagine if that jackson pollock painting was a photo of something irl, like idk, like a birdseye view of some weird landscape taken from a plane. you'd easily understand why that's a beautiful photo even if you can't tell from looking that it's farmland and trees and shit. you just come at it like that.

>how can I understand painting?
I assume you mean conceptual painting ? Just have to read contemporary, post-modernist art theory (or modernist theory if that era interests you). Your local library surely has books on the subject, just pick a few.

>>3088454
I like how you think but bad example though, since Pollock's work is heavily process-based. His paintings, part of a movement called "ACTION-painting", is not meant to be looked at like a photo (total opposite in fact) but as the visual result of a physical movement of the paint-medium in space. The splashes on the canvas are to be seen as the result of the ACTION of the paint flowing out of the brush. If you understand this, you understand Pollock.

Pretty basic, huh ? "Understanding" art is incredibly easy compared to understanding science , but you dweebs prefer to watch anime and jack off.

File: Henry-Taylor-The-Times-t.jpg (160KB, 1000x618px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 1000x618px

>>3088470
also, here are some things to keep in mind when discovering painting:

1 - it's very hard to understand modern and post-modern art without understanding modernism and post-modernism (which are historical as well as philosophical ideologies). I recommend doing a short reading on those two.

2 -not all contemporary painting is abstract. Many painters today use figurative work, even if it's still concept-oriented (pic related).

3 -remember that not all art is good !!! Once you understand an artist, you are free to say "I think this concept and its realizations are poor, even though the artists is famous/influential". Hating things you don't understand is retarded, but so is always agreeing with the mainstream opinion.

>>3088470
>result of a physical movement of the paint-medium in space.

But wouldn't film have been a better choice of medium for this than painting?

>The splashes on the canvas are to be seen as the result of the ACTION of the paint flowing out of the brush. If you understand this, you understand Pollock.

But how is that different from paint applied to canvas in any other style of painting? Isn't it more to do with the fact that he's putting his whole body into it?

>>3088500
>But wouldn't film have been a better choice of medium for this than painting?
Maybe, who knows ? Pollock was a painter, so he painted. But you may totally be right.

>But how is that different from paint applied to canvas in any other style of painting? Isn't it more to do with the fact that he's putting his whole body into it?
It isn't, but the difference (and genius) is that Pollock puts the entire emphasis of the piece on it rather than disguising it; it is painting "at its most true". And I think the use of the whole body is also integrated into this idea.

>>3088470
>but as the visual result of a physical movement of the paint-medium in space.

Also why then do so many rather than just one splash so that the focus is on the form and geometry of the resulting line? It's almost as if he's trying to obfuscate it by making it so messy and cluttered, as though he's trying to hide something.

File: ntm9-1-21.jpg (67KB, 463x500px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 463x500px

>>3088517
you know what that's a good question. I think his work was rethinking traditional painting, and so it still mimicked it on some level. I also think he was more interested with the lyrical, poetic aspects of the color splash rather than strictly scientific clarity.

File: 8284df3e8505e4374591a2135e448426--franz-kline-action-painting.jpg (53KB, 604x458px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 604x458px

>>3088517
on the other hand you also had action artists like Kline whose work is closer to what you are describing

>>3088402

You probably look at Pollock, Picasso, Warhol and see drips of paint, a crudely drawn face or a can of soup and you say to yourself I don't get it. Trying to understand that from the getgo isn't easy. You have to start from the beginning, from greek sculptures, medieval mosaics, early frescoes and eventually the renaissance which is probably one of the more easily accessible periods. Learn about composition, color, form, and learning about the artists themselves about their lives oftentimes helps too.

You don't have to understand, you just have to feel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0n0Et8aI3s

>>3088402
modern art is essentially a money laundering scheme, don't bother trying to understand it.

>>3088538
Warhol was a fraud.

>>3088785
Nah he was the greatest artist of the second half of the 20th century

look at art movements and different artists...read papers and articles if you wanna go taht deep

>>3088538
Yeah, and then you'll get to the same conclusion as everything other sane person. It's shit.

The thing with this type of "art", and the reason why certain types of people like it, is that you can come up with whatever bullshit explanation you want, because it's worthless. And this is great for people who like to hear themselves talk, or who want to appear deep and intelligent, without actually having to go through the rigorous process or learning and mastering a real discipline, where you skill and ingenuity can be testing empirically. No, then it's better to just spew a bunch of shit, and when people challenge you, claim that they're too stupid to understand what you're talking about or that it's subjective.

It's the perfect subject for pseudo-intellectuals and post-modernists.

>>3088402

Hey retard. the best way to understand paint is to apply it to your pallet and brush. After that put the brush on top of some canvas or paper and watch what it does, literally.

or you could just make this forum and beat around the bush. dumb cunt.

>>3089058
you seem very mad anon, did a painter molest you ?

File: you have been visited by the $80,000 Slade Sneakers of Life-long Debt and Unemployment. A Storied Career in Representational Illustration or Animation Will Come to You, but ONLY if you Post 'Shoo-Shoo, Shoes!' ITT.jpg (222KB, 960x640px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 960x640px

>>3089058
this