>modern art is shit! t-tolstoy told me it was! Is this statement

File: 1483256046800.jpg (12KB, 236x236px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 236x236px

Literally shit on a canvas

>>8983721
it's a telling sign, to be sure

How can Tolstoy trash something that didn't exist until well after he died?

>>8983866
Still art, the method of creation is irrelevant to the creation itself

Would you disregard gravity's rainbow if pynchon wrote it with a pen stuck halfway down his urethra?

>>8983866
All art is just different arrangements of shit on a canvas. Literature is shit on a page.

>>8983898
>>8983922
t. I think art is subjective
kys, >>>>>>>>>/reddit/

>>8984548
Art is objective though

Art is subjective is just a shitty SJW university meme

And yes, modern art is dogshit

>b-b-but muh representation

No. Brown smudges on a canvas do NOT represent life or the passage of time or some shit, it represents literally nothing except laziness and intellectual degeneracy

Modern art is garbage, quite obviously.

I'm pretty sure it exists simply to launder money or as a tool of propaganda from foreign governments.

>Of course young man, stop wasting your time creating masterpieces of art and sculpture, no no no! Instead, just shit in your hand and wipe it on a wall! Yes! My, how sophisticated, why but it must represent life itself surely? How much do you think this ones worth then, old chap? You'll give me 50 million for it? Wow, thanks!

>>8984548
I don't think art is subjective. It's objectively shit on a surface.

>>8985413
>He thinks modern art is about representation

Did you learn this in retard school?

>>8985524
Name 3 times this has happened in the history of art

File: 1484272045866.jpg (55KB, 540x405px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 540x405px

>>8983721
lel thinks art is anything more than money laundering

>modern art isn't shit! m-muh prof told me it isn't!

Is this statement the mark of a true tasteless pleb who can't see past the whole "I swear my less beautiful art that my less skilled techniques produce isn't inferior to my predecessors, whose art I had as an example to learn from, but failed" bullshit?

>>8983721

>hurr it's detailed ergo it's good

Not exactly. But not putting detail into your work probably means it's shit

>>8983898
>it's art so it's good

>>8985638
>He fell for the beauty and skill meme

>>8983721
Tolstoy is the epitome and high point of modern art, you dilltwat.

>>8985648
Yes, beauty and skill are a meme, we should strive for ugliness and incompetence instead. Good goy.

>>8985661
No we should strive to make art, fucking IDIOT.

>>8985648
>he fell for the we're all equal, everything is equal because my teacher and mom said so meme

>>8985669
What are you talking about, moron?

Honestly, Hitler did nothing wrong.

>>8983877
He probably didn't like stuff like Monet and Van Gogh.

Modern Art and Contemporary Art are confusingly interchanged

Just because everyone can make art, does not mean everyone should.

Imagine how many cases of food poisoning there will be if everyone started believing they can cook properly

>>8985674
I'm talking about you being a retarded cunt, you cunt.

What is this beauty and skill meme you speak of? There is no such "meme"
Modern art has genuinely been mistaken as garbage and actually thrown away before.
As I said, Modern art was a CIA weapon.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html

I hope you die slow

>>8985642
This. The problem with postmodernism is that it's too easy to pretend to be good at it. You can't really differentiate a "good" pomo work from a "bad" one. Some degree-holding professor has the same literary merit as the average instagram poster, since they're both being pomo. Which is why it's the go-to theme for so many humanities theses

>>8985684
No you're not because I never came close to saying anything like everything being equal. That is your dull mind at work unable to comprehend anything other than opposites.

>There is no such "meme"

Yes there is. Art is not how well you can render a scene of nature. Art is not beauty. These genres, like still lives and landscapes, were always and consistently the lowest forms of art in the academy. Skill and beauty is for film and other pleb entertainment that seeks to evoke emotion through psychological manipulation.

>Modern art has genuinely been mistaken as garbage and actually thrown away before.

ALL OF MODERN ART WAS THROWN AWAY? HOLY SHIT!

>As I said, Modern art was a CIA weapon.

WRONG idiot. Abstract expressionism, a type of modern art popular for at most 20 years was funded by the CIA. Modern art existed before and after this brief historical moment.

Fucking go back to your reddit school and end your own life.

>>8985661
There is literally no intrinsic artistic difference in value between modern and classic art styles

>>8985703
Unless you give an example, you are bait

I just wish modernism and post-modernism didn't happen in architecture

Sick of all these ugly socialist homes being bought by gormless rich snobs

>>8985700
I'll assume you mean contemporary art rather than postmodernism since postmodern art is not produced anymore.

>The problem with postmodernism is that it's too easy to pretend to be good at it.

No it isn't. You need to know theory, not everyone knows theory.

>You can't really differentiate a "good" pomo work from a "bad" one.

Yes you can for the theory it uses.

>Some degree-holding professor has the same literary merit as the average instagram poster, since they're both being pomo.

Nope, not all pomo is equal on the basis that it is pomo.

File: fb3.jpg (15KB, 250x240px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 250x240px

When everyone is postmodern, nobody will be.

>>8985715
If everyone is human, then no one is.

File: 23F760F975434D86BB6AA2935059D4B91056000000E50117E81A_tmp.jpg (62KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 800x800px

>this thread

File: art.png (25KB, 752x601px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 752x601px

It is required you can solve this before participating in the thread.

File: HorribleSubs_Bernard_Jou_Iwaku._08_720p.mkv_snapshot_00.55_2016.11.24_22.00.18.jpg (403KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

403KB, 1280x720px

What is Art?
Are we Art?
Is art Art?

File: le water lily man.jpg (311KB, 958x1024px) Image search: [Google]

311KB, 958x1024px

>>8983721

POST-MODERN! CONTEMPORARY! NOT MODERN YOU ILLITERATE NORMIE TROG RRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>8985730
Easy mode
>romanesque
>gothic
>renaissance
>baroque
>rococo
>romanticism
>neo-classicism
>modernism

Undergrad mode (I'll probably fuck up somewhere, confuse literary and art movements etc)
>romanesque
>gothic
>renaissance
>baroque
>rococo
>romanticism
>neo-classicism
>realism
>modernism
>impressionism (aren't this one and the movements below just different types of modernism?)
>symbolism
>expressionism
>cubism
>surrealism
>abstract expressionism
>minimalism

>>8985730

C-R-I-N-G-E

How do leftist intellectuals support government spending on extremely elitistic art that will only be appreciated by some new york art critic?

>>8985629
Is this conspiracy theory a real reactionary meme? I've never heard this before. I also feel like it's not hard to understand how the art market could become completely divorced from any sane concept of value when contempary art is bid on by noveau riche shitheads with no taste, which is what has actually happened.

>>8985892
>elitistic
See me after class.

File: h5_1993.132[1].jpg (97KB, 504x400px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 504x400px

Except this was modern art in his days

>>8985666
>No we should strive to make art, fucking IDIOT.
No, we should strive to make beautiful and competent art, not ugly and incompetent art.

>>8985703
>There is literally no intrinsic artistic difference in value between modern and classic art styles
You're objectively wrong, the resell value of classic art is orders of magnitude more than of modern art.

You'd better give a meaning for the word "value" you throw around so lightly, faggot.

>>8985919
Tolstoy couldn't into advanced aesthetics.
Contemporary painters completely can't into aesthetics.

>>8985919
Yeah, and every really cool poem is "epic," right?

>>8985940
Art knows not beauty or ugliness, competence or incompetence.

If you want a spectacle go watch some capeshit.

>>8985900
it's a simple mechanism:

0. the central premise of the argument: every aspect of the modern society has the function of serving the economy (making money that is)

1. art has nothing to do with art, but with creating profit

2. dumbing down the masses is in the interest of the economy (a stupid consumer is the best kind of consumer). meaningless "art" contributes to this process

3. "art experts" are an arbitrary body that has the authority to evaluate art and they evaluate it in order to fulfill 0, 1, 2

4. therefore "art experts" praise abhorrent works of "art". they give it the value it objectively doesn't have, and by doing so they assure that it will sell

5. the extremely rich buy these pieces of shit knowing that purchasing art is the best investment (the price of art is bound to grow, and it's easier/safer to keep paintings at home instead of millions on bank accounts/elsewhere)

Modern Art is shit regardless of who say it is or isn't. Period.

Photorealistic painting is no longer art because it asserts nothing.

You are all playing with language and having different debates.

Philosophy should be cleansed of you brainlets.

>>8986227
Do you summarize the western tradition of presentational art as "photorealistic painting"?

>>8984548
t. It's detailed so it's good
I bet you like beksinski
>>>/r/eddit

>>8985888
/pol/ detected
Back to your containment board

File: 1479467297247.jpg (73KB, 604x453px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 604x453px

>all this populism ITT

File: Pottery.jpg (95KB, 1022x401px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 1022x401px

>>8983866
>mfw I get that banner

Why are you people all so fucking stupid? Do you think all art is necessarily about representation when it hasn't been about representation ever since it's inception. Even DaVinci was to some extent a conceptual artist, he wasn't just painting pretty ladies and Jesus, he was actively endowing those scenes with humanistic and rationalist proportions, just like Goya wasn't just painting a shooting squad, but making a statement against spanish monarchy and so on.

You retards fail to understand the art you like, thinking it's all about this perfect quest towards ideal representation (which had it's peak in the 18th century anyway, we've already been there and done that to hell) when there's a lot more going on that you won't understand if you don't spend time studying art history and the artists lifes which will, in turn, make you stop being such a pleb and understand where modern, post-modern and contemporary (three very different things you assholes lump together, while also memeing their literary equivalents to death like they're the new prophets of the apocalypse or something) while also getting most of your intel on contemporary art from clickbait sites you're all so ready to criticize anyone from reddit for believing.

You are all disgusting and should leave this place to people who actually cherish and want to understand and experience art in all it's levels and possibilities, and start rethinking what kind of fucking pseudo-intelectual, spectacular cesspit of existential hell you're all living, because you're no better than HS faggots spending 1000 bucks on Hot Topic with mom's card to look rebelious, you're only trying even harder.

>>8983721
Modern art isn't necessarily shit. There are lots of great artists out there. The problem is many "artists" aren't trained to do anything except edgy, talentless shit and it's rightly called out as such.

>>8985730
Romanesque (really went far there bruh)
Gothic
Renaissance
[mannerism/
Baroque
Rococo
Neo-Classicism
Romantism
Realism
Symbolism
Impressionism
[Post-impressionism, no way I rememebr all those groups but Les Fauves, Der Blaue Reiter, Die Brucke, you get it]
Futurism
Cubism
Dada
Soviet Vanguards
Expressionism / New Objectivity
Surrealism
Abstract Expressionism
Minimalism
Pop Art
European Vanguards (Nouveau Realisme, Arte Povera, Situationists, COBRA, etc.)
Conceptualism
Neo-Concretism
but really at this point everything is happening so quick and at the same time it becomes pointless and modernism is over

>>8983721
I don't want to see modern art. Plebs can like it all they want, but it is realism and romanticism that inspires me to haunt /ic/. Modern art feels soulless, uninspired and is unimpressive. A bit like YA books.

>>8985945
The five most expensive paintings ever are all modernist. Actually, most of them are, the only expensive ones being memes like DaVinci
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_paintings

>>8986552
How can artists make statements nowadays when there's no great event happening? The fuck are they gonna "react" to?

>>8986582
Yeah, there's no great event happening at all, the world isn't in the middle of a demographic, economic, climatic and soon to be nuclear catastrophe, we're not running out of resources, space or anything, no one is literally on the brink of mendicancy and everything is perfectly stable.

Even if you wanna disagree with all of that, there's always space for personal discourse. You might not understand or agree with the artists personal discourse, but you can like the way he puts it.

>>8983721
tolstoy said that?
if he said then even if i like modern art i shall agree

>>8986552
>you can't understand art unless you study the history of art and the lives of the artists
and that's where we fundamentally disagree. according to your twisted logic, spit on canvas can be interpreted as art due to the message it is supposed to deliver, and the message is hidden beneath layers and layers of (shallow/meaningless) theory.

the very idea that the viewer has to go through thousands of pages of least to say questionable theory in order to be able to appreciate a painting is sickening.

>>8986588
>Yeah, there's no great event happening at all, the world isn't in the middle of a demographic, economic, climatic and soon to be nuclear catastrophe, we're not running out of resources, space or anything, no one is literally on the brink of mendicancy and everything is perfectly stable.
These are all exaggerated reddit memes that are borne from the ennui of modern society. Life isn't nearly as oppressed as back then and it's reflected in the lack of any great movement.

I hate to interrupt the conspiracy theories and arguments about whether beauty is subjective, but Tolstoy didn't say art was bad because it didn't take skill, wasn't of something specific, or whatever. Instead, Tolstoy said intent is everything. A genuine MS paint drawing is more "art" than mass-produced or profit-minded prints.

>"The first sign of a real scholar or artist is that he works not for profit, but for sacrifice, for his calling."

This statement is the mark of a true patrician.

>>8986113
if your system for valuing art can't distinguish between michelangelo's david and a random lump of marble i picked up from the ground and put on a pedestal, then your value system is worthless

>>8986493
jej

>>8986616
So, you think any kid out of elementary school can read and comprehend Ulysses?

>>8986616
Also, you're not disagreeing with me, you're disagreeing with literally every art historian and aesthetician since Vasari and Baumgarten.

You wouldn't be surprised if someone without at least college knowledge of physics couldn't understand a paper, what makes you think art has to be so given to you while other areas of human knowledge aren't?

>>8986571
You miss Land art, abstract art, neo-expressionism, fluxus, minimalism etc.

File: hbak7.jpg (42KB, 320x480px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 320x480px

>mfw some homeless guy offers his page of ink scribblings and we would laugh at him
>the modern art museums are filled with stuff like that and people admire that
>we can't differentiate art from neo-arte because muh technique don't matter, art is art, and no one knows what art is
>when the time comes we all would burn the same 'art' for warmth and preserve technique and order
>mfw controversial art pieces are one of the better investments because its value will always peak with more controversy
>mfw art is a social concept and not an individual one, which is subject to rejection and acceptance by different social ranks

File: Peter_Paul_Rubens_181.jpg (162KB, 692x799px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 692x799px

>>8986616
Okay lets be honest then, you don't care about art, you don't do art, you don't read about art, why the fuck your opinion should matter? ans why limit yourself to sensibilities that have nothing to do with today experiences?

>>8986727
My point is that in order to comprehend Ulysses you don't need to waste hundreds of hours on reading his biographies and what various literary "experts" think of the book.

>>8986731
>you're not disagreeing with me, you're disagreeing with literally every art historian and aesthetician
This is simply not true. You obviously didn't even read Baumgarten's Meditations. The idea that you need to have excessive theoretical knowledge of art in order to comprehend it has nothing to do with him.

Just to add two more authorities that refute your idiotic, factually untrue statement: Neither Kant nor Hegel (the two greatest authorities in modern aesthetics together with A.G. Baumgarten) expressed that opinion.

>if someone without at least college knowledge of physics couldn't understand a paper, what makes you think art has to be so given to you
There's a fundamental difference between art and science. Kant marvelously formulated it in his Critique of Judgement and it comes down to the following: we can rationally understand science, whereas experiencing art is beyond the grasp of our rationality.


And to conclude: you're obviously a pseud that's full of shit and didn't read any relevant works regarding aesthetics. Plato - Ion, Hippias Major, Politeia books 2,3,10; Aristotle - Poetics; Baumgarten, Kant and Hegel). Stick with the contemporary bullshit that has nothing to do with the fundamental questions, an imbecile of your kind would only degrade the important works by reading them.

>>8986731

You are actually fucking retarded

>>8986218
False premise.

>>8983721
Modern art is recuperated neo Dadaism. It's not even 'edgy, transgressive art', but a commodified simulation of 'edgy, transgressive art' created for the consumption of bourgeoisie who want to feel sophisticated.

>>8986616
Not an argument.

>>8986663
It can.

Even in theoretical terms, a lump of marble on a pedestal is not good art, not is it even representative of any art after 1900.

>>8986227
Art no longer asserts nothing except its commodity value

>>8985730
>It is required you can solve this before participating in the thread.

Romanesque, gothic, Renaissance, baroque, rococo.
Romanticism, neoclassicism and realism stemmed all around the same time.
Then impressionism and modernism, but modernism diverged to symbolism, expressionism, surrealism, cubism and abstract art.

Right?

>>8986745
A homeless guy's scribblings could possibly be memed in on the basis of being outsider art but it's still not going to be the greatest art ever produced. More likely it will end up in someone's collection, and maybe some historian will write about it. Not to say there isn't some skepticism around the idea of outsider art and how it is almost like a form of 'primitivism'.

Believe me the art world isn't as stupid as you think it is.

>mfw art is a social concept and not an individual one

This is true though.

>>8986571
What's the deal with mannerism? I remember there being an autoportrait of a guy with a hand curved and enlarged in a mirror.

lets set things straight here:

the value of art, like everything else, is subjective - but also like everything else, it can worthwhile to make informed judgements about art using different standards of value.

such values might include a mix of any below:

spiritual significance
historical significance
beauty
technical mastery
"conceptual" provocation
financial investment

etc etc

its hard to say whether any of these values are 'more valuable' than others, but the big boy 'official' judges of value in the art world, i.e. institutional critics/historians/curators and dealers and tend relay the praise of similar standards.

also dont assume smarty pants art wank writing is all written in order to hype the art the writer owns

>>8987570
consumer ideology, not even once

>>8986277
What's wrong with beksinski?
Can't into surrealism?

>>8986625
>My life is boring therefore all life is boring

>>8987767
also

if you dislike a piece of conceptual art, without learning about its history / ideas / yada yada, thats fine, but just dont expect to have your opinion taken seriously within the capital A Art World.

the art world and its complicated theories of interpretation aren't for everyone, and their standards of value are not necessarily more enlightened than the old lady who loves her flower watercolors, its just that the art world has the loudest most institutionalized voice for determining what is "high" taste.

>>8985945
Only because of age and skill in making it

>>8983898
No, but I wouldn't venerate Twilight just because Stephanie Meyer wrote it with a pen stuck in her urethra.

>>8985413

What do people mean by objective when they make this banal assertion? It must mean something potent because it is always said with the self-important panache of rebellion, as though one were defying some widely followed and stifling falsehood.

>>8985730
is this actually hard for americans? it's high school tier challange

>>8985791
yup

>>8987641
outwash from the renaissance with an emphasis of 'grace' over naturalism. So you get twisted serpentine figures with elongated proportions. painting you are thinking about is Parmigianinos self portrait.

>>8986803

You can't fucking read. Nobody mentioned theory. You're invoking as a strawman to paper over anything you don't understand. We're talking about art history.

And what the fuck makes Kant and Hegel authorities on aesthetics? They furnish primary texts in aesthetics, sure, but that doesn't make them authorities on the current state of the discourse, nor on its historical development since their work. Not only that, but aesthetics as a branch of philosophy does not necessarily intersect art criticism or art history.

>>8987954
What fucking high school did you go to?

>>8987971
polish high school

>>8986803

You are so fucking noxious. Every thread you post in, you try to defend your empty reactionary ideology against people who have more knowledge than you, then you parade out names as though this lends you credibility. It doesn't—it only makes you look insecure, a rhetorical hit your already stupid, dullard arguments can't really afford to take.

>>8987842
I can 'react' to some happening on the other side of the world from my armchair but who on earth would think i ahve any idea what im talking about?

>you need to read books about art to understand art
Hold the fuck up. This is completely, utterly wrong. To know painting you only need your senses. LOOK at it, and you'll understand it. You don't learn about painting by reading, what the fuck

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Sunfish

>>8985900
so the art market and the institution of 'art' as it exists today are inherently 'progressive' and good and anyone who dares critique them is a reactionary?

The issue with contemporary art is that the artists simply refuse to do anything interesting. They're riding postmodernism/Dada and it's accompanying avant-gardist ideology, which makes them view past art reductively. They look at the past, and they want to break with the past, but they do so in the way everyone else does. The classical element is wholly gone, they don't KNOW the masters, they don't know anything, they just "innovate" in the same way everyone has been doing so in the past 100 years. Form, symbol, and color matter. You can't write a great poem without engaging with the great poets of the past, and you can't paint a great painting without engaging with tradition. Freedom becomes it's own tyranny because it's illusory freedom. You need limits to thrive artistically.

>>8988002
You would have to have a very loose definition of 'understand' if you don't think knowing the relevant Greco-Roman myth or Bible story is key to understanding the bulk of Western art.

>>8988031
Your reductionism of the past being 'positive' doesn't make it any less reductionist.

>>8987965
>nobody mentioned theory, we're talking about art history
In your first post you explicitly wrote that one must have vast knowledge of the history of art and the biography of the author in order to understand art.

>what makes Kant and Hegel authorities on aesthetics
If you can't answer this question then you are pathetically clueless. Baumgarten, Kant and Hegel are the 3 philosophers who defined the branch of philosophy known as aesthetics.

>>8987983
>you try to defend your empty reactionary ideology against people who have more knowledge than you
You can't even come up with an argument because you got absolutely btfo'd by cold facts. Did I hurt your feelings so you have to resort to empty insults?

>>8988229
Not him but art history and biography (i.e. monographs) aren't 'theory'. Aesthetics is theory and is only a small part of understanding art.

>>8988240
Are we discussing semantics now? My simple point is that you don't need to burden yourself with the knowledge of history of art/biographies of authors in order to comprehend works of art. As simple as that.

>>8988252
Depends on what you consider 'comprehend'. I can see a lot of loosely-defined words have been thrown around in your discussion.

Could you imagine if the development of art in the last century happened with food instead?
Top food critics and chefs would have decided that if food is defined as "something humans prepare to eat" then technically anything is food, and therefore everything can be food.
Chefs start making dishes made of more and more bizarre ingredients to impress food critics who move away from objective measurements of taste and aesthetics, and start judging their platters on boundary pushing. So Michelin chefs begin making meals that taste deliberately terrible - cinnamon ice cream chicken burgers, or coleslaw and semolina jelly. The critics praise their work not for its edible quality, but it's bold statement.
This becomes the fashion in fine dining to visit these posh restaurants and pay out the nose for a dish that is sickeningly awful. chefs push further, integrating inedible ingredients into their meal to increase their discussion factor. Caesar salads with bits of ceramic pots in them. A soufflé made of eggs, bacon and Raul plugs etc.
Soon some chef has the idea to make his most expensive meal yet - a meal composed simply of an empty plate. Critics applaud his mastery of food. Rich aristocrats flock to his restaurant to partake in his meal. Everyone leaves feeling smug, but strangely hungry, because ultimately in the attempt to expand the boundaries of cooking and baking, something was lost in translation, and ultimately what was created was certainly a spectacle, but not actually food.

>>8988272
>He forgot about delicacies and acquired tastes

Anyway when was the last time critics flocked around a blank canvas as a mastery of painting? Does it sell for as much as a Pollock or a Rembrandt?

File: 383103_tv-hbo-the-sopranos-sopranos-tony-soprano_200s.gif (47KB, 272x200px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 272x200px

>>8988283
Around Yves Kleins days i guess. But i dont think anyone ever considered it a mastery of painting but just as some kind of statement..

File: isis-beheading-kurdish-fighters.jpg (55KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 640x360px

>>8983721
2017 AD Conceptual 'artists' are bored -and boring- trust fund LARPers. You can't get any less threatening to the status quo. Terrorism is the true heir of the 20th century Avant Garde. ISIS is a conceptual multimedia collective, but unlike the art school kiddies in the west, they actually mean it. 9/11 was a once in a lifetime happening designed for maximum visual appeal and symbolic value.

Even the Alt Right's culture jamming and 'ironic' hitlerism is closer to Art, than those dipshits who still hang their 'art' in gallery.

>>8986592
His whole book 'what is art' is basically reducible to "if it doesn't take expert-level skill, it's shit"

File: 87f.png (2MB, 2408x2408px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2408x2408px

>>8988347
>mfw this is true

>>8983721
Modern high art is mainly about pranks and being edgy, but it often has some value. Even on those terms.

>>8988347
>muh spectacle

File: xcfz9cxcgp4y.png (714KB, 516x849px) Image search: [Google]

714KB, 516x849px

>>8988347
Don't even doubt it.

File: 1482247432141.jpg (61KB, 880x487px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 880x487px

>>8989072

>>8983721

lol my nigga that started almost a hundred years ago. its history, why do you even care now my guy

>>8983721
The only definitions of art which are useful in any regard preclude modern art.

File: Screen Shot 2017-01-18 at 4.52.57 pm.png (3MB, 2880x1380px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2880x1380px

>>8989111

>>8989117
More like modern fart am I right?

>>8983721
No

>>8983721
I'm not good can't get good I'm still good

>>8988347

This is basically the theme of Don Delillo's Mao II. Let's pull up that quote:

>There's a curious knot that binds novelists and terrorists...Years ago I used to think it was possible for a novelist to alter the inner life of the culture. Now bomb-makers and gunmen have taken that territory. They make raids on human consciousness. What writers used to do before we were all incorporated.

>>8985732
The creation of an artifact.

modern art threads are always the most cringe. just reactionary /pol/fags talking about things they know nothing about. go back to reposting Oath of the Horatii and Wanderer Above the Clouds faggots

File: 1465884733880.jpg (81KB, 621x444px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 621x444px

>mfw a post-modernist was unable to fully articulate the abstract meaning of art, and he considered that proof that it is meaningless near me

>>8989402
> meaning

top kek do you have interpretations over a domain whichmake formulas true?

it is funny to see ppl using terms of logic in erryday life

like asking for the entropy of art
or mitosis of life
or integral of happiness

eithrr u go full continental to be able to take thosr licenses or u are just naive

>>8989418
>>8989401
Phone posters need to leave.

>>8988229

>In your first post you explicitly wrote that one must have vast knowledge of the history of art and the biography of the author in order to understand art.

>>You can't fucking read. Nobody mentioned theory. You're invoking as a strawman to paper over anything you don't understand. We're talking about art history.

Confirmed Illiterate.

>If you can't answer this question then you are pathetically clueless. Baumgarten, Kant and Hegel are the 3 philosophers who defined the branch of philosophy known as aesthetics.

And again, how does this make them "authorities?" Founding a science does not make you its authority, its makes your works most likely to be dead wrong. Cf. Copernicus.

>>8988012
Yeah sure bud whatever you say, that's what I meant.

File: Wicket W Warrick.jpg (227KB, 1252x1252px) Image search: [Google]

227KB, 1252x1252px

Let's settle this dispute once and for all.
Art produces shit sometimes, and that's precisely what's so cool about it.
See for yourselves :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSFe91XlwYQ

File: 1484597964502.jpg (73KB, 483x428px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 483x428px

Luke, did I tell you about Cloaca? Cloaca[edit]
Delvoye is perhaps best known for his digestive machine, Cloaca, which he unveiled at the Museum voor Hedendaagse Kunst, Antwerp, after eight years of consultation with experts in fields ranging from plumbing to gastroenterology.[4] As a comment on the Belgians’ love of fine dining, Cloaca is a large installation that turns food into feces, allowing Delvoye to explore the digestive process. In his large mechanism, food begins at a long, transparent bowl (mouth), travels through a number of machine-like assembly stations, and ends in hard matter which is separated from liquid through a cylinder.[3] Delvoye collects and sells the realistically smelling output, suspended in small jars of resin at his Ghent studio. When asked about his inspiration, Delvoye stated that everything in modern life is pointless. The most useless object he could create was a machine that serves no purpose at all, besides the reduction of food to waste. Cloaca has appeared in many incarnations including: Cloaca Original, Cloaca - New & Improved, Cloaca Turbo, Cloaca Quattro, Cloaca N° 5, and Personal Cloaca.[5] Delvoye also sold specially printed toiled paper as a souvenir of the exhibit. In 2016, 5 rolls from the 2007 Mudam Luxembourg exhibit were offered for re-sale for US$300 through an online vendor.[6] It was a good machine,

>>8985940
Competence could be argued for, but beauty? Art should abstact reality, the beautiful parts as well as the ugly ones. Should one for example not try to make art about war because war is ugly?

File: image.jpg (73KB, 640x494px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 640x494px

>>8986616
You're strawmaning. Let me use the firing squad (which btw is considered to be the first modern painting, so it's where classical art and modernism meet) as an example of what he was trying to say.
Sure, you can see what's happening, but the single persons look awkward and formless. There are plenty of similar scenes out there that depict similar scenes and are way more naturalistic and less abstracted. What makes this one stand out are symbolic formalities: The whole scene feels unrealisticaly crowded (at a real execution the squad would stand at a much larger distance) and the firing squad melts together, creating a hive minded war machine. In reality they wouldn't have looked like this, but Goya decided to sacrifice realism for emotional effect and statement.
This shift in focus is what defines modern art: Art isn't to depict objective reality anymore, as we have photography and film for this purpose now, but to depict what can't be photographed: Human emotions, the inner life of all of us.

>>8990912
>Delvoye stated that everything in modern life is pointless

k den

>>8987954
At my school (in America) they taught the easy mode stuff around middle school and the undergrad in early high-school

File: 1484781882977.png (160KB, 343x315px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 343x315px

>>8983721
Back to moo you retarded underage

Complete anarchy present in modern/postmodern art is shit and ruining it entirely

You're going through the inevitable "I get modern art now xD" phase, unfortunately most everyone does. Which is why it's still seen as acceptable

Even though this is a bait thread, contemporary art really is mostly bad, or it is too political.

>>8993163
You sound like quite the refined intellectual!

>>8993163
>>8993170
There hasn't been a single moment in history when 100% of the artistic output has been considered great.

Also art is political now. That's the end of it, ever since the state lost the monopoly on all artistic production centuries ago.

File: photo_2017-01-16_02-29-34.jpg (45KB, 563x330px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 563x330px

>>8988347
This.

>>8993255
Well, I meant political in the sense that it attempts to be socially realistic, which is annoying and ideological.

File: 1453424687827.jpg (93KB, 1536x1343px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 1536x1343px

I think a lot of modern art is cool but whoever came up with this needs to be shot

>>8988347
>reads the stockhousen wikipedia page once

>>8985619
If neither representation nor craft, what is modern art about? I've never really looked into it. Went to a couple galleries and it was boring.

>>8994028
anti-art is god tier, I don't think marxists ever got btfo this hard by something so banal before

>>8994028
To be honest, Marchel Duchamp is an amazing artist. Some of his paintings are the best of the past decade. But his toilet piece is absolutely worthless.

>>8985413
Proove that art is not subjective

Art has always been shit.

>>8985619
He's actually right though, most of the insane valuation for modern art comes from money laundering and the use of art as collateral for millions of dollars.

Basically its like bitcoin but for people who actually have money.

File: 1414437422085.jpg (662KB, 2248x1232px) Image search: [Google]

662KB, 2248x1232px

>>8994209
>Art has always been shit.

Triggered.

File: 1484613368540.jpg (43KB, 584x611px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 584x611px

>>8994028
>being shot
already done by Chris Burden in 1971:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26R9KFdt5aY
inb4 kek not even 9mm or even a 25 cal

File: 1483567385517.jpg (458KB, 992x951px) Image search: [Google]

458KB, 992x951px

>>8994209
'Art with a capital A, Fine Art, was invented in the west in the eighteenth century.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Invention_of_Art

>>8989072
Honestly if I was a terror cell leader I would order more assassinations to take place at photoshoots and send my most handsome jihadis to them. Imagine the propaganda value!

>"i'll post photos of my bookshelf and 3*3s of my music and videogames but I won't show any paintings I own on my wall (because I don't own any)
talking about painting and sculpture is stupid if you don't own any